Paul Ryan Discussion

[mercytruth]

So, you are for unrestricted abortion? Or, do you believe that the humans who have been infused with a soul should not be killed? What about those who believe humans are infused with a soul at conception? They should be okay with those humans being killed because someone else doesn’t believe they are human?

Your false claim that you respect other’s religious views is exposed by your acceptance of the killing of innocent human beings…because others don’t agree with your concept of what human is.

Can’t you just let it go? I don’t see any halo around your head.

God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul. Maybe there are those who believe that when the baby takes his first breath outside his mother’s womb, that is when God breathes in the baby and he becomes a living soul.

I also know that the early church fathers wrote against abortion procedures, but are you trying to be his convictor, when it is the Holy Spirit who convicts?

Give us the space please, to express our own convictions, we are not asking you to believe them.

God’s peace

micah

 

[rlg94086]

Can’t you just let it go? I don’t see any halo around your head.

God breathed into Adam and he became a living soul. Maybe there are those who believe that when the baby takes his first breath outside his mother’s womb, that is when God breathes in the baby and he becomes a living soul.

I also know that the early church fathers wrote against abortion procedures, but are you trying to be his convictor, when it is the Holy Spirit who convicts?

Give us the space please, to express our own convictions, we are not asking you to believe them.

God’s peace

micah

I’m sorry? You want me to “let go” of being concerned with the killing of innocents?

 

[meltzerboy]

So, you are for unrestricted abortion? Or, do you believe that the humans who have been infused with a soul should not be killed? What about those who believe humans are infused with a soul at conception? They should be okay with those humans being killed because someone else doesn’t believe they are human?

Your false claim that you respect other’s religious views is exposed by your acceptance of the killing of innocent human beings…because others don’t agree with your concept of what human is.

Yes, I believe that humans infused with a soul should not be killed, which, according to Jewish teaching, happens at the moment of birth when the child is born. If you believe otherwise, by all means, fight for what you believe: that is your right as a citizen. But don’t expect me to believe what you believe. The unborn child is innocent but does not receive the same full human being status as the born child in Jewish Law: the Torah and the Talmud. You disagree based on Catholic Canon and your own reasoning. That’s fine with me and I do respect your view in the sense that I would never insist that you advocate in favor of abortion rights against your own religious and moral beliefs, nor would I demand that you (that is, your wife) have an abortion and behave contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. You may also feel it is your obligation to protest against others who don’t share your religious views in order to outlaw all abortions, because you define all abortions as the killing of innocent human beings, and I agree you have that right to protest. My own view is that I don’t feel it is appropriate to legislate a uniform morality on this particular issue since I recognize there are deeply-held moral and religious differences.

 

[mercytruth]

I’m sorry? You want me to “let go” of being concerned with the killing of innocents?

No, but when someone politely explains his or her belief several times, it is time to let it go.

God’s peace

micah

 

[rlg94086]

Yes, I believe that humans infused with a soul should not be killed, which, according to Jewish teaching, happens at the moment of birth when the child is born. If you believe otherwise, by all means, fight for what you believe: that is your right as a citizen. But don’t expect me to believe what you believe. The unborn child is innocent but does not receive the same full human being status as the born child in Jewish Law: the Torah and the Talmud. You disagree based on Catholic Canon and your own reasoning. That’s fine with me and I do respect your view in the sense that I would never insist that you advocate in favor of abortion rights against your own religious and moral beliefs, nor would I demand that you (that is, your wife) have an abortion and behave contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. You may also feel it is your obligation to protest against others who don’t share your religious views in order to outlaw all abortions, because you define all abortions as the killing of innocent human beings, and I agree you have that right to protest. My own view is that I don’t feel it is appropriate to legislate a uniform morality on this particular issue since I recognize there are deeply-held moral and religious differences.

Right. We vote accordingly, and I appreciate that. Since you recognize my right to protest on behalf of the innocent human beings that others are okay with killing, I will continue to do so. I would expect you to do the same, if you saw innocent human beings being killed, enslaved or otherwise mistreated. :tiphat:

I’m guessing that means you won’t be protesting when I speak up for the banning of abortion to stop the killing of innocents, right?

 

[rlg94086]

No, but when someone politely explains his or her belief several times, it is time to let it go.

God’s peace

micah

Who are you again?

 

[LisaA]

Yes, I believe that humans infused with a soul should not be killed, which, according to Jewish teaching, happens at the moment of birth when the child is born. If you believe otherwise, by all means, fight for what you believe: that is your right as a citizen. But don’t expect me to believe what you believe. The unborn child is innocent but does not receive the same full human being status as the born child in Jewish Law: the Torah and the Talmud. You disagree based on Catholic Canon and your own reasoning. That’s fine with me and I do respect your view in the sense that I would never insist that you advocate in favor of abortion rights against your own religious and moral beliefs, nor would I demand that you (that is, your wife) have an abortion and behave contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. You may also feel it is your obligation to protest against others who don’t share your religious views in order to outlaw all abortions, because you define all abortions as the killing of innocent human beings, and I agree you have that right to protest. My own view is that I don’t feel it is appropriate to legislate a uniform morality on this particular issue since I recognize there are deeply-held moral and religious differences.

Meltzerboy this is an interesting interpretation because the moment of “ensoulment” is frankly impossible to determine. I truly cannot believe a faith that has such a long tradition of careful consideration of various moral questions would believe that a baby an inch inside the mother is not human while a baby an inch outside IS human. I am wondering if this concept was determined before science, pictures inside the womb and knowledge of fetal activity…babies inside the womb sucking their thumb, twins with arms around each other, the famous photo of the baby inside the womb grasping the finger of the surgeon who was repairing a defect in utero. Surely you believe all of these are human beings? I have a particular understanding working for a pediatric heart surgeon who did many operations on babies in utero. We would meet the pregnant woman, see the big baby bump, those in the OR would see the baby and then after the birth there would be “the bump” as a beautiful child, alive and healthy thanks to the surgery.

Sadly I think Robert’s “2” is the most frequent basis for abortion. This is the secular elite viewpoint and I know, I was raised by two of them. Perhaps I feel I understand the other side because I was a part of it for the first forty years of my life. They truly do not feel that unborn babies are human. Further many of them extend this belief to a born baby that suffers from physical or mental “defects.” The term “after birth abortion” or “wrongful birth” has been coined for this version of infanticide.

Now I do understand a different belief about human beings in various stages of life. I know in your faith the Bar Mitzvah is a point of change for example or other cultures/traditions when a child moves to adulthood. But I don’t know how to say a being with all of the elements to someday be an indpendent, self sufficient human being is not a human being before that occurs.

Anyway as I said, my belief is that human life is human life at all stages, unborn, born, loved, unloved, valued or demeaned. I just don’t see any way to reconcile that any other point of view does not require an arbitrary and completely unprovable set of events. And again, this isn’t because I’m Catholic. My beliefs went from being strongly pro abortion rights to being strongly pro life long before I became a Christian, much less a Catholic Christian.

Lisa

 

[meltzerboy]

Right. We vote accordingly, and I appreciate that. Since you recognize my right to protest on behalf of the innocent human beings that others are okay with killing, I will continue to do so. I would expect you to do the same, if you saw innocent human beings being killed, enslaved or otherwise mistreated. :tiphat:

I’m guessing that means you won’t be protesting when I speak up for the banning of abortion to stop the killing of innocents, right?

I have never protested against the protesters of abortion clinics. To answer your question, I will not protest your free speech in opposition to abortion, but I will privately disagree with your viewpoint.

 

[estesbob]

Yes, I believe that humans infused with a soul should not be killed, which, according to Jewish teaching, happens at the moment of birth when the child is born. If you believe otherwise, by all means, fight for what you believe: that is your right as a citizen. But don’t expect me to believe what you believe. The unborn child is innocent but does not receive the same full human being status as the born child in Jewish Law: the Torah and the Talmud. You disagree based on Catholic Canon and your own reasoning. That’s fine with me and I do respect your view in the sense that I would never insist that you advocate in favor of abortion rights against your own religious and moral beliefs, nor would I demand that you (that is, your wife) have an abortion and behave contrary to the teaching of the Catholic Church. You may also feel it is your obligation to protest against others who don’t share your religious views in order to outlaw all abortions, because you define all abortions as the killing of innocent human beings, and I agree you have that right to protest. My own view is that I don’t feel it is appropriate to legislate a uniform morality on this particular issue since I recognize there are deeply-held moral and religious differences.

Wanting to outlaw abortions is NOT a religious issue. Separate distinct human life is present form the moment of conception on. That is a scientific fact-not a religious view. one does not have to look very far back in History to see what happens when a society determines they have the right to determine what human life deserves protecting and what does not. you seem comfortable with making those not yet born expendable-but there really is no argument that supports that that does not apply to a child of up to at least the age of about 6. And of course once we give that power to society all sorts of horrors occur. As a Jew you are probably very aware of what happens when society hangs the label Subhuman" on human life whether such a judgement is hidden behind fancy phrases like “ensoulment” or not.

 

[rlg94086]

Wanting to outlaw abortions is NOT a religious issue. Separate distinct human life is present form the moment of conception on. That is a scientific fact-not a religious view. one does not have to look very far back in History to see what happens when a society determines they have the right to determine what human life deserves protecting and what does not. you seem comfortable with making those not yet born expendable-but there really is no argument that supports that that does not apply to a child of up to at least the age of about 6. And of course once we give that power to society all sorts of horrors occur. As a Jew you are probably very aware of what happens when society hangs the label Subhuman" on human life whether such a judgement is hidden behind fancy phrases like “ensoulment” or not.

Don’t try to impose your non-religious viewpoint on meltzerboy’s religious views!

Besides, he determined that Aryans are a cult, not religion…totally different. Their personal, moral viewpoint doesn’t have to be respected…

Oh…and you should also just “let it go,” Bob. We are just talking about the killing of innocent human beings…nothing to get excited about.

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzerboy this is an interesting interpretation because the moment of “ensoulment” is frankly impossible to determine. I truly cannot believe a faith that has such a long tradition of careful consideration of various moral questions would believe that a baby an inch inside the mother is not human while a baby an inch outside IS human. I am wondering if this concept was determined before science, pictures inside the womb and knowledge of fetal activity…babies inside the womb sucking their thumb, twins with arms around each other, the famous photo of the baby inside the womb grasping the finger of the surgeon who was repairing a defect in utero. Surely you believe all of these are human beings? I have a particular understanding working for a pediatric heart surgeon who did many operations on babies in utero. We would meet the pregnant woman, see the big baby bump, those in the OR would see the baby and then after the birth there would be “the bump” as a beautiful child, alive and healthy thanks to the surgery.

Sadly I think Robert’s “2” is the most frequent basis for abortion. This is the secular elite viewpoint and I know, I was raised by two of them. Perhaps I feel I understand the other side because I was a part of it for the first forty years of my life. They truly do not feel that unborn babies are human. Further many of them extend this belief to a born baby that suffers from physical or mental “defects.” The term “after birth abortion” or “wrongful birth” has been coined for this version of infanticide.

Now I do understand a different belief about human beings in various stages of life. I know in your faith the Bar Mitzvah is a point of change for example or other cultures/traditions when a child moves to adulthood. But I don’t know how to say a being with all of the elements to someday be an indpendent, self sufficient human being is not a human being before that occurs.

Anyway as I said, my belief is that human life is human life at all stages, unborn, born, loved, unloved, valued or demeaned. I just don’t see any way to reconcile that any other point of view does not require an arbitrary and completely unprovable set of events. And again, this isn’t because I’m Catholic. My beliefs went from being strongly pro abortion rights to being strongly pro life long before I became a Christian, much less a Catholic Christian.

Lisa

The moment of ensoulment may be impossible to determine according to human standards of measurement, but not according to authoritative interpretation of the Law. The very concept of the soul itself cannot be measured by any scientific instruments. So many aspects in our faiths, while often put to the test of reason, must ultimately be accepted on the basis of, well, faith. I completely understand your reasoning and science is on your side, for sure. But religion is hardly synonymous with science; it goes beyond the confines of the physical universe, and I choose to believe what my religion states in such cases.

 

[estesbob]

The moment of ensoulment may be impossible to determine according to human standards of measurement, but not according to authoritative interpretation of the Law. The very concept of the soul itself cannot be measured by any scientific instruments. So many aspects in our faiths, while are often put to the test of reason, must ultimately be accepted on the basis of, well, faith. I completely understand your reasoning and science is on your side, for sure. But religion is hardly synonymous with science; it goes beyond the confines of the physical universe, and I choose to believe what my religion states in such cases.

But ensoulment is a totally religious concept. The right to life should not be dependent on anyones religious views.

 

[meltzerboy]

But ensoulment is a totally religious concept. The right to life should not be dependent on anyones religious views.

Interesting argument from you, Bob! What should the right to life be dependent on in your opinion: moral and ethical views, secular views, legal governmental views, philosophical views, psychological views, biologically developmental views, sociocultural and normative views, historical views, personal views?

 

[mercytruth]

Who are you again?

nobody.

 

[meltzerboy]

nobody.

Not so, mercytruth. I appreciate your support.

 

[jenkiedad]

Social Justice and Ryan the Heretic - Church liberals launch an odd line of attack against a free-market champion.

Article by William McGurn, in the 08-20-2012 Wall Street Journal:

online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443989204577601273551443082.html

“This fundamental dissent from a basic church teaching is now a fact of modern Democratic Catholic life. The result for our politics is an extraordinary campaign, in the 10 days since Paul Ryan became the Republican candidate for vice president, by those on the Catholic left to strike a moral equivalence between Mr. Ryan’s reform budget and Democratic Catholic support for the party’s absolutist position on abortion.”

Speaking of the Catholic left that are so supportive of the “Social Justice” banner: “now they insist that a program such as food stamps ought to continue ad infinitum without consideration of its effects. And while they believe that the pope and bishops have nothing of value to offer about the sanctity of marriage or the duty of protecting unborn life, when it comes to federal spending, suddenly a miter means infallibility.”

 

[manualman]

It’s a really sad commentary that American catholics are SO badly educated in moral theology that they could fall for an equivalence argument where one side has arguably made poor choices on a matter of prudential judgement (how best to structure and fund public assistance to the needy) and the other has misused the power of the state to enable murder on a scale of tens of millions.

Satan sure is good at his job.

 

[estesbob]

Interesting argument from you, Bob! What should the right to life be dependent on in your opinion: moral and ethical views, secular views, legal governmental views, philosophical views, psychological views, biologically developmental views, sociocultural and normative views, historical views, personal views?

It should not be dependent on anyone opinion. Again it is a scientific fact that separate distinct human life is present from the moment of conception on. Once society starts making exceptions based on any factors whether they be stage of development,skin color,ethnicity etc it have embarked down a road that can only end in horror.

*As long as there are men on the earth, the struggle between man and subhuman with be the historical rule; this Jewish-led struggle against the folks, as far back as we can look, belongs to the natural course of life on our planet. One can safely be convinced that this struggle for life and death is just as much a law of nature as the struggle of an infection against a healthy body."

Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler 1935*

 

[FaithBuild18]

Silly TC, there’s no such thing as the “Catholic left.” That’s like saying there’s such a thing as a hot ice cube.

 

[jenkiedad]

It’s a really sad commentary that American catholics are SO badly educated in moral theology that they could fall for an equivalence argument where one side has arguably made poor choices on a matter of prudential judgement (how best to structure and fund public assistance to the needy) and the other has misused the power of the state to enable murder on a scale of tens of millions.

Satan sure is good at his job.

I don’t think that it’s so much a lack of education, as it is an attempt of trying to invent a moral equivalence between abortion issues and social justic issues.