Wow. So as an American citizen and Catholic,one has to agree with how the Catholic Church believes it can dictate how the the US Govt or state govts should use their official police power in order to " get in line" with what the Church says.
The authority, and responsibility, rests with the state. To claim they should not protect life, as you and I have such protection, really says that the life of the new child is less deserving. Such a position really contrary to the dignity of the person.Ahh, but it is when you when you want to use govt police power to protect that right—who annoited you to decide whether govt police power should be used in such a way?
Yes, and we ought not abuse that freedom. We oght to have the state protect innocent life.Well we all do have free will.
There is no natural choice to murder. That is license. It is an abuse. The justification has been given many times, including quotes from the magisterium. I really am surprised we need the voice of Peter to tell us the state should protect children from being killed.
They are the same.
Any such choice that rejects the moral norm is really an evil choice that ought not be allowed.
The truth is murder is always wrong and should not be codified into civil law.
Ahh but Steve taking the other side forces one to sharpen the mind. God says " do not kill" but He did give us free will did He not? Does not free will imply the right to get it right or get it wrong?
Now Fix, my friend, this poster is not going there on that statement-----“the state” sounds too much.
Well free choice is free choice.
Hmm… The “moral norm”–and what else out there is against the " moral norm" ?
No, free will means we should choose what is good. That we can abuse free will is no proof the law ought to allow murder.
Why? Where does the state get its authority from?
And how does morality fit in here?
Aside from murder?
]
That depends on the issue. Why does murder get a pass by you?
I’m not saying any particular pro-choicer is following this thinking pattern…I’m saying that the statistical data you provided is skewed, and is fashioned in a way to encourage this thinking pattern. These statisticians are falsely merging the legal issue…they are trying to link the illegality of abortion with higher rates of abortion, and that is simply not true. What raises the abortion rate is legality of abortion and immorality in sexual activity and selfishness. Yes, you’re right…unintended pregnancy is a symptom, and immorality (there’s your problem’s name) is the cause. I was saying that unintended pregnancy that is based on immoral sex and selfishness is the primary cause. So, in an indirect way I fully agree with you, the problem is immorality.
Undupe the duped with common sense. I’m not dismissing the facts and figures, I’m dismissing the inferred conclusions these institutions are trying to create.
Well, we see it differently…contraception might be seen by some as a necessary evil to thwart a grave evil…but how’s that workin’ out for us so far? No, contraception is a defeatist mentality which pulls away from the more productive strategy of making abortion illegal. I’m just trying to tell people (especially Catholics) that being encouraged by these “statistics” which show that contraception helps reduce abortions is a false confidence which diverts attention away from the real problems. These “Catholics” also are quick to reject the idea that contraception is a sin, a turning away from God.
Good, let us all start fully supporting efforts to re-moralize society, starting at home. That’s the long term solution, we can all agree on.
Pre Roe v Wade probably. Common sense definitely. But I’ll see if I can get you something concrete.
Hmm…The consent of the governed—or do you think otherwise?
Please let us know fix, seems you have a grand scheme in mind to put morality where ever you deem fit (pun intended), using govt power.
Well yes, please lay out the world ruled by the government of Mr. Fix.
Well, ultimately from the Creator. Those that form government, including judges, should have a conscience that is formed by Truth, not relativism. By your standard slavery should be legal if the majority agree.
Proscribing murder is considered meddling by you? I guess those of us that get to live without being killed off early get to decide right and wrong regardless of the moral order.
How about a world that prohibits murder?
It’s this type of snide comment that makes me believe you are not playing the advocate here, worthy.
This poster does not give it a pass. This poster has never asserted abortion is moral or that this poster would have any support for it. This poster did not make the assertion that the state should force us to " choose what is good".
So, you support legalized abortion? IOW, you would not commit the act but others should be allowed to? How is that fair to the child?
I don’t understand the first question and the second one asks me to provide an OJ Simpson reference that I hope you don’t really need since I hate to be disagreeable but still couldn’t care less about it right now.
What I said in response was that I assume you would already know about maternal death risks, not that I assumed you would not know.
Here you are offering either your own opinions or those of others who are not identified, such as whoever says that Guttmaacher Institute “twists data”, or how they do it? I believe you are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but should be careful not to represent our opinions as facts.
How is it playing games with data to link an article about deaths in Africa? Is this thread about North American deaths only? Either way, I would appreciate not to be accused of playing games with data where loss of life is concerned as I consider that to be a very serious charge.
Once again nothing cited to support the counterclaims. The article you were objecting to was linked to highlight the problem of unintentional pregnancies and the big numbers, not to suggest that any unintentional pregnancies should be aborted.
You should provide some data in your responses and names of the superior sources from which they come. I’m sure you would not want to appear to be playing games with data, and you are welcome to respond to me as long as the OP doesn’t kick us both off.
So why are not the US Catholic Bishops running the US govt?
]
I hope you would not expect me to disregard statistics based on the reasoning you provided alone. Not so bad reasoning, but does not constitute sufficient basis for dismissing numbers in my opinion. Does anyone have a reference to show how and where the Guttmacher Institute has been caught “twisting data”. More than one person has made this claim here, so I hope next time a reference will accompany charges of inaccuracy, like the reference I will provide just ahead of lifenews.com getting caught misrepresenting the truth. Why not show me something like that for the Guttmacher Institute?
I will read further into these articles from LifeNews and appreciate that you have offered links. Meantime, here is the link mentioned earlier that would be provided to a published claim of in incident where LifeNews.com did not tell the truth about some things. theamericanview.com/index.php?id=324
Thank you and may God Bless you also.