Poll shows wide support for abortion rights, gay marriage

[CMatt25]

The Church counts everyone who has ever been confirmed as Catholic.

Or baptized as a Catholic. Correct.

 

[CMatt25]

I am struck by your message that you cannot be practicing gay or pro abort and still be Catholic. The Church counts everyone who has ever been confirmed as Catholic. Some of these people are practicing gay and some are pro abort. Some attend Mass and receive Holy Communion with others who are also not living in accordance with official doctrine (e.g. divorced and remarried with no annulment etc.) The Church takes no action against them, except perhaps from time to time to refuse communion to a public figure. These folks call themselves Catholic. There are quite a number of people around here who are already working for Obama’s reelection; I see them at Mass on Sundays and have for years. They call themselves Catholic and sure act like it. Nobody turns them away. I think the Catholic tent may be a whole lot more inclusive and complicated than your message indicates.

Confirmed or baptized as Catholic. Correct.

 

[Trebor135]

While I’m a bit confused by you saying “before they even get to experience life” if you believe a human person exists and experiences life at the moment of conception with full personhood rights,

Consider this Oscar Wilde quote: “To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.”

Nine_Two meant “experience life” more along the lines of “live” than “exist”.

it’s not important to me answering.

If human decency is of any value to you, it indeed is important.

I’m in the US so do you mean how can I in the US?

Why not?

First of all because I don’t believe I have the right to force what I believe on this issue onto society at large.

We can safely say that you do feel you have such a right when it comes to shoplifting or bank robbery. Why?

And the SCOTUS ruled on Roe V Wade nearly 40 yrs ago giving women the right to choose during the 1st trimester with state restrictions allowed after.

Fortunately, no American president is infallible. A proclamation of some court decision as final on his part doesn’t settle the issue.

The issue causes a clash of rights.

Not at all.

Rights of the unborn vs the privacy rights of women.

Do laws against infanticide also violate the privacy rights of women?

In an imperfect world,

We must fight in the cause of justice for all of humanity.

and in a country of plural beliefs,

We must institute by legislative means a set of basic standards for all citizens to abide by.

one which is not a theocracy,

The pro-life stance has little to do with religion. Christopher Hitchens, I’ve read, held to this position and he’s one of the most famous New Atheist personalities of our time (may his soul rest in peace).

the SCOTUS decision I believe attempted a balance of this clash in rights.

And I believe it failed.

Leaving us with an interpretaton of secular law by which to govern the land on this issue on an imperfect earth.

Let’s set aside the platitudes and be blunt: “Leaving us with an interpretation of American law by which to mis-govern the land on this issue on a selfish, cruel earth indifferent to the plight of the most vulnerable.”

And I speak solely for myself, but I personally as a Christian, not a Catholic, and not of another conservative faith group, after 40 yrs can’t devote such a degree of my time on this single issue if I want more time to devote to getting other things done for Christ.

Southern American Protestants in the early to mid-1800s would have said the same concerning abolitionism.

What other things, exactly, do you want to get done for Christ?

I respect and understand the perspective of others and hope this helps you understand mine. If not, there’s nothing more I can say to help you understand my perspective and we will have to agree to disagree in good faith. In any case God bless you along your faith walk. Peace.

So, you claim to respect and understand others’ positions, engage in egregious double standards, and preemptorily close the door on further discussion. Awesome.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Not sure what it means to you… but I applaud you one fighting the good fight for PRO-LIFE! Please keep up the good work.

Fight the good fight until every life is protected, the unborn and born

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Theoretically, perhaps if one is a practicing Gay or pro-abortion, if it is material heresy, it may be possible that they are still Catholic, but if the heresy is formal, then they have separated themselves from the Church. Just because someone spilled some water on your head, it doesn’t mean you are irrevocably going to be strong-armed into remaining Catholic forever and ever.

Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

Modern Catholic Dictionary

Dictionary of Terms - H
Intro Guide Terms Credo Popes Calendar
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

HERESY. Commonly refers to a doctrinal belief held in opposition to the recognized standards of an established system of thought. Theologically it means an opinion at variance with the authorized teachings of any church, notably the Christian, and especially when this promotes separation from the main body of faithful believers.

In the Roman Catholic Church, heresy has a very specific meaning. Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative.

Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe. If he acts in good faith, as with most persons brought up in non-Catholic surroundings, the heresy is only material and implies neither guilt nor sin against faith. (Etym. Latin haeresis, from the Greek hairesis, a taking, choice, sect, heresy.)

Modern Catholic Dictionary
by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Copyright © 1999 by Inter Mirifica

Used with permission from Eternal Life

www.therealpresence.org

When is the last time you saw that word used? I’m sure there are a few people here that were hoping they never saw it again. Sorry.

This must be how the Church excludes l-----ls.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Consider this Oscar Wilde quote: “To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.”

Nine_Two meant “experience life” more along the lines of “live” than “exist”.

If human decency is of any value to you, it indeed is important.

Why not?

We can safely say that you do feel you have such a right when it comes to shoplifting or bank robbery. Why?

Fortunately, no American president is infallible. A proclamation of some court decision as final on his part doesn’t settle the issue.

Not at all.

Do laws against infanticide also violate the privacy rights of women?

We must fight in the cause of justice for all of humanity.

We must institute by legislative means a set of basic standards for all citizens to abide by.

The pro-life stance has little to do with religion. Christopher Hitchens, I’ve read, held to this position and he’s one of the most famous New Atheist personalities of our time (may his soul rest in peace).

And I believe it failed.

Let’s set aside the platitudes and be blunt: “Leaving us with an interpretation of American law by which to mis-govern the land on this issue on a selfish, cruel earth indifferent to the plight of the most vulnerable.”

Southern American Protestants in the early to mid-1800s would have said the same concerning abolitionism.

What other things, exactly, do you want to get done for Christ?

So, you claim to respect and understand others’ positions, engage in egregious double standards, and preemptorily close the door on further discussion. Awesome.

Thank you, Trebor for taking the time to defend Life. In doing so you defend Christ who was fully God and** fully man** from the moment of conception.

 

[MacBP]

As a Canadian I can say I’m not really surprised. I am pleased that the majority favor some form of restriction on abortion (currently there is no restriction whatsoever). Another poster was correct in stating that Canada is in desperate need of evangelism. Unfortunately since Canada is in a relatively good state right now it is extraordinarily difficult to tell people that Canada has serious issues.

 

[eternalrest]

First of all because I don’t believe I have the right to force what I believe on this issue onto society at large.

What pro-lifers are doing is preventing doctors from forcing death onto the baby. The baby must either be poisoned and have their skin burned (saline abortion) or brutally hacked to death, etc. in order for it to die, because otherwise it would fight for its life. No one has the right to decide to kill someone else, and pro-lifers are making sure that the baby’s rights are defended even during its youth. It is analogous to government laws that make sure that little children are not abused by their parents instead of giving their parents free reign over them. Think of Caylee and Casey Anthony.

 

[Trebor135]

Thank you, Trebor for taking the time to defend Life. In doing so you defend Christ who was fully God and** fully man** from the moment of conception.

By the grace of God, I do my best.

 

[Trebor135]

What pro-lifers are doing is preventing doctors from forcing death onto the baby. The baby must either be poisoned and have their skin burned (saline abortion) or brutally hacked to death, etc. in order for it to die, because otherwise it would fight for its life. No one has the right to decide to kill someone else, and pro-lifers are making sure that the baby’s rights are defended even during its youth. It is analogous to government laws that make sure that little children are not abused by their parents instead of giving their parents free reign over them. Think of Caylee and Casey Anthony.

These facts, the bolded ones being the most inconvenient, have to be reiterated and reemphasized as much as possible. The abortion methods themselves are so horrifying that no one with a modicum of human decency remaining should be able to countenance the despicable practice of slaughtering unborn children any longer.

 

[seekerz]

Faithful Catholics, and faithful Christians of all denominations, will recognize this as a sign that Christ will come again. All of the other Catholics and Christians, go back to believing Obama is going to change the world.

We need a sign that Christ will come again? Really? Is His promise not enough?

 

[Nine_Two]

While I’m a bit confused by you saying “before they even get to experience life” if you believe a human person exists and experiences life at the moment of conception with full personhood rights, it’s not important to me answering. I’m in the US so do you mean how can I in the US? First of all because I don’t believe I have the right to force what I believe on this issue onto society at large. And the SCOTUS ruled on Roe V Wade nearly 40 yrs ago giving women the right to choose during the 1st trimester with state restrictions allowed after. The issue causes a clash of rights. Rights of the unborn vs the privacy rights of women. In an imperfect world, and in a country of plural beliefs, one which is not a theocracy, the SCOTUS decision I believe attempted a balance of this clash in rights. Leaving us with an interpretaton of secular law by which to govern the land on this issue on an imperfect earth. And I speak solely for myself, but I personally as a Christian, not a Catholic, and not of another conservative faith group, after 40 yrs can’t devote such a degree of my time on this single issue if I want more time to devote to getting other things done for Christ. I respect and understand the perspective of others and hope this helps you understand mine. If not, there’s nothing more I can say to help you understand my perspective and we will have to agree to disagree in good faith. In any case God bless you along your faith walk. Peace.

Where you are or what the Supreme Court says, doesn’t matter. I’m asking YOU how you can speak of fairness in a situation where you are advocating allowing the killing of someone who has not had a chance to experience life, vs. the right of an adult to a hedonistic lifestyle.

I don’t understand your comment about not being able to devote time to this single issue. That sounds like an attempt to rationalize.

 

[Nine_Two]

Consider this Oscar Wilde quote: “To live is the rarest thing in the world. Most people exist, that is all.”

Nine_Two meant “experience life” more along the lines of “live” than “exist”.

If human decency is of any value to you, it indeed is important.

Why not?

We can safely say that you do feel you have such a right when it comes to shoplifting or bank robbery. Why?

Fortunately, no American president is infallible. A proclamation of some court decision as final on his part doesn’t settle the issue.

Not at all.

Do laws against infanticide also violate the privacy rights of women?

We must fight in the cause of justice for all of humanity.

We must institute by legislative means a set of basic standards for all citizens to abide by.

The pro-life stance has little to do with religion. Christopher Hitchens, I’ve read, held to this position and he’s one of the most famous New Atheist personalities of our time (may his soul rest in peace).

And I believe it failed.

Let’s set aside the platitudes and be blunt: “Leaving us with an interpretation of American law by which to mis-govern the land on this issue on a selfish, cruel earth indifferent to the plight of the most vulnerable.”

Southern American Protestants in the early to mid-1800s would have said the same concerning abolitionism.

What other things, exactly, do you want to get done for Christ?

So, you claim to respect and understand others’ positions, engage in egregious double standards, and preemptorily close the door on further discussion. Awesome.

You summed it up well.

 

[He_Man]

Right and how unfair it would be for a woman in one state to have free will and choice on the issue and in a neighboring or another state not to. Not everyone can afford to relocate to a state more suited to their views. That’s the problem with always leaving everything to the states.

About as unfair as paying income tax in MD when I didn’t pay any in FL.

 

[Rhuarc]

While I’m a bit confused by you saying “before they even get to experience life” if you believe a human person exists and experiences life at the moment of conception with full personhood rights, it’s not important to me answering. I’m in the US so do you mean how can I in the US? First of all because I don’t believe I have the right to force what I believe on this issue onto society at large. And the SCOTUS ruled on Roe V Wade nearly 40 yrs ago giving women the right to choose during the 1st trimester with state restrictions allowed after. The issue causes a clash of rights. Rights of the unborn vs the privacy rights of women. In an imperfect world, and in a country of plural beliefs, one which is not a theocracy, the SCOTUS decision I believe attempted a balance of this clash in rights. Leaving us with an interpretaton of secular law by which to govern the land on this issue on an imperfect earth. And I speak solely for myself, but I personally as a Christian, not a Catholic, and not of another conservative faith group, after 40 yrs can’t devote such a degree of my time on this single issue if I want more time to devote to getting other things done for Christ. I respect and understand the perspective of others and hope this helps you understand mine. If not, there’s nothing more I can say to help you understand my perspective and we will have to agree to disagree in good faith. In any case God bless you along your faith walk. Peace.

You say that you have not right to force your belief on everyone. Friend, there is no belief it is a reality that a baby in the womb is a full human person just as much as you are. I don’t think it’s right to murder and I would be a horrible person if I didn’t speak out against it, I am sure you would say that my thoughts on murder are just a belief rather than an ultimate truth. Thou shalt not murder is a commandment I take very very seriously as should you.

 

[Trebor135]

You summed it up well.

And you were clear and concise in the answer you gave (post #30).

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

We need a sign that Christ will come again? Really? Is His promise not enough?

We? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Did I say I need a sign? His promise of a return is good enough for me, however, He also promised signs. Why did He do that?

 

[The_Reginator]

On a related note:

On February 6, 2012, Member of Parliament Stephen Woodworth brought forward the following motion. It received its first hour of debate in the House of Commons on April 26, 2012 and is to be debated again and voted on later the same year.

I found the following comment on Not Yet Born. It sums up (for me) the challenges that the Canadian parliament must face up to. But they won’t.

The question Canada’s legislature must answer is this: What determines eligibility for human rights? Is it simply a living organism’s biological human status, or some further criteria? What reasons does Canada give for granting legal protection to the tiny human being in its mother’s arms, but not to the tiny human being in its mother’s uterus? Why does Canada’s law value one and not the other?
Parliament’s answers to these questions are important not only for the issue of elective abortion, but also for human rights in general.

 

[Vangaurdian]

A new Gallup poll brings encouraging news on the subject of abortion. Fifty percent of American adults now define themselves as pro-life (up 5% from 2011), and 41% of American adults now define themselves as pro-choice (down 8% from 2011).

Polls are simply media tools.

Most people, when confronted with the biological facts of abortion, are pro-life.

VOTE RON PAUL if you are pro-life. Let your delegates know, there is still a chance to voice your values, voice your SOUL!!!

DR. PAUL is the only national politician who truly has defended the unborn with intelligent stratagy.

Mitt Romney, even after his so-called pro-life conversion, still appoints pro-abortion judges and signs taxpayer funded abortion into law - look it up! DO NOT BE FOOLED!!!

John Roberts has proven the Supreme court is bought-and-paid-for by elitist scum.
Homicide is a state issue, not federal.

Roe Vs. Wade is bogus judgement based on bizzarre fantasy, with no reference in simple biology.
THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT ON THE SIDE OF LIFE AND NEVER WILL BE!!!

MITT ROMNEY IS NOT PRO-LIFE!!!

The national leadership of the Republican party has sold out to planned parenthood big-bucks. Look into that Romney scumbags history, he has never legislated any significant pro-life law - EVER!!!

Romney = Obama in the eyes of planned parenthood.

 

[Trebor135]

Vangaurdian–last I heard, Ron Paul dropped out of the presidential race. Not a positive turn of events: he’s provided a refreshing alternative perspective on foreign policy.

This thread is about Canadian public opinion, though. Unless the Canucks posting in and reading the thread all have American citizenship, we can’t vote in the elections and make a big impact.

May God save the world from the scourges of abortion, the culture of death, and the duplicity of politicians.