W
Worthy5
Guest
And as indicated, the Church has no teaching authority on issues of civil law.
- Status
C
CWBetts
Guest
You are wrong. The Church has historically taught with regards to civil law.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Correct as an individual. And true, the pro-choice crowd has a problem. Roe’s reasoning in regards to the personal autonomy of the individual—that realm of privacy where the govt cannot regulate—is the thing that allows a women to make this early decision.
But that reasoning falls apart in regards to the Doctor who is granted a license by the state to practice medicine. That could be revoked, the state does not have to help the women to abort, at least no under the realm of privacy reasoning.
W
Worthy5
Guest
No, you are wrong. The Church can talk all it wants on civil law but it has no teaching authority. Who founded this country CW? Was it the Church? No it was not.
And what is interesting the Church claims no such authority, only authority on essential matters of faith and morals—or did you miss that CW?
N
Nyarlathotep
Guest
Uh, guys; the OP was about w/n it’s sinful to vote for politicians who are pro-choice, not w/n it’s the Catholic Church’s role to use the political system to further a pro-life agenda. We’re also not arguing whether you can yourself be pro-choice (presumably not), but whether you may vote for a pro-choice candidate.
Anyway, I’ll note that Chaput specificially said “speaking for myself” I can’t see any proportionate reason. He very carefully did not say that he was speaking for the Church. In fact, in that same interview, I believe he said that if you could justify your vote to an aborted baby in the afterlife, have at it (or am I thinking of someone else?).
He also did not say that nobody could conceive of a proportionate reason. I happen to think that re-establishing the middle class in this country instead of feeding the rich and stomping the poor is pretty darned proportional. You may disagree, but unless you’re wearing a pointy hat, I frankly don’t care what you think.
http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/this thread has derailed.jpg
Anyway, I’ll note that Chaput specificially said “speaking for myself” I can’t see any proportionate reason. He very carefully did not say that he was speaking for the Church. In fact, in that same interview, I believe he said that if you could justify your vote to an aborted baby in the afterlife, have at it (or am I thinking of someone else?).
He also did not say that nobody could conceive of a proportionate reason. I happen to think that re-establishing the middle class in this country instead of feeding the rich and stomping the poor is pretty darned proportional. You may disagree, but unless you’re wearing a pointy hat, I frankly don’t care what you think.
http://www.frontiernet.net/~joe14580/this thread has derailed.jpg
C
CPA2
Guest
Government no longer has “limited powers.” It is the government that interferes with religion, not the other way around. I think that you believe that the Supreme Court and the American government have jurisdiction over abortion? Roe versus Wade is not worth the paper it is written because **abortion is outside of civil law! **
What we have is a very foolish government! I make fun of the out-of-control federal government. The Catholic Church is perfect, but Catholics are not perfect.
I want to return to the vision of government as held by Adam Smith and our founding fathers in 1776. That government was small and its function was that of an umpire.
Today’s government is out of control. It wants to be my partner and I want to get rid of my partner. I want to be free to choose. I no longer have that freedom. Instead, this government of ours follows the socialist philosophy of participating in our lives and economy. We cannot have political freedom if we do not have economic freedom.
The Catholic Church opposes socialism because it is not voluntary. Socialism is forced upon us by the government. Big government (socialism) is not the solution; it is the problem.
E
estesbob
Guest
You ignored what the Pope said. He made it clear that no issues or combination of issues rises to the level of abortion.
From the dawn of man people have rationalized supporting evil. Those denied the right to life has no chance to make the middle class or even be stomped on.
C
CPA2
Guest
There is only one God, but there are many religions. God is not responsible for the many religions. Man caused the division among believers. Jesus did not come to abolish the “Law,” but to fulfill it. Man is the one who messed up, not God.
I use to travel both to Israel and India on business. I have had many interesting discussions about religion. I always try to find the common ground, even with my Hindu brothers that I greatly admire. Additionally, I read the two books of Judaism that are similar in form to our catechism of the Catholic Church. I also go to bible study at other Christian churches. We are all baptized in Christ and we are therefore of the same faith.
**There is a common thread among all of the religions. We all oppose abortion as a great moral evil! **
I use to travel both to Israel and India on business. I have had many interesting discussions about religion. I always try to find the common ground, even with my Hindu brothers that I greatly admire. Additionally, I read the two books of Judaism that are similar in form to our catechism of the Catholic Church. I also go to bible study at other Christian churches. We are all baptized in Christ and we are therefore of the same faith.
**There is a common thread among all of the religions. We all oppose abortion as a great moral evil! **
C
CPA2
Guest
There is such a thing as Truth with a capital “T.” However, the life of a baby should not hinge upon everyone acknowledging that truth. The freedom of choice and the freedom to be an unbeliever never give anyone the right to destroy others.
Who should receive protection under the law? Verifiable scientific evidence is the criteria to determine who receives protection under the law. That evidence exists. I do not think that even abortionists argue that the baby in the womb is not a baby. After all, we live in the age of fetoscopy and fetal surgery.
The bottom line is this: Human life needs protection now!
Who should receive protection under the law? Verifiable scientific evidence is the criteria to determine who receives protection under the law. That evidence exists. I do not think that even abortionists argue that the baby in the womb is not a baby. After all, we live in the age of fetoscopy and fetal surgery.
The bottom line is this: Human life needs protection now!
P
Polycarp1
Guest
I believe that we become humans created in the image of God the instant God breathes his Spirit into us as he did with Adam. Until then Adam was not a human person but the latest genre of an evolving humanoid species. It is having the “Spirit” in us that seperates us from the animals and makes us individuals, and I believe God has made it clear that this happens for the rest of us at conception.
In Jeremiah 1:5, God says:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Psalm 139:13 says: “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.”
If we were just things and not individuals before birth , why would we be personified by God and the Old Testament as “you’s, me’s” and not just “its”?
In Jeremiah 1:5, God says:
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Psalm 139:13 says: “For thou didst form my inward parts, thou didst knit me together in my mother’s womb.”
If we were just things and not individuals before birth , why would we be personified by God and the Old Testament as “you’s, me’s” and not just “its”?
C
CPA2
Guest
The government has no authority on divine law or natural law! Therefore, the Supreme Court cannot legally vote on Roe versus Wade. The Supreme Court’s decision on abortion is not worth the paper it is written on.
An unjust law is no law at all (St. Augustine).
W
Worthy5
Guest
No one said it did. But the divine law or natural law needs to stop asking the civil law (the law created by a free self-governing people) to use its civil police power to enforce its
“divine law”.
.
That is not what Article III of the Constitution says.
Well, it is at least worth .25 cents
B]
Margaret More: " Father that man is bad"
Thomas More: " There is no law against that"
Roper " God’s law"
More " Then God can arrest him."
" This land is planted thick with laws, man’s laws, not God’s…if you cut
them down, do you think you could stand upright in the wind that blows
then? Give devil benefit of law for one’s own safety.
C
csuliman
Guest
Yes, let us return to the government of 1776. A government that enforced the enslavement of an entire race. I am sure that Africans herded onto ships like cattle were happy to come to a country where there was limited government.
The fact is that the Church has no authority when it comes to the civil law. If abortion is to be banned it must be done so with justification that is not religiously based. You will have to prove in a secular way that 1) a fetus is a human person and 2) that preventing its death is worth the great intrusion into the personal liberty of women, their integrity and control over their body, etc. This is a huge hurdle to meet.
I consider abortion to be wrong (though I do not agree with using conception as the starting point) but I would consider the state intervention into a woman’s choice to be too great to allow. I am more afraid of politicians that would basically call for the state to be able to order an injunction against a woman having an abortion from conception to birth. Of course, as the child progresses in development, one can weight the rights of the mother with that of the child and eventually reach a point where the child’s right to live supersede that of the mother’s control over her body (i.e. late term abortions, or near birth abortions).
C
CWBetts
Guest
Adam Smith was no hero. He was opposed to any government oversight of business whatsoever. This would be a very very bad thing.
C
csuliman
Guest
Actually that is not true. Adam Smith was not an absolute free market kind of guy. He lived in an age where the government abused its power and was granting monopolies for the profit of the crown and he objected to that. He also objected to trade tarrifs, recognizing that they hurt the majority. However, Smith recognized that the rich and powerfull had to be kept in check, since their incentive was to abuse their power.
Some of his qoutes:
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
Referring to merchants, Adam Smith said: “…men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.”
Smith was especially aware of the conflict between public interest and capitalists: he warned that a group of capitalists rarely gather together under one roof without the talk turning towards collusion against the public.
D
donna_jean
Guest
CWBETTS
Perhaps in the heat of the moment you mistakenly did not read my post correctly. I am giving a speech on pro-ADOPTION…
I am thankful that you support pro-abortion as I do, we just come from different angles as to how to produce change for pro-life.
I often feel that if our current president would sit down with you all and give you a clear understanding, you may feel differently.
It is sinful to support abortion but it is in the eye of the beholder as to who is the most pro-life and who will do the most to support pro-life.
Perhaps in the heat of the moment you mistakenly did not read my post correctly. I am giving a speech on pro-ADOPTION…
I am thankful that you support pro-abortion as I do, we just come from different angles as to how to produce change for pro-life.
I often feel that if our current president would sit down with you all and give you a clear understanding, you may feel differently.
It is sinful to support abortion but it is in the eye of the beholder as to who is the most pro-life and who will do the most to support pro-life.
C
CWBetts
Guest
It is good that you are giving a speech that is pro-adoption. However, Barack Obama wants nothing more than to expand the abortion industry. He publicly stated he wanted to remove all restrictions on abortion. He is in favor of partial-birth abortion. He has not once in his career defended life with his votes. Only someone who is willing to turn a blind eye to his voting record could make any kind of claim that Obama was the “real pro-life candidate” I hope and pray he does not get re-elected. The unborn cannot afford it.
G
GhostOfReason
Guest
Please don’t lie. He certainly isn’t advocating making abortion illegal, but that does not mean he thinks it is a good thing. See here:
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/oct/08101601.html
Obama himself says:
But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, "We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.
…
Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that’s where we can find some common ground, because nobody’s pro-abortion. I think it’s always a tragic situation.
C
CWBetts
Guest
Actions speak louder than words. If he was truly opposed to abortion, he would take measures to restrict it, not expand it. Talk is cheap.
E
estesbob
Guest
In entire(albeit very short) career Obama has never once voted to limit abortion. I dont know why people try to mkake him out as harboring pro-lidw sentiment when he himself does not claim this.
Yo must be readinga differen Democrat party Platofrm thaan the rest of us. hwere what The Archbisho pf Denver has to say about this platofrom:
- Despite what Prof. Kmiec suggests, the party platform Senator Obama runs on this year is not only aggressively ”pro-choice;” it has also removed any suggestion that killing an unborn child might be a regrettable thing. On the question of homicide against the unborn child – and let’s remember that the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer explicitly called abortion ”murder” – the Democratic platform that emerged from Denver in August 2008 is clearly anti-life.*
**
**
- Status