legislating morality

[campeador]

What kind of analogy is this? To my knowledge, the Nazis were not acting in keeping with the principles of ANY religious faith.

Not a religious faith but a strongly held ideological belief.

I’m still waiting for an answer to my original question: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7712343&postcount=29

 

[Julian0404]

Even the immorality of murder must sometimes be weighed against the morality of saving a human life, according to Judaism. The original example I and others had discussed–either on this thread or another, I don’t recall anymore–infrequent as it may be, is the one in which a mother’s life is in dire jeopardy if she does not abort her baby. This terrible situation is compounded by the fact that it is too early in the pregnancy for the baby to survive without the mother. Would you have the mother be forced not to terminate her pregnancy and die ALONG WITH HER BABY or abort the baby and have the mother live? I repeat, my faith says the moral thing to do is to abort the baby and save the life of the mother, rather than forfeit the lives of BOTH the baby and the mother. As a Catholic, you may disagree: that is your religious prerogative. No one is taking that religious right away from you. What I and others of my faith as well as LDS, Hindus, and (I believe) Quakers are asking of you is that you have respect for other religious principles and not prevent us from exercising our religious rights. The exercise of this right is NEVER a happy one; on the contrary, it is full of anguish for the mother and the family. However, for some of us, it is the moral thing to do provided, of course, the mother and her family consent to the abortion.

As so stated in my first response, it is wrong to impose a religious belief upon another - not an issue with me - that point in your discussion is accepted.

Also, it is accepted that the murder of unborn children is permitted within this nation, so presenting the .00001 percent probabilities/scenarios of “how/why” to justify your position is unneseccary.

Also cloaking yourself in so many “other” religions to find justification is likewise unnecessary - as it is legal to murder children if you are the mother and incubator of that baby’s life. No one will come after you - except GOD.

When you-we-us-me stand before GOD, we stand alone. The Rabbi who teaches that GOD will forgive murder will not be there with you. The supreme court justice who ruled that the murder of an unborn baby is legal will not be there with us. All the confusion of this world will be stripped away and only the facts, the truth of GOD will remain, and when HE ask’s us “why did you kill MY child”, how will you-me-us answer? LORD, have YOU never heard of the .00001 percent scenario? LORD, surely YOU know of all the “other” religions that permit it? LORD, my supreme court on earth, said it was ok!

 

[meltzerboy]

As so stated in my first response, it is wrong to impose a religious belief upon another - not an issue with me - that point in your discussion is accepted.

Also, it is accepted that the murder of unborn children is permitted within this nation, so presenting the .00001 percent probabilities/scenarios of “how/why” to justify your position is unneseccary.

Also cloaking yourself in so many “other” religions to find justification is likewise unnecessary - as it is legal to murder children if you are the mother and incubator of that baby’s life. No one will come after you - except GOD.

When you-we-us-me stand before GOD, we stand alone. The Rabbi who teaches that GOD will forgive murder will not be there with you. The supreme court justice who ruled that the murder of an unborn baby is legal will not be there with us. All the confusion of this world will be stripped away and only the facts, the truth of GOD will remain, and when HE ask’s us “why did you kill MY child”, how will you-me-us answer? LORD, have YOU never heard of the .00001 percent scenario? LORD, surely YOU know of all the “other” religions that permit it? LORD, my supreme court on earth, said it was ok!

The merciful G-d of my faith and yours will read into our heart, have compassion for our failings, understand why we had this view, and forgive us our transgressions.

 

[SteveVH]

The merciful G-d of my faith and yours will read into our heart, have compassion for our failings, understand why we had this view, and forgive us our transgressions.

So eat, drink and be merry. Does our salvation require anything from us as far as keeping God’s commands, or is everyone saved regardless of how they have lived?

 

[Sufjon]

Friend sufjon. I may not agree with your vegan lifestyle, but I would not say you are barred from the political discussion on the matter. And if you convince the U.S. Congress or the courts to ban beef, well then I’ll congratulate you on your victory as I pack up my belongings to move to Canada.

Peace,
Robert

Hi Robert: No need to pack. My whole point is that I wouldn’t shove my morals on others, especially through legislation.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[meltzerboy]

So eat, drink and be merry. Does our salvation require anything from us as far as keeping God’s commands, or is everyone saved regardless of how they have lived?

One may keep G-d’s commands grudgingly, unfeelingly, or with impure motivations, or not keep His commands but with good and misguided intentions. G-d will weigh both our intentions and our actions with justice and mercy.

 

[Sufjon]

One may keep G-d’s commands grudgingly, unfeelingly, or with impure motivations, or not keep His commands but with good and misguided intentions. G-d will weigh both our intentions and our actions with justice and mercy.

Absolutely right. Love of God and following God’s commandments out of hope of heaven or dread of hell is a profoundly low form of love. It could be said to not be love at all. This is the fatal flaw in some religions. The threat of permanent punishment and promise of eternal reward takes away a good deal of the capacity for any sort of genuine love to take root. It is full of conditions, and love has no such thing as conditions. What many mistake for love of God is simply a deified form of Stockholm Syndrome. I take no pleasure in saying so. It is an awful perversion. Love is good for the sake of love. There is no need for threats and promises.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

One may keep G-d’s commands grudgingly, unfeelingly, or with impure motivations, or not keep His commands but with good and misguided intentions. G-d will weigh both our intentions and our actions with justice and mercy.

In Catholic moral theology, intention is the third in line behind first: the object, which morally specifies the act of the will. Second is circumstance, but this only relates to the object as circumstance have no moral species in and of themselves, for example: stealing a small amount is venial sin unless one steals from a church which would make it a sacrilege and thus mortal sin. Circumstance may make a difference as to the ignorance of the acting party or may make the act worse. It cannot change the object from bad to good.

Third then is intention and no act made by choice is indifferent from this point of view. Intention makes a morally neutral act from the basis of object and circumstance possibly sinful, as in giving alms for vainglory.

Circumstance may make an immoral act less culpable by ignorance, but ignorance as a result of laziness is sloth, a deadly sin itself.

This is the basis for morality which is in line with right reason informed by God’s Eternal law. Freedom, to many, is more important than murder as freedom is placed before innocent life. If this innocent killing is indeed always wrong, then ones intention is no excuse and one must then implore God’s Mercy to keep from being judged according to His Justice.

 

[meltzerboy]

In Catholic moral theology, intention is the third in line behind first: the object, which morally specifies the act of the will. Second is circumstance, but this only relates to the object as circumstance have no moral species in and of themselves, for example: stealing a small amount is venial sin unless one steals from a church which would make it a sacrilege and thus mortal sin. Circumstance may make a difference as to the ignorance of the acting party or may make the act worse. It cannot change the object from bad to good.

Third then is intention and no act made by choice is indifferent from this point of view. Intention makes a morally neutral act from the basis of object and circumstance possibly sinful, as in giving alms for vainglory.

Circumstance may make an immoral act less culpable by ignorance, but ignorance as a result of laziness is sloth, a deadly sin itself.

This is the basis for morality which is in line with right reason informed by God’s Eternal law. Freedom, to many, is more important than murder as freedom is placed before innocent life. If this innocent killing is indeed always wrong, then ones intention is no excuse and one must then implore God’s Mercy to keep from being judged according to His Justice.

Thank you for this informative explanation.

 

[z0wb13]

Abortion is MURDER of a "holy and innocent, defenseless baby: The Fifth Commandment is not ONLY for catholics; but for all of humanity. Therefore it is always a GRAVE Moral wrong. “Thou Shall Not Kill” means everyone… not only catholics; and that is how God will judge the action.

so your opinion is that your religious beliefs should be the rules for everybody? i would point out that there are lots of cases when killing is both permitted and even encouraged in the bible. also, the usa is currently engaged in 3 wars (not counting secret wars;p), and many states practice capital punishment. you might argue that the unborn are innocent, but so are the thousands of civilians and non-combatants that have been killed in every war, ever, and this fact is rarely equated with the “sin” that is abortion.

why should the unborn have any rights? it is impossible to have any right that one is unable to exercise. why not extend citizenship to animals? or voting rights to the dead? if trees could scream, they might have a freedom of speech. but they don’t, so it’s a moot point.

 

[cooterhein]

Friend sufjon. I may not agree with your vegan lifestyle, but I would not say you are barred from the political discussion on the matter. And if you convince the U.S. Congress or the courts to ban beef, well then I’ll congratulate you on your victory as I pack up my belongings to move to Canada.

Peace,
Robert

Bahahahaha! You must be a white person, because that’s number 75!

stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/02/24/75-threatening-to-move-to-canada/

This part really made me laugh:

"Though they will never actually move to Canada, the act of declaring that they are willing to undertake the journey is very symbolic in white culture. It shows that their dedication to their lifestyle and beliefs are so strong, that they would consider packing up their entire lives and moving to a country that is only slightly different to the one they live in now.’

 

[GaryTaylor]

so your opinion is that your religious beliefs should be the rules for everybody? i would point out that there are lots of cases when killing is both permitted and even encouraged in the bible. also, the usa is currently engaged in 3 wars (not counting secret wars;p), and many states practice capital punishment. you might argue that the unborn are innocent, but so are the thousands of civilians and non-combatants that have been killed in every war, ever, and this fact is rarely equated with the “sin” that is abortion.

why should the unborn have any rights? it is impossible to have any right that one is unable to exercise. why not extend citizenship to animals? or voting rights to the dead? if trees could scream, they might have a freedom of speech. but they don’t, so it’s a moot point.

The logic of killing in War to justify abortion is as insane as using street justice as a defense for abortion.

The New Testament and Jesus Christ do not promote violence or war to any degree, and the NT fulfilled the messianic prophecy of the OT.

By your same claim that unborn should have or do have no-rights. Well then why should 1-2-3 Year olds? They cannot claim any rights either? Are they disposable???

Animals do have rights. And they don’t kill for the sake of killing. Only man does that.

And trees do scream for man to live in harmony with nature and all else God provided.

Moot points? No inability to see clearly on your part. I will pray for you.

Is its any wonder we’re in this situation, with this thinking?

God Bless, Gary

 

[Joan1969]

…However, when you talk about other issues like gay ‘marriage,’ it is more of a gray area. I do not believe it’s the state’s business who sleeps with whom, provided it’s among consenting adults. I agree completely with the Church’s position on homosexuality, that the homosexual act is gravely disordered and immoral, but that does not necessarily follow that it’s any of the government’s business.

…So, in other words, while I would love to live in a world that lived by the moral doctrines of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, I would not want to live in one where all of those doctrines were forced upon an unwilling populace by decree… government should stick to setting basic guidelines to protect individual liberty (e.g., the right to live, freedom of speech and religion, etc.) and leave the rest to the individuals.

God bless you.

Hi Scott,

You seem like a great pro-life Catholic, but I think you’re confused about the role of the state in society. A minimalist approach that only permits the governement to do what is critically necessary to prevent violence and social breakdown will inevitably lead to the corruption of the people, which is ultimate death to any stable republic. I would submit we are seeing this in our country; the attitude that “who sleeps with whom” is not a concern of government at all is at the root of larger family breakdown that literally started 60+ years ago and continues with an increasing “do what you want” attitude.

I am not saying we need to arrest or fine people for private, adult, non-prostitution sexual behavior. However, good anti-immorality laws could, in my view, be helpful in shutting down establishments that openly promote promiscuity or homosexual acts, in battling pornography, and in protecting the rights of those who wish to prohibit behaviors privately (for instance, owners of apartments or rental homes). As things are now, phantom sexual “rights” trump the real rights of private citizens to uphold just standards in these areas. The government can also protect marriage, not only in the sense of ensuring it is “one man one woman”, but also in terms of restricting divorce.

This is far from where we are or where we are likely to be in the foreseeable future, but you can see how a breakdown of sexual morals led to the abortion “rights” you do well to oppose. It’s all about a fundamentally wrong attitude about the role of government and ultimately human nature.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Sufjon]

Hi Scott,

You seem like a great pro-life Catholic, but I think you’re confused about the role of the state in society. A minimalist approach that only permits the governement to do what is critically necessary to prevent violence and social breakdown will inevitably lead to the corruption of the people, which is ultimate death to any stable republic. I would submit we are seeing this in our country; the attitude that “who sleeps with whom” is not a concern of government at all is at the root of larger family breakdown that literally started 60+ years ago and continues with an increasing “do what you want” attitude.

I am not saying we need to arrest or fine people for private, adult, non-prostitution sexual behavior. However, good anti-immorality laws could, in my view, be helpful in shutting down establishments that openly promote promiscuity or homosexual acts, in battling pornography, and in protecting the rights of those who wish to prohibit behaviors privately (for instance, owners of apartments or rental homes). As things are now, phantom sexual “rights” trump the real rights of private citizens to uphold just standards in these areas. The government can also protect marriage, not only in the sense of ensuring it is “one man one woman”, but also in terms of restricting divorce.

This is far from where we are or where we are likely to be in the foreseeable future, but you can see how a breakdown of sexual morals led to the abortion “rights” you do well to oppose. It’s all about a fundamentally wrong attitude about the role of government and ultimately human nature.

God Bless,
Joan

Hi Joan: I have to agree with a good deal of what you said. It makes good sense. I am somewhat at a loss to understand how the sexual behavior of other consenting adults affects my own behavior. It is up to me to watch my own behavior, and not up to me to decide what constitutes love or expression of affection in other consenting adults. I have a hard enough time keeping up with Sufjon (who can be a handful at times).

Just FYI, there are in fact what are called blue laws in most states that prohibit sexual behaviors in very strong and draconian ways. For instance 18.2.361 of the code of the Commonwealth of Virgina has a law regarding sexual behavior that by my estimation makes a good 50% or more of the population class 6 felons. A lot of people who are monogamous, married, and living in the state of Virginia would be surprised to find that they are felons. For the sake of full disclosure, I don’t know this because I was looking to see what I can and cannot get away with sexually. I only know it because I studied law in Virginia.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[GaryTaylor]

Hi Joan: I have to agree with a good deal of what you said. It makes good sense. I am somewhat at a loss to understand how the sexual behavior of other consenting adults affects my own behavior. It is up to me to watch my own behavior, and not up to me to decide what constitutes love or expression of affection in other consenting adults. I have a hard enough time keeping up with Sufjon (who can be a handful at times).

Just FYI, there are in fact what are called blue laws in most states that prohibit sexual behaviors in very strong and draconian ways. For instance 18.2.361 of the code of the Commonwealth of Virgina has a law regarding sexual behavior that by my estimation makes a good 50% or more of the population class 6 felons. A lot of people who are monogamous, married, and living in the state of Virginia would be surprised to find that they are felons. For the sake of full disclosure, I don’t know this because I was looking to see what I can and cannot get away with sexually. I only know it because I studied law in Virginia.

Your friend
Sufjon

Many are not aware of the Blue Laws as they don’t apply to all states. But they are also in CT. And come up now and again. Most recently with alcohol sales which is prohibited on Sunday and after 8-9 pm at night. But yes your right.

God Bless, Gary

 

[Mumbles140]

Even the immorality of murder must sometimes be weighed against the morality of saving a human life, according to Judaism. The original example I and others had discussed–either on this thread or another, I don’t recall anymore–infrequent as it may be, is the one in which a mother’s life is in dire jeopardy if she does not abort her baby. This terrible situation is compounded by the fact that it is too early in the pregnancy for the baby to survive without the mother. Would you have the mother be forced not to terminate her pregnancy and die ALONG WITH HER BABY or abort the baby and have the mother live? I repeat, my faith says the moral thing to do is to abort the baby and save the life of the mother, rather than forfeit the lives of BOTH the baby and the mother. As a Catholic, you may disagree: that is your religious prerogative. No one is taking that religious right away from you. What I and others of my faith as well as LDS, Hindus, and (I believe) Quakers are asking of you is that you have respect for other religious principles and not prevent us from exercising our religious rights. The exercise of this right is NEVER a happy one; on the contrary, it is full of anguish for the mother and the family. However, for some of us, it is the moral thing to do provided, of course, the mother and her family consent to the abortion.

Forgive me if I’m behind - I haven’t been at a computer since Friday. Concerning the death of the mother, I have already commented on this, but will summarize again: A procedure to treat the mother, that indirectly causes the death of the preborn child, is perfectly acceptable. The Church doesn’t have this “mother must die” mentality, so please don’t treat it as such. ALL life is sacred, from conception until natural death. What this means is that you can’t have an abortion if the mother is ‘at risk’. However, if the mother has to have a medical procedure to save herself that will cause the child to die, it is okay because the procedure is not intended to kill the child. You see, it is whether it is the primary intent, or simply an unfortunate and unintended result.

Unless you can have something to refute this (which you really can’t because it is Church teaching), your argument concerning the health of the mother is not relevent to the issue of banning abortion.

 

[Mumbles140]

Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions too much on what your views and beliefs are. I apologize for that. FYI, most scientists state that embryonic stem cells offer more promise than adult stem cells; a minority of scientists disagree.

And these can be obtained from the placenta, umbilical cord, and other products of birth. Imagine how many we could have if not for all of those aborted children? Imagine if collecting those would be standard procedure at hospitals and birthing centers. Still stem cells, not adult, and not from the death of a human. Sounds pretty darn good to me!

 

[Mumbles140]

Hi Robert: No need to pack. My whole point is that I wouldn’t shove my morals on others, especially through legislation.

Your friend
Sufjon

Yes, but being a vegetarian is a strictly religious tenet or personal belief. If you can make the point that it is a universal moral standard, than it should be enacted into law so that our societies may be moral. My religion believes that God created animals to provide food for us. This does not give us the right to torture them, be gluttonous, or kill them for waste, because we believe all living things should be respected.

Now, show me a society that doesn’t view murder (not just killing, but murder in its specific definition) as gravely wrong. Since the science backs our beliefs that even a newly created embryo is a human being (distinct human DNA separate from its parents, heartbeat, etc), the destruction of said embryo/fetus/preborn child would constitute murder.

 

[Sufjon]

Yes, but being a vegetarian is a strictly religious tenet or personal belief. If you can make the point that it is a universal moral standard, than it should be enacted into law so that our societies may be moral. My religion believes that God created animals to provide food for us. This does not give us the right to torture them, be gluttonous, or kill them for waste, because we believe all living things should be respected.

Now, show me a society that doesn’t view murder (not just killing, but murder in its specific definition) as gravely wrong. Since the science backs our beliefs that even a newly created embryo is a human being (distinct human DNA separate from its parents, heartbeat, etc), the destruction of said embryo/fetus/preborn child would constitute murder.

I think in about 50 to 75 years it will be a commonly accepted moral tenet not to eat meat. Our level of awareness about the nature consciousness is expanding rapidly. It should be noted that I have never promoted the idea of abortion. The exception is in cases where the mother’s like is endangered.

Your friend,
Sufjon

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

And do you honestly rely on science in other matters: for example, its belief in evolution and its advocacy of stem cell research? Or, on the other hand, is your appeal to science only when science accords with your religious principles? If not a cafeteria Catholic, are you perhaps a cafeteria science proponent? Since when do Catholics believe that the definition of a human does not include a soul? Perhaps this is a legal argument, but hardly a religious one. Whether the former or the latter, there are plenty of counterarguments, some of which have already been expressed.

Actually the Catholic Church teaches that scientific truth and religious truth cannot possibly contradict each other, because they both originate from God, who is the source of all truth, whether scientific or religious. But with scientific truth, we will often find that one group of scholars disagrees with another group of scholars, and the issue of which scientific opinion is correct, is not settled. The Catholic Church doesn’t have a dog in the fight for/against Darwin’s theory of evolution. The CC believes it did receive the charism to infallibly determine truth in matters of faith and morals, but NOT in matters of scientific truth, or what are going to be next week’s winning numbers on the lottery. Thus, the CC takes no position in favor of or against the theory of evolution, and will let the scientists sort out this one.

Certain Evangelical Christians take a totally different position and reject the theory of evolution in favor of “Young Earth” theory, because they believe the Book of Genesis gives a literal, scientifically accurate account of how the universe was created. But the Catholic Church is in notable opposition to these “Young Earth” and “Young Universe” Evangelicals. The CC believes that the Book of Genesis was never even meant as a scientific textbook on the origin of the Earth/Universe. The CC also believes not everything is meant in a literal manner. Another example from the New Testament regarding how some speech should not be interpreted literally, as a scientific textbook, is the parable of the mustard seed. Jesus tells a parable where he likens the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed. The mustard seed, he tells, is the smallest seed, but when it grows into a full-fledged tree, it becomes greater than other plants, and the birds can make nests in this tree. Now, based on the literal interpretation, one could accuse Jesus of being a liar, because there are smaller seeds out there than a mustard seed - the poppy seed, for example. However, the literalists would miss the point that Jesus was not giving a botanical science lecture, he was simply making a point that a large audience would understand, about a small un-impressive seed growing into something big and impressive. The CC takes the same attitude about the Book of Genesis - it does not regard it as a scientific textbook on how and when exactly the world was created.

Regarding stem cell research, the CC doesn’t have a beef with stem cell research. It does have a beef with killing human beings for the purpose of obtaining stem cells. So, if we obtain stem cells from the umbilical cord blood of a fetus, without harming the fetus, that’s OK with the CC. Or, obtaining stem cells from an adult person’s skin, or fat tissue - that’s also OK with the CC. The CC also doesn’t forbid the creation of non-human embryos (say, chimpanzee, dog, rat) for the purpose of killing them and harvesting their stem cells for research. It does forbid, of course, to create human embryos artificially (as opposed through sexual intercourse between husband and wife) and to kill them in order to harvest their stem cells.

Actually I’m a scientist and I find the CC’s positions sensible on scientific issues. But other scientists who want to kill human embryos for their stem cells may not agree with me. In my opinion, they are like Adam and Eve who had a lot of trees in the garden of Eden, all of which were suitable for food and pleasant to eat, but they **had to **eat the fruit of the forbidden tree, just for the heck of it. We have many working treatments based on adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells, while on the other hand the embryonic stem cells have never benefited anyone. They tend to grow into some sort of proliferating, uncontrollable, cancerous tissue. Just recently a cardiologist I had the honor to meet in person achieved some very nice results by injecting post-myocardial infarction patients with “adult stem cells” obtained from their own body. I do not know of anything similar, that benefited patients, obtained in practice after killing human embryos and using their “embryonic stem cells”. Well, even if that would work beautifully, the CC would still regard it immoral to kill a human being for its stem cells. But, in practice, it doesn’t work so far. There’s no medical necessity to kill human embryos, because embryonic stem cells do not show any medical benefits. For those who want to understand the fundamental questions of embryology, they could ethically do that on animal species - at least from a Catholic standpoint (animal rights activists may disagree with the CC). So, if human embryonic stem cells never benefited anyone but made people sick by growing into tumors after injection, and if basic human curiosity could be satisfied by experimenting on rats, dogs, and monkeys, why are the proponents of human embryonic stem cell research so hell-bent on creating human embryos for the sole purpose of killing them and harvesting their stem cells, and why do they lobby the government to fund this wild goose chase with our tax dollars? Because that’s the forbidden tree, the forbidden fruit, and they must have that, just for the heck of it.