Calling God an abortion provider on the basis of natural miscarriages is about the same as calling God a murderer for all of the people in history that died of natural causes.
It is nonsensical.
- Status
It is nonsensical.
Actually, they define what is legal.
Not what is murder.
The fact that they have narrowed the law enough to exclude the unborn in this law does not mean murder has not taken place.
It simply means that the law does not cover this particular murder.
C
CarlisleMLH
Guest
Shoot! I’ve made a blunder! I meant to post my comment above on a different thread! The one called “And if abortion WAS made illegal?” Sorry people! But hey! Marietta! since you’re also posting on both threads, please read! Thanks! 
Mary_Gail_36
New member
Funny, I didn’t blame God at all.
He created my 2 children, He decided to bring them home. Their souls are/were much more precious to Him than I can even imagine.
God as abortion provider…lets not blaspheme, OK?
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
S
SFTor
Guest
Hello vz!
This is not the case. The lawgivers and courts of the United States explicitly determine what is murder. They draw the lines between what is murder, manslaughter, etc. Criteria to determine what is what varies from country to country. You will for instance find that the United States is mostly quite generous in accepting self-defense as a valid defense, for instance in cases when homeowners have shot what has later turned out to be harmless intruders.
Murder is actually quite narrowly defined in most countries, and certainly in the United States.
You may also note that the Bible overall uses a specific definition of murder. Revenge killings are for instance allowed according to Judges.
Respectfully,
Tor
A
allhers
Guest
Please have your daughter read these sites so she can be correctly informed:
(As you yourelf have said, all it takes is a little education.)
Young people can be better prepared by teaching them these things, just as you also need to let them know about the Holy Father’s encyclicals and the Catholic Church’s teachings, have them read Humanae Vitae, go to www.vatican.va or this site on the home page, www.catholic.com or www.ewtn.com or www.zenit.org or www.priestsforlife.org or www.all.org or www.hli.org
Currently World Youth Day is going on and they are being filled with correct information, thank God. It is presented both on the internet and on television at www.ewtn.com, for t.v. of course you would have to check your local listings for the EWTN (Eternal Word Television Network).
Read this site about birth control pills: www.thepillkills.com
Instead of artificial birth control. Refer instead to Natural Family Planning where a woman and man can learn the proper way of Natural family planning.
The couple to couple league
www.ccli.org
Billings ovulation method
www.boma-usa.org
Pope Paul VI institute
www.popepaulvi.com
One more soul
www.omsoul.com
For God’s love and forgiveness, for women who have had abortions, refer them to these sites:
www.rachelsvineyard.org
www.silentnomoreawareness.org
For most of these sites all it takes is a little exploring around and you will find just about anything you need on why abortion ought to be illegal.
One last thing, please teach your daughter that it is never a good idea to say such things about God.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
God bless, Tor.
Looks as though we have hit the proverbial brick wall. Until or unless one of us ‘changes his/her mind’ to agree with the other, here we will stay–you firmly convinced that it is humanity which can decide what is, or is not, truth, morality, and law, and even more, can decide that what is ‘good’ does not have to be ‘good’ for all. . .and me convinced that it is God who decides, and humanity who chooses to abide by that decision or not.
You now know ‘the other side’ to whatever poor and imperfect extent my words have given it. May they bear fruit a 30, 60 and 100 fold as was given as example in last Sunday’s gospel. May they not be like the seed that fell on stony ground, lacked roots, or were choked by the cares of the world.
You know, of course, that I listened to your words as well. They are, after all, the ‘world’s words’ – the words that one hears over, and over, and over again. . . the ones that seem on the outside to be so ‘humane’. Nobody has to ‘suffer’, nobody has to ‘feel bad’, nobody has to have shame or guilt, because nobody is ever really ‘bad’ --just misunderstood by canting bigots. Humanity is the true god, and man, if guided by the ‘wise’ men, leaving the ‘trappings’ of not-man behind as tired superstition and the notions of dreary, ever-so-‘medieval’ things like absolute morality, obedience, humility, temperance, fortitude, prudence, and even ‘faith’–how quaint–will have a new springtime when all realize that ‘man’ knows all, ‘man’ defines all, and ‘god’, that outdated ‘imagination’ of ‘primitive’ man. . .is nothing but a bogey and a cheat, compared to the brilliantly scientific, the urbanely tolerant (save to those Xian bigots), the cleverly relativistic, rationalistic, hedonistic and crowning achievement 'true architect of the universe–man.
It has been ‘interesting’ talking to you. You obviously have intelligence. If there were no such things as absolutes–if there were no such thing as God–your arguments from a purely human standpoint would look thoroughly rational.
Thank God that absolutes exist. The merely ‘humanly rational’ will always fall short and lead to eternal darkness, sad to say. God grant that your eyes are opened to the wonders of something ‘greater’ than ‘man.’ For until they are opened to the greater. . .you will always be the lesser.
Looks as though we have hit the proverbial brick wall. Until or unless one of us ‘changes his/her mind’ to agree with the other, here we will stay–you firmly convinced that it is humanity which can decide what is, or is not, truth, morality, and law, and even more, can decide that what is ‘good’ does not have to be ‘good’ for all. . .and me convinced that it is God who decides, and humanity who chooses to abide by that decision or not.
You now know ‘the other side’ to whatever poor and imperfect extent my words have given it. May they bear fruit a 30, 60 and 100 fold as was given as example in last Sunday’s gospel. May they not be like the seed that fell on stony ground, lacked roots, or were choked by the cares of the world.
You know, of course, that I listened to your words as well. They are, after all, the ‘world’s words’ – the words that one hears over, and over, and over again. . . the ones that seem on the outside to be so ‘humane’. Nobody has to ‘suffer’, nobody has to ‘feel bad’, nobody has to have shame or guilt, because nobody is ever really ‘bad’ --just misunderstood by canting bigots. Humanity is the true god, and man, if guided by the ‘wise’ men, leaving the ‘trappings’ of not-man behind as tired superstition and the notions of dreary, ever-so-‘medieval’ things like absolute morality, obedience, humility, temperance, fortitude, prudence, and even ‘faith’–how quaint–will have a new springtime when all realize that ‘man’ knows all, ‘man’ defines all, and ‘god’, that outdated ‘imagination’ of ‘primitive’ man. . .is nothing but a bogey and a cheat, compared to the brilliantly scientific, the urbanely tolerant (save to those Xian bigots), the cleverly relativistic, rationalistic, hedonistic and crowning achievement 'true architect of the universe–man.
It has been ‘interesting’ talking to you. You obviously have intelligence. If there were no such things as absolutes–if there were no such thing as God–your arguments from a purely human standpoint would look thoroughly rational.
Thank God that absolutes exist. The merely ‘humanly rational’ will always fall short and lead to eternal darkness, sad to say. God grant that your eyes are opened to the wonders of something ‘greater’ than ‘man.’ For until they are opened to the greater. . .you will always be the lesser.
A
allhers
Guest
Tantum ergo,
Excellent!!! God bless you, and it sure looks like He has.
Excellent!!! God bless you, and it sure looks like He has.
S
SFTor
Guest
Hello Tantum Ergo:
I also see that we’re not going to agree,
I also hope that you have noted that I am not arguing against your right to hold your views. I respect your views, and think Catholic teaching and philosophy is making important contributions to our understanding of moral issues. It certainly does to mine—I learn many things from these conversations.
What I have argued is that it is not so simple as to say that there exists a universal law in society today. It only exists for those who subscribe to particular religions of philosophical views. You know the disagreements between different moral codes and religions as well as I do, I’m sure.
We live in a secular society, and that is not likely to change. I think the Catholic Church has an important role as a participant in shaping the moral codes and laws we live under. But it is not the only organization with a seat at the table. I hope it will continue to play a constructive role without trying to drown out others of good will.
Most of all, Tantum, I am perhaps concerned that some of these discussions become a little Phariseic. This is the law of the land, this God’s law, and on we go in our discussions. Yet to me this is really about suffering. The mothers who are faced with choices they don’t want to make, they suffer. Fathers who estrange themselves from their closest ones; they suffer. The children in broken homes; they suffer. The children in Iraq who die because adults choose bloodshed to settle their differences, they suffer. And abortion is in the middle of it, tied to all of it, and is an expression of that suffering.
It’s overwhelming sometimes, and I for one will continue to look for a better way.
Respectfully,
Tor
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
In my old fashioned logic it already is.
Abortion is murder.
Murder is illegal.
Thus abortion is illegal.
Simple.
Abortion is murder.
Murder is illegal.
Thus abortion is illegal.
Simple.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Simple and old fashioned.
Murder is illegal.
Abortion is murder.
Thus abortion is already illegal.
Murder is illegal.
Abortion is murder.
Thus abortion is already illegal.
A
aspawloski4th
Guest
Dr Bernard who founded the right to life movement was atheist when he started, and there is a right to life group called Atheists for Life. Your arguement is tired and old.
M
mapleoak
Guest
Your daughter needs some correction in logical thinking.
Firstly, “they’re” not defining life as starting at conception. The starting point of life is not dependent on assigned definition. Life begins when it begins, regardless of when anyone says that starting point is. Now, it is a scientific fact that a new and uniquely individual human life exists from the moment of conception. This is not an opinion, but a verifiable fact.
To make a conclusion that “since human life begins at conception (fact), God is an abortion provider” is to make a serious logical error. Considering that God ends all life whenever He is so pleased to choose to do so, be it at conception, at birth, during childhood, adulthood, or during old age, it is making a logical error to equate His taking of newly conceived life with that of providing of abortions. It is equating the woeful and defiant hands of the abortionist and mother (commanded not to kill) with the Hand of the Author of all life and death.
One last point, an abortion is the taking of human life by another human being(s).
If you would like to debate whether God has the right to take human life, feel free to start another thread.
M
mapleoak
Guest
The ‘lawgivers’ decide how close they will align civil law with natural law. Murder remains murder no matter how narrowly they define it.
This is specifically a determination of civil (and changeable) law. Natural law is absolute and unchangable. Civil society has an obligation to align its laws parallel with natural law. The extent to which civil law recognizes murder as that which is defined by natural law is a reflection on its obligation in that regard.
M
marietta
Guest
allhers:
My daughter did not compose the piece you refer to; she simply drew my attention to it as an interesting viewpoint.
By the way, she is a Jewish convert, so you can get off her case and mine with the Humanae Vitae and all that other Vatican jazz.
I have encouraged her to talk with me about God in any manner she has wished since she was old enough to put two words together. I believe in freedom of religion and she has chosen a path which satisfies her soul in a way Catholicism never could or would.
Just a little update for you.
marietta
My daughter did not compose the piece you refer to; she simply drew my attention to it as an interesting viewpoint.
By the way, she is a Jewish convert, so you can get off her case and mine with the Humanae Vitae and all that other Vatican jazz.
I have encouraged her to talk with me about God in any manner she has wished since she was old enough to put two words together. I believe in freedom of religion and she has chosen a path which satisfies her soul in a way Catholicism never could or would.
Just a little update for you.
marietta
M
mapleoak
Guest
Actually, if you are not interested in having presented material refuted, it should not be brought up in the first place. You asked for our thoughts on the piece, we gave them to you.
A
allhers
Guest
You asked for our thoughts and you got them, if you don’t expect to hear things about the Catholic Church on a Catholic forumn then maybe you ought not ask.
S
SFTor
Guest
Aspalowski:
Please learn to argue your case without casting aspersions on the words of someone who disagrees with you.
The point is not that there are atheist right-to-lifers, the point is that not everyone believes like you do.
It doesn’t make them bad people.
Respectfully,
Tor
S
SFTor
Guest
- Status