A
AgnosTheist
Guest
i’m not saying “should”. it depends on the rape victim. and i personally disagree with aborting fetuses that are old enough to survive in an incubator. no matter the reason.
- Status
L
liotino
Guest
The kinder and gentler me is back…the reality is there is no good reason to killing victim #2 in this tragic situation. Trust me the killing of the baby will not bring the healing process to a complete recovery or peace. The healing process can happen but it is at the end of the healing process the situation is seen through a different heart different eyes. The decision to kill the baby at the height of the tragedy is a reaction and not clear thinking. The victim does not have to keep the baby, she could give the child up for adoption. There are plenty of help groups * to help one through this process and decision making process. The bottom line is killing the baby is not a option it goes against God’s own commandments…Later*
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
A child of rape is as much a victim as the mother.
Rape is the only crime where some people advocate a death penalty for the victim – without even a trial.
Rape is the only crime where some people advocate a death penalty for the victim – without even a trial.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Further, two wrongs don’t make a right. It makes it even worse. Most women who have been raped have an extremely difficult time recovering. Women who have had an abortion almost never recover and are usually beriddled with guilt for the rest of their lives. The part that is heartless is when someone suggests to an already severly traumatized woman something that will increase her pain and guilt exponentially. Suggesting that a woman who was violated go and kill someone. Cruel.
L
liotino
Guest
There is a pick and chose whose life is valued/who are the victims. I think about this a lot why is it we are horrified with the killing of a child after birth and ready to execute the victim’s killer but yet see the mother aborting her unborn child in this light of sympathy. Why is her choice to kill any different than the one who takes a gun and shoots a child. I go back to God’s commandment THOU SHALL NOT KILL when I am shown the exceptions to this someone may have my attention. Someone produce the list of God’s exception to the commandment…I wait…please take note I am old and time is precious and SHORT…Later
M
mapleoak
Guest
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
I have asked this question before – is there any difference between killing a child in January, and killing the same child the following December?
There isn’t - no matter when you do it, infanticide is a heinous crime.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I don’t wish to start an argument with you, but I was once a Dem political operative myself. We did that all the time. We used to call persuading people who might otherwise support the competing candidate not to vote, or to waste his vote on some non-viable candidate “getting half a vote”. I don’t know what they call it now.
The Repubs did the same thing, but we were better at it because we were much better organized. I know it when I see it. I just didn’t expect to see it in here. If you haven’t been in it, you would be amazed at the things that go on in political contests.
S
Spirithound
Guest
This is the most insensitive thing I’ve seen you say.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Are you certain? It seems to me that you are saying that if you were a Congressman; and a final vote for a bill that outlawed abortion with the exception of rape and incest; you would oppose that legislation - or at minimum, abstain from voting. I believe that is against Church teaching…and completely illogical.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Using your logic, should we then assume that you are a GOP operative, posing as a Dem operative, to discredit Dems and 3rd party Catholics like Mapleoak and I to get folks back to the GOP in a year that the GOP ‘brand’ is in the toilet?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Said the Cheshire Cat. :whacky: :whacky: :whacky:Using your logic, should we then assume that you are a GOP operative, posing as a Dem operative, to discredit Dems and 3rd party Catholics like Mapleoak and I to get folks back to the GOP in a year that the GOP ‘brand’ is in the toilet?
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Recently you called me a liar, then contended that my proving that my statement was truthful was misdirection. Seemingly because I only proved that what I wrote was true, not what the voices in your head told you the words secretly meant was true…
Just a few weeks ago you stated, in absolute terms, that I was a pro abortion apologist, despite the fact that I have never, once, suggested anything remotely supportive of abortion in these forums. Again, what I had written, countless times, was irrelevant because, well, you’re the sort of person who just ‘knows’ things…
Now, I am a political secret agent. Apparently, strict obedience of Church teaching and erroring on the side of no involvement with instrinsic evil is just not a viable position for a Catholic to hold in your experience. This time you ‘know’ because, supposedly, you used to be the sort of person that made a living attacking the civil rights of others…
Do you really think that it is appropriate Christian conduct, or even remotely complient with forum rules to make wholly speculative and defamatory accusations against people?
Personally, I think that your latest story of past political insiderdom is a pantload. But it would never occur to me to start aggressively challenging you on it over and over, because I know full well that this environment is not one that is suitable for you to properly defend yourself against such an accusation. Presumably that is why the forum rules prohibit such attacks to begin with. Also, I happen to really buy in to the whole Christian thing.
So I’m kind of a loss at how to respond to your current compulsive and destructive behavior. I am loathe to report anyone to the moderators. And I am certainly not going to mimic your behavior. So, right now, that pretty much just leaves praying for you.
L
libbybeth
Guest
There are several things that need to be said in response to your view;
a) we must always keep in mind our definitions. It is clear that abortion always results in the death of an unborn baby.
b) we must always look to the intention behind the act. Abortion is the carrying out of the intention to make sure that there is no living child born, as you said (Abortion Act, as amended)
c) You say that the argument that some children have traumatic births and suffer birth defects is irrelevant to giving birth. Just so!! It is also irrelevant to the question of abortion, as the unborn child is alive within the womb, defect or not, and our response should be one of helping that child to reach its full potential in every way.
d) It may be true that most abortions are done early, but in the UK over 2,000 abortions per year are late abortions. The argument about the stage at which the abortion is one is irrelevant, as whatever the age of the child, abortion will kill it.
e) You misleadingly state that 14 weeks is below the pain threshold. Any student of biology is aware of the full formation of the central nervous system by 12 weeks. Also, if the unborn child in the womb moves away from the amniocentesis needle at 12 weeks and displays a heightened heart rate, most neutral observers would say we must give the child the benefit of the doubt and regard the response as a response to pain.
f) If I were to drug you into insensibility and then kill you while you could feel no pain, it would not alter the fact that I had wronged you by taking your life away from you - ie by killing you. Pain is quite irrelevant to the question as to whether or not you have been killed.!!
g) Quite right!! The statistics game is not a good reason to prohibit abortion. All abortions take life away.
h)Abortion itself cheapens life. If we can dispose of life within the womb, then we can use life outside the womb for our own convenience - do you not see that by being “neutral” on the issue of abortion, you signal your neutrality to the way in which we treat other humans. Life is the basic prerequisite to all that follows. If you deny that to the youngest and most vulnerable of all humans, what is to stop others from exploiting children, immigrants, old people, etc The great statements on Human Rights recognise the “right to life” - statements denying humanity and life erode that right. Just think - slaves were not regarded as human!!
i) None of the above is sentimental or religious retoric. Much of what I said comes from the statements of the Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn, a group of rational, professional and caring people, both with and without religious faith. If you would like to engage in a thread on religion, and religious belief, please do so!
Libbybeth
L
libbybeth
Guest
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Would it surprise you to know I’m not the first, and certainly not the only person to think yours is a purely political agenda? Do you think everything is said on screen?
Go ahead and complain about me to the moderators. If I disappear, then everyone will know you are one who “gets rid” of those who oppose you and can judge your political agenda in light of it.
I am unimpressed by your moral condemnation of me. Do you not think others have seen the kinds of invective you hand out? I am sure I am not the only one who has laughed out loud when observing you mounting your moral high horse.
I have told you, and I meant it, that what you think of me means nothing to me. I respect the fact that most posters here are more polite than I have been lately. I have also seen many very persuasive people simply drop out of discussions because you dominate the screen with your immense barrages of what are, quite often, misleading arguments. Your saying that Roberts and Alito support abortion decisions when there is not the slightest reason to think it, and every reason not to think it, was just too much. Maybe you don’t understand how stare decisis works, and how opinion writing works. Maybe you don’t understand how courts can and do rule only on the issues that are before them. But I think you are a great deal brighter than that. Being convinced that you are, I can only conclude that you deliberately chose to misrepresent Roberts’ and Alitos’ convictions. I can only conclude that you did it in order to persuade those whom you have not driven from the thread, but who visit, that it is pointless to vote for those who, in recent years, have tried to find political solutions to abortion on demand. Thus, you encourage people to despair of the only means available to political solutions to abortion on demand and suggest that all they can do is reach for other, lesser, objectives that your political candidates might propound. Maybe you really believe that a prolife decision in Carhart, painfully and barely gained, actually represents a pro-abortion endorsement on the part of Roberts and Alito. But I can’t imagine that you really do. Being mindful, then, of the screen-choking, misdirection-laden blasts you deliver, I simply encouraged readers to disbelieve both me and you about Carhart, but to read it themselves.
But that called for a wind shift, didn’t it? That called for you to accuse me of lying and being morally defective when I say you bear all the earmarks of a political operative who came here to persuade Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidates by encouraging them to despair of voting for prolife candidates. Well, SoCalRC, you do. Call me a liar all you want when I say I have worked as a political operative myself in my life, but I have never seen anyone resemble one more than you do. You can copy and paste the last three sentences to your complaint to the moderators. I typed them just so you could.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Not in the least. I believe that we are communal creatures by nature (when two or more meet in His name…) We find it emotionally reassuring to hear others reiterate what we, ourselves believe.
But I also believe in Natural Law and the gift of the moral conscience. Most of us do not need to read the Catechism to understand some of the implications of “Love thy neighbor” and the 8th commandment.
So, when we have, say malicious speculation about our neighbor, it is in our nature to want to share that and hear it reaffirmed with others. But, we also sense the moral implications. So, when most people engage in gossip at another’s expense, they do so privately.
If you ‘disappear’, the logical conclussion would be that you cannot comply with the rules you agreed to when you joined the forum. It would seem difficult to argue any connection between discipline for your behavior and misconduct you are accusing me of, unless you are also contending that the moderators here are part of a larger conspiracy intent on treating you unfairly.
In any event, ‘how it would look’ is not one of the reasons that I am reluctant to complain. I simply believe in a concept that the Church calls “The Body of the Faithful”.
The Church teachs that our moral conscience must be developed. So there are often variations in perception, action, and understanding. Perhaps you see yourself emulating St. Paul and dragging ‘evil’ into ‘the light’. Others may see a moral distinction between private speculation and public accusation. Or, some people may simply feel honor bound to adhere to the forum rules they agreed to.
This raises a serious difficulty. You are making many accusations, on many fronts. Sometimes with no perceptable basis in reality. For example, I responded to your previous assertion about my making a “false” argument in this area. I took the statement you labeled as false and verified it one sentence fragment at a time. As I mentioned then, I can only defend what I write and say, not random arguments you decide to attribute to me.
OK, let’s assume for the moment that you are acting in some form of good conscience and faith. If you are accusing me of something, then, in Catholic doctrine, you should accept that I have a right to defend myself and correct your understanding.
It appears you are ultimately attacking me on two fronts.
- You are accusing me with having dishonest and (in my opinion) gravely immoral motives.
- You are arguing that my stated positions are, in themselves, immoral.
Just as you challenged me, I am now challenging you. If your motives in publicly defaming me are just, then you should be willing to assist me more precisely understand your position so that I can respond to specific accusations, not just vague assertions. So, unless you are simply attacking me for the purpose of discrediting me through character assassination (a sin you have now seemingly confessed to doing in exchange for money), please answer the following questions (I’ll number them in bold so that they do not have to be wholly quoted with your answers):
Q1. Do you agree with Evangelium Vitae that direct abortion is, infallibly, always a grave moral disorder?
Q2. More specifically, do you believe that it is a legitimate position for a Catholic to believe that abortion is a moral absolute on which there is no compromise?
Q3. In a Doctrinal Note on voting prepared by then Cardinal Ratzinger, and approved by Pope John Paul II, we find the following quote:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html (#4)
In the context of the document, do you agree or disagree that a reasonable interpretation of the above statement is that NO Catholic, politician or otherwise, should promote or vote for any law that attacks human life?
Q4. Immediately following the quote above, the document introduces the concept of “limiting the harm”, quoting EVANGELIUM VITAE directly. Immediately after introducing that concept, we find the following quote:
In the context of the document, do you agree or disagree that a reasonable interpretation of the above statement would be that “limiting the harm” should not be used as a justification for voting against fundemental Catholic morals and principles?
Q5. Immediatly following the above quote, the document continues:
In the context of the document, do you agree or disagree that a reasonable interpretation of the above quote is that the 9 examples of moral principles that follow are non negotiable for Catholic voters?
Q6. In SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS, #83, Pope Benedict reiterates part of the list referenced in the proceeding quote, cites the doctrinal note quoted above, and then states:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
Do you agree, or disagree that a legitimate interpretation of the entire section would be that Catholics, in particular Catholic politicians, should not vote against the fundemental moral principles listed in the Doctrinal Note and, if they do, they are likely making themselves unfit for Holy Communion?
Q7. Do you agree with statement that the Catholic teaching on abortion is absolute. That is, that we do not permit exceptions for incest, rape, or even the life of the mother?
Q8. Do you agree or disagree that, in of themselves, the abortion positions held by all major party presidential candidates in 2008 are intrinsically evil in the Catholic Faith?
Q9. The USCCB has issued a statement on voting:
usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
Here is a portion:
Do you believe that these three paragraphs, in the context of the document, are a legitimate reflection of Catholic doctrine?
Q10. The Bishops statement also contains the following:
Do you believe that this a legitimate reflection of Church teaching?
Q11 Using the same quote as Q10, do you agree or disagree with the Bishops’ assertion that voters face a “dilemma”?
Q12. Again referring to the quote in Q10, do you belief that the phrase “all candidates” means every candidate for the office, every major candidate for the office, or something else?
Q13. And, referring to the quote in Q10 one last time, if any candidate for an office held a position on an important life issue like abortion that was not intrinsically evil do you belief that the choices listed for voters in the quote would still be licit?
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your position on the question of morality. Once I am clear on the moral transgression(s) you are specifically accussing me of, I will be happy to defend myself. And, after that, I would be happy to defend myself against your accusations regarding my motives.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Ovulation is not a wasted human life. It is a potential that God provided and is not to be denied life through human means (the pill, IUD, etc).
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
L
liotino
Guest
I am a little late in seeing this…Thank you and God Bless…
- Status