J
JReducation
Guest
It is not my position. It is the infallible position of the Catholic Church. I was just restating what the document is talking about in lay man’s language, because the document is written theologically.
JR
- Status
JR
E
EsclavoDeCristo
Guest
Ditto!
S
SFTor
Guest
I understand the Catholic position on the infallibility of ex-cathedra positions. I simply disagree with the entire notion. I think it bestows too much authority on a hierarchy of human beings.It is not my position. It is the infallible position of the Catholic Church. I was just restating what the document is talking about in lay man’s language, because the document is written theologically.
JR
M
marietta
Guest
JReducation:
“You can never choose death for another,” you say. “You can choose death for yourself. This is martyrdom . . .”
This is suicide.
marietta
“You can never choose death for another,” you say. “You can choose death for yourself. This is martyrdom . . .”
This is suicide.
marietta
S
SFTor
Guest
The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that is permissible. That is what American women are basing their decisions on today.
There is no question that the Catholic Church along with many others see it very differently. As all Americans are bound by the laws and precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court we must accept the ruling.
It is essentially a manifestation of the separation between Church and State. I understand and applaud that Catholics follow their conscience in their own lives in this question.
Societies have dealt with the rights of infants in a number of ways. Some have gone so far as to postpone official “birth” until 40 days or more after birth. Children could be killed in the interim.
The Bible also places less value on a newborn than a grown person, as can be seen in monetary compensations that were to be paid for deaths of people of different ages.
The Bible does not make very definite rulings on the sanctity of human life. Israelites certainly did their share of killing on direct orders from their God.
J
JReducation
Guest
But if one reads the entire story, Judah realizes that his position is immoral and retracts. Read the rest of the story.
JR
S
SFTor
Guest
Thank you JR. Silly me.But if one reads the entire story, Judah realizes that his position is immoral and retracts. Read the rest of the story.
JR
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
When you give your life for another human being, this is not suicide; it is not an act of self-centeredness, but one of thinking entirely of another and their value.
No greater love has a man than that he lay down his life for a friend.
D
dandn5000
Guest
There’s a huge difference between an abortion and a woman who miscarries. Women miscarry all the time. It is natural. Sometimes, it is a woman’s actions that unknowingly cause it, but you cannot say that she chose to miscarry the baby, and that she did her actions to deliberately miscarry. Furthermore, you can’t say that a woman running will result in an almost certain death for the fetus inside her. Abortion, on the other hand, is something that is almost always the choice of the mother, and that will in 999 out of 1000 cases, result in the deliberate and gruesome death of the fetus. That one case is a pad, in case it somehow doesn’t work or there was never a pregnancy in the first place.
J
JReducation
Guest
What you must understand is that infallibility is not something that man claims for himself. It is given by the Creator.
Some truths are infallible because they are declared to be truth by the teaching Magisterium of the Church.
Other truths are infallible because they are revealed to us by reason. Abortion is one of those truths.
Reason tells us that man cannot destroy innocent life. We all understand that there are situations when there is a threat to the life of the mother, but that does not make the unborn child guilty.
We had this case in our marriage. We were told that my son would kill my wife if we did not terminate the pregnancy. There was no way that we could terminate this pregnancy, because this child was not guilty of the danger in which his mother found herself. The danger was due to circumstances beyond the control or the wish of our son.
Reason told us that we could not justifiably kill our son, because he was not a threat. The threat was created by natural causes. Even though we had two other children, this child had a right to enter the world or die a natural death trying But he had the right to be given an opportunity to develop naturally, because he had done nothing to abdicate that right or have it taken away from him.
Today, I do not regret our choice. He is a wonderful young man.
As you can see, reason has its on infallibility and those who speak using reason are speaking infallibly. This is not too much power. This is simply truth.
Truth is not about power. It is about things being the way they are, not the way we would like them to be.
Fraternally,
JR
S
SFTor
Guest
You are missing the point. The point is that if a miscarriage represents the death of a human being, then a suspicious death must be investigated, precisely to determine whether it was a miscarriage or an abortion. The first is a natural death, the other would be classified as murder, with the possible death penalty for the mother.
S
SFTor
Guest
I cannot comment on this deeply personal and tragic story. I can only take comfort in knowing that you are at peace with the fateful decision and its consequences.What you must understand is that infallibility is not something that man claims for himself. It is given by the Creator.
Some truths are infallible because they are declared to be truth by the teaching Magisterium of the Church.
Other truths are infallible because they are revealed to us by reason. Abortion is one of those truths.
Reason tells us that man cannot destroy innocent life. We all understand that there are situations when there is a threat to the life of the mother, but that does not make the unborn child guilty.
We had this case in our marriage. We were told that my son would kill my wife if we did not terminate the pregnancy. There was no way that we could terminate this pregnancy, because this child was not guilty of the danger in which his mother found herself. The danger was due to circumstances beyond the control or the wish of our son.
Reason told us that we could not justifiably kill our son, because he was not a threat. The threat was created by natural causes. Even though we had two other children, this child had a right to enter the world or die a natural death trying But he had the right to be given an opportunity to develop naturally, because he had done nothing to abdicate that right or have it taken away from him.
Today, I do not regret our choice. He is a wonderful young man.
As you can see, reason has its on infallibility and those who speak using reason are speaking infallibly. This is not too much power. This is simply truth.
Truth is not about power. It is about things being the way they are, not the way we would like them to be.
Fraternally,
JR
J
JReducation
Guest
But that is the beauty of it all. The doctors were wrong. My son was born and the only consequence was that he has autism.
My wife was killed four years later in an auto accident along with our oldest son.
Even if his mother had died as a result, he would still be alive or he may have died also, which was the expectation if we allowed the pregnancy to progress.
The doctors believed that both would die. The fact was that both survived and the mother died four years later of a cause completely unrelated to the pregnancy.
If we had taken the position that Reason and the Church cannot speak infallibly, but science can, the tragedy and the loss would have been more intense.
Fraternally,
JR
C
Caesar517
Guest
No, we must not accept the ruling, even on secular grounds. The Supreme Court overstepped their authority and violated Article 1 Section 1 of the US Constitution, along with other parts (find it in my signature). Their ruling is invalid because the Supreme Court did not have the authority to say what they said, which is one of the reasons it needs to be overturned.
S
SFTor
Guest
I misunderstood you. I read one of your previous posts, which gave me the impression that your wife died in childbirth.But that is the beauty of it all. The doctors were wrong. My son was born and the only consequence was that he has autism.
My wife was killed four years later in an auto accident along with our oldest son.
Even if his mother had died as a result, he would still be alive or he may have died also, which was the expectation if we allowed the pregnancy to progress.
The doctors believed that both would die. The fact was that both survived and the mother died four years later of a cause completely unrelated to the pregnancy.
If we had taken the position that Reason and the Church cannot speak infallibly, but science can, the tragedy and the loss would have been more intense.
Fraternally,
JR
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Abortion is murder plain and simple. Just watch the movie the Silent screem then tell me its not! the Church is correct. If some tells the that is not a murder going on there, that someone is telling me my eyes don’t work.
S
SFTor
Guest
I understand how you feel. Do you then agree that suspicious miscarriages must be investigated?
J
Jeanette_L
Guest
The sad truth is that most people on the pro abortion side don’t really care about what the child suffers, or even the woman’s own suffering long term. The principle of convenience over truth, in which they have invested everything, outweighs any evidence you could ever present to them on the issue.
S
SFTor
Guest
You are now belittling and denigrating people who disagree with you. That does not seem like a very Christian position.
Do you really know how any of these people feel?
J
JReducation
Guest
Reason tells us that no State can authorize what it does not have the power to authorize. The burden of proof falls on the State to demonstrate that they have such authority, before they pass it on to their citizens. This is fundamental philosophy. The Constitution of the USA is based on Aristotalean logic.
We do not have separation of Church and State in the United States, because it’s not in the Constitution. The Constitution says that the state may not adopt an official religion. It does not say that the State is immune to religious belief. In fact. the name of God and the Creator are invoked in many parts of the Constitution.
Federal, State and City governments have had contractual relationships with religious organizations since the founding of the nation. For example, the State pays the Catholic Church to provide services to people with developmental disabilities in many cities and counties around America. It provides funds for research to religious universities and hospitals.
This is not a Catholic issue. People of many backgrounds, even ahteists object to the right to access abortion on the grounds that it violates the natural rights of the innocent.
This is an historical fact. It is an act of human, but it is not a human act. Therefore, there is no reason to support such action.
If you read these stories in their entirety and the scriptures from cover to cover, you see an evolution of this thought. By the end of the scriptures, you will see people giving up their lives for the sake of holiness and truth, not taking life.
Hope this helps.
JR
- Status