- Status
G
gakroeger
Guest
Christopher68
I might buy your argument if morality is left entirely out of the picture; however, your profile says you are Catholic. I would be interested to know how you justify this position with Church teaching. Do you believe you are in full communion with the Church? If so, again I am interested to know how you justify this position. Or do you argue strictly as a third person, totally removing yourself from the fray? I am sure you understand that there is no middle ground on abortion according to Church teaching.
W
Worthy5
Guest
W
Worthy5
Guest
B
Benadam
Guest
Liberty, is inherent in human nature. Liberty is a God given right. When law in the name of liberty removes from man what is his by nature to have, it is excessive and is liberty in name only.
You argue against a law that protects human liberty for the sake of limiting government. If a law doesn’t protect human life it can’t protect human liberty.
C
Caramel
Guest
I do understand that some pro-aborts are as clear about their position as I am about mine and they just cannot understand why I can’t see something so obvious. I know they want to shake me until I “get it.”
But I don’t see any middle ground. I say a fertilized ovum is a human being. A pro-abort will most likely say it isn’t. The positions can’t be reconciled. They are mutually exclusive. It is black and white. There are no grey areas.
A ban on late-term and partial-birth abortions would be a good first step, but it still is not agreement on when a human being is present. And it isn’t compromise. There can be no compromise when it comes to taking the lives of innocent children.
I believe the following syllogism is true:
Murder is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.
Unborn children are innocent human beings.
Therefore, the killing of unborn children is murder.
A pro-abort will say “no that is not true because it isn’t a child. It isn’t a human being. It may be alive, but it’s a not a person.” How can I argue with that? We go through the same debates over and over and over and will continue to do so because it is so important.
Do you believe there is a middle ground on murder?
caramel
wife of James Andrew (in heaven)
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)
“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss
C
Caramel
Guest
Thanks, I found that out later. But then what are “{” and “}”? Aren’t those brackets, too?
When I think of brackets those are what I think of. So I guess a “” is a “half-rectangle bracket” as opposed to a “curvy bracket.”
At least he/she understood what I meant, which is all I really cared about.
caramel
wife of James Andrew (in heaven)
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)
“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss
C
Christopher68
Guest
I understand church teaching very well. However, there was a pro-life POTUS for 8 years who had a majority in both houses of Congress for the first 6 of those years. How did that work out for you?
G
gakroeger
Guest
No, excommunication is a very extreme act by the Church and is normally reserved for those who have committed grievous acts. Catholics may be in various degrees of communion with the Church; in the Church today many Catholics have compromised their consciences by assigning incorrect levels of seriousness to various social issues disregarding the teaching of the Church either though ignorance or through deliberate avoidance. A classic example during the last election was the war in Iraq (amazing how this issue went away with the election of Obama, even though things have actually gotten worse there); some Catholics erroneously assigned a heavier weighting to the war then abortion. Church teaching clearly states that a war can be justified when entered for moral reasons; however, abortion of the innocent can never under normal circumstances be justified.
Catholics who actually participate in an abortion are automatically excommunicated;
From the Catechism
*2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. *
As I am sure you know, there has been a great controversy within the Church regarding pro choice Catholics and especially politicians; as to how they should be treated. The reason this has been unclear to many is that any sin and mortal sin in particularly depends on the intent of the sinner. One has to be fully aware that what they are doing is a serious sin. Many with lax consciences use this fact - to their own peril - as an excuse to defy Church teaching. Politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry and others push this to the limit. It is hard for any thinking person to understand how after being told by numerous Bishops and Priest of the Church that their actions are seriously wrong can continue to use the personal conscience excuse.
The most visible sign of this dissent by these politicians is the frequent receiving of Holy Communion even though they have been told by their Bishops they should not be presenting themselves for Holy Communion. Some Clergy have enforced Canon Law 915, however, because of the fact that the Clergy cannot know what is in the person’s heart who is defying Church teaching, some are reluctant to enforce canon 915.
Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.
C
Christopher68
Guest
I didn’t suggest that there was a middle ground on the morality of the issue. That’s not what my post was about. I was suggesting that people on both sides of the issue should try to find ‘common ground’ (such as working together to try to reduce the abortion rate). Are you opposed to engaging someone in constructive dialogue?
W
Worthy5
Guest
G
gakroeger
Guest
If you understand Church teaching very well, why did you not explain by answering my question about how you justify your position as it relates to Church teaching?
Are you suggesting that because a pro life President was unable to make much progress against abortion that you and we are justified to ignore Church teaching? And, by the way, I disagree that the pro life president was unable to make much progress. Sure, we still have abortion; to expect any one individual to be able to overcome the massive movement of the culture of death is not at all realistic. Bush at least had the courage of his convictions to speak against the tide and FOCA would never have become law under Bush; I certainly do not have that confidence with Obama. It sounds to me like your politics are more important to you than your Catholicism.
C
Christopher68
Guest
I understand the reality of government.
Are you familiar with LBJ’s Great Society program to eliminate poverty? It made the issue worse.
How about Reagan’s War on Drugs? Drug abuse is worse than ever.
Given the government’s track record, how can you possibly suggest that a supposed government-led ‘war on abortion’ would do anything other than make the issue worse?
Perhaps you believe that government is a benevolent, high-performance organization that is capable of achieving all of it’s objectives. I do not. If I took your position on how to solve the issue of abortion, I would be supporting a course of action that I sincerely believe would make the issue worse. I would not be consistent with church teaching if I did that.
G
gakroeger
Guest
What is this game called; change the subject and put words in the others mouth?
What in the world has this response to do with the question I asked you?
I happen to agree with your assessment of the government and its programs and I have not advocated government war on abortion. I am advocating educating Catholics who support abortion candidates for political reasons which are menial compared to abortion.
If you can, please answer my question………
C
Christopher68
Guest
I re-read your earlier post. You asked two questions within that post. I answered your question about whether or not I believed I was being consistent with church teaching. Within your second question you admitted that a pro-life president was unable to make much progress on abortion, which essentially validates the statements I made about the reality of government. However, you insinuated that I ignore church teaching. I don’t ignore church teaching. When it comes to politics, I envision church teaching within the reality of government, and I vote accordingly. However, there is more to church teaching than how the issue plays out politically. It is about how we live our lives on a daily basis as well.
G
gakroeger
Guest
What a leap! You read into my post that “I admitted a pro life President was unable to make much progress” and that this validates your statement about government? This is not what I said at all and regardless of whether your statements about government are correct or not (which I have already stated that for the most part I agree with your assessment of government), it has nothing to do with supporting abortion (or as you call it “finding middle ground).
Regarding your statement that you do not ignore Church teaching; I don’t think you explained that at all. Your last sentence is certainly true accept for the last two words. If you leave off “as well”, the sentence is perfect. As I mentioned before you appear to place your politics before your Catholicism. In order to do this you must separate your daily social (political) life from your religious life. This alone is contrary to Church teaching. We do not have two lives on this earth; we were given only one, and as you say “it is about how we live our lives”. Would Christ have sought “middle ground” on abortion, or would he have said abortion is wrong in all cases?
Just stop and think about this for a minute; do you believe Church teaching that God created us in his image? If so, how can you justify the interruption of God’s creation by pulling apart one of His little ones in the womb because his gift is unwanted and considered an inconvenience? We would not even consider doing this to a friend who offered a gift, but we justify doing it to God?
C
Christopher68
Guest
Here is what I posted earlier in this thread (post # 353):
*In my opinion, the only way to ‘win’ the abortion issue is by changing hearts and minds - and that is something that doesn’t involve the government or laws. I also believe that government has been an abject failure whenever they tackle ‘moral’ issues - i.e. the Great Society actually made poverty worse, the War on Drugs has been an unmitigated disaster, etc. Some people will counter that by saying ‘why do we have laws against rape and murder - after all, aren’t those moral issues or personal choices too?’ However, the comparison is absurd, as virtually 100% of the polulation is opposed to rape and murder - while the percentage of people who are either ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’ is approximately 50%, depending on who has done the surveying and how they have slanted the questions that were being asked. Also, many people are caught up in the emotional nature of the issue, and they fail to see that the force of government is not the solution here. As mentioned, the solution is changing hearts and minds. *
The above paragraph explains my position as best as I can. If this answer doesn’t satisy your question, then either I haven’t done a good enough job of explaining myself, or perhaps you still choose to disagree with my reasoning, which means that no matter how well and detailed I respond to your questions, you will still find disagreement. I am happy with my relationship with God. Whatever you may think about my relationship with God is immaterial.
G
gakroeger
Guest
This does not come close to addressing the questions I have posed to you. Let me state it as simply as I can.
Do you agree that we should not have a separate political and religious life and that we should live our one life according to God’s law 24/7? Yes or No
Do you agree that God created each of us in his image? Yes or No
As a Catholic you should have answered both of these questions with a Yes
If you answered both of these questions with a Yes, then explain how you can support your politics over Church teaching and how can you justify destroying Gods creation in the womb. Clearly, as I stated in the previous post, Christ would not support “middle ground” in the case of abortion. In spite of Obama’s thought that a baby is a punishment, it is again by Church teaching a gift from God.
If you answered either of these questions with a no, then you are obviously not following Church teaching.
I can only surmise that since you appear to be purposefully ignoring my specific questions that you do not have clear answers for them. You simply keep going back and restating your erroneous position without explaining how it relates to Church teaching that you claim to understand.
C
Christopher68
Guest
I’ve already explained my position as clearly as I can. Either I have not done a good job of explaining myself (which is entirely possible), or you are making no effort to understand what I have written. But I do not have the time or inclination to repeat myself.
And once again, it is you who are twisting my words. I did not use the words ‘middle ground’, which would imply that I asking you to moderate your position. I used the words ‘common ground’, by which I mean that even those on polar sides of this issue can likely agree on certain things - such as the desire to reduce the number of abortions.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
Y’know, CHOICE is such a fuzzy little word. It’s a good word, a positive word, a word we can all embrace.
However, it does nothing to describe the ugliness, the sinfulness, of the act of ABORTION. The word ‘abortion’ describes what the act itself is: the slaughter of an unborn baby.
Do you think that the substitute word was substituted by accident? Think again. Satan’s handmaidens are fairly clever. They want to confuse the issue.
Everyone knows what the word ABORTION means. There’s no spin, no attempt to make it a good thing, nothing to separate the act from the meaning.
If you are not in favor of abortion, then you can not use the word CHOICE to describe it.
However, it does nothing to describe the ugliness, the sinfulness, of the act of ABORTION. The word ‘abortion’ describes what the act itself is: the slaughter of an unborn baby.
Do you think that the substitute word was substituted by accident? Think again. Satan’s handmaidens are fairly clever. They want to confuse the issue.
Everyone knows what the word ABORTION means. There’s no spin, no attempt to make it a good thing, nothing to separate the act from the meaning.
If you are not in favor of abortion, then you can not use the word CHOICE to describe it.
- Status