The Killer Law!

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Montalban said:
Of being *against *abortion…

I think that when the LDS say this, it’s like they’re crossing their fingers behind their backs at the same time.
😃
Click to expand...
Its almost like something out of a warner bros cartoon.
 
Montalban said:
Not per se. I guess when you’re out to diss another faith like you have little *exceptions *just get in the way:p
Click to expand...
The difference is that my disapproval of abortion is reasonable, logical, and moral; takes into consideration mitigating circumstances; and is justifiable makes good sense. Your disapproval of abortion is fanatical and blind, and is based on religious bigotry and ignorance.

zerinus
 
dolphinlove said:
well zerinus has logged off…
Click to expand...
There’s only so much avoiding issues one can do in a day! It can be very tiring to come onto these boards, make wild accusations and then have to avoid facts!

His own church gives various amounts of exceptions to his rule.
 
zerinus said:
The difference is that my disapproval of abortion is reasonable, logical, and moral; takes into consideration mitigating circumstances; and is justifiable makes good sense. Your disapproval of abortion is fanatical and blind, and is based on religious bigotry and ignorance.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Wrong again.
You think abortion, which is murder, is moral, reasonable and logical?
 
zerinus said:
Nicaragua is a Catholic country. That does not mean that the country is run by the Catholic Church; but it does mean that this law was most probably made in deference to the teachings of the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church disapproved of such a law, the least they could do is to protest against it. Silence is a sign of consent. Has the church protested? I can’t say that I know; but it appears unlikely, otherwise it would have appeared in the same news reports.

If Nicaragua’s abortion law makes no allowance for saving a woman’s life in the case of ectopic pregnancy, they’ve got the teachings of the Catholic Church dead wrong. If the law allows the treatment of ectopic pregnancy, why would the Church protest? If ectopics are legal to treat but are still going untreated, the medical profession in Nicaragua has some internal administration problems that may be beyond the scope of a Catholic Church protest to fix.

Yes they do. But if the Utah State Legislature passed a law that anyone who drank and smoked should be burned to death on the funeral pier of their drink and smoke, I am sure that the LDS Church would protest that such a law is inhumane, and would not want to have anything to do with it.

Any law that forces women to die along with their dead husbands, babies, etc. would be against Catholic teaching and subject to protest as well.

No; but given the amount of news coverage given to the subject, it is fair to say that if the Catholic Church had raised any objections to it, it would have been reported in the same news reports.

No, you have no knowledge regarding Catholic Church activity in Nicaragua, yet you make as many as three baseless assumptions on the subject. First, you assume Catholicism condemns women with life-threatening pregnancies(ie. ectopic pregnancy) to death with their babies. Hopefully we’ve busted that myth for you. Second you assume the “killer law” makes no allowance for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. We still have not verified this one way or the other. Third, you assume that “the killer law” contradicts Catholicism yet the Church does not protest. In reality, you can’t be certain there is anything to protest or, if there is, that protests haven’t already taken place.

Do you think Catholics theoretically teach treatment of life-threatening pregnancies is moral, but in practice we’re fine with women dying? Only Catholic apostates and anti-Catholics would embrace such a double standard.

I hope that I have answered that above.

zerinus
Reasonable answers, yes. I think the big question left unanswered is this: Does “the killer law” conform perfectly to authentic Catholic teaching? Until this is answered, no further dialogue is possible.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
zerinus said:
No.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Read President Hinckley’s remarks from the October, 1998 General Conference. He said “Abortion is an ugly thing, a debasing thing, a thing which inevitably brings remorse and sorrow and regret. While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth”. In other ways the LDS Church does allow abortion. In the case of incest or rape the unborn child can be murdered just because of the sin of the father! This is wrong! The child should not be punished.
 
zerinus said:
The difference is that my disapproval of abortion is reasonable, logical, and moral; takes into consideration mitigating circumstances; and is justifiable makes good sense. Your disapproval of abortion is fanatical and blind, and is based on religious bigotry and ignorance.

zerinus
Click to expand...
This is absolutely laughable. If you believe abortion is wrong, except under certain circumstances, Why is it then wrong at all?

You cannot answer this, because to do so would be to admit that abortion is murder.

But to you, if someone believes abortion IS murder under any circumstance, that person is fanatical and blind.

I think, Zerinus, you are not here to discuss the Catholic view of abortion. No, you are really here to insult. And frankly, I’m tired of it.
 
GoodDaughter said:
If Nicaragua’s abortion law makes no allowance for saving a woman’s life in the case of ectopic pregnancy, they’ve got the teachings of the Catholic Church dead wrong. . . .
Click to expand...
If so, then the Catholic Church has a moral obligation to inform them that that is the case. But evidently they haven’t.
Any law that forces women to die along with their dead husbands, babies, etc. would be against Catholic teaching and subject to protest as well.
Click to expand...
Why then haven’t they? And why everyone here keeps telling me that that is the case?
No, you have no knowledge regarding Catholic Church activity in Nicaragua, yet you make as many as three baseless assumptions on the subject. First, you assume Catholicism condemns women with life-threatening pregnancies (ie. ectopic pregnancy) to death with their babies.
Click to expand...
Well, that is the message that I am getting from the people here; and it also seems to be confirmed by what has come out of Nicaragua.
Hopefully we’ve busted that myth for you.
Click to expand...
Actually, you haven’t. The closest thing you have come to that is to suggest that the poor woman must at least suffer some form of permanent mutilation for her “indirect abortion” (your words) to be acceptable to the Catholic Church. Some consolation!
Second you assume the “killer law” makes no allowance for the treatment of ectopic pregnancy. We still have not verified this one way or the other.
Click to expand...
We have. The news reports make that clear.
Third, you assume that “the killer law” contradicts Catholicism yet the Church does not protest. In reality, you can’t be certain there is anything to protest or, if there is, that protests haven’t already taken place.
Click to expand...
I will believe it when I see it.
Reasonable answers, yes. I think the big question left unanswered is this: Does “the killer law” conform perfectly to authentic Catholic teaching? Until this is answered, no further dialogue is possible.
Click to expand...
The only people who can answer that is the Catholic Church. I am waiting for that with anxious expectation.
zerinus, I’m not saying you’re always a perfect gentleman:rolleyes: , but the recent rudeness directed your way in this thread dismays me, as a Catholic. It is a poor example of charity and I hope you can ignore it rather than reply. Ultimately, if we’re not speaking in love, what’s the point?
Click to expand...
Sometimes the only way to answer someone is to be blunt and forthright about it. Your protestations do not cut a lot of ice with me. Some people when, they start losing the argument, they start whining and complaining about how they are being treated. That is the only thing that is left for them to do.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
The difference is that my disapproval of abortion is reasonable, logical, and moral; takes into consideration mitigating circumstances; and is justifiable makes good sense. Your disapproval of abortion is fanatical and blind, and is based on religious bigotry and ignorance.

zerinus
Click to expand...
Which is your church’s logical moral stance? The one that limits exceptions to a few, or the one that includes the ‘viability’ of the foetus?
 
Montalban said:
Of being *against *abortion…

I think that when the LDS say this, it’s like they’re crossing their fingers behind their backs at the same time.
😃
Click to expand...
It’s like when they say they believe in the trinity. 😉
 
PaulDupre said:
So then, in Mormonism two wrongs DO make a right!
Click to expand...
I don’t get his argument. He says that they’re totally against abortion, but they have exceptions. For him, this still means that they’re TOTALLY against abortion.:rolleyes:

His own church’s official web-site lists exceptions on one page, then a more expanded list of exceptions on another.

Who knows if there’s still even more exceptions? :confused:
 
Wammy101 said:
oh yes, just them AND their mothers are dying.
because thats so much better.
Click to expand...
More U.S. women dying in childbirth
The U.S. maternal mortality rate rose to 13 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2004, according to statistics released this week by the National Center for Health Statistics.

The death of infants is much more common — the nation’s infant mortality rate was 679 per 100,000 live births in 2004.

Race: Studies have found that the maternal death rate in black women is at least three times greater than is it is for whites. Black women are more susceptible to complications like high blood pressure and are more likely to get inadequate prenatal care.

Quality of care: Three different studies indicate at least 40 percent of maternal deaths could have been prevented
msnbc.msn.com/id/20427256/
 
Montalban said:
So for you the real crime is that people attempting to kill an unborn happen to die themselves?
Click to expand...
So for you the loss of a wife, mother and friend is worse than the loss of a clump of cells.

Oh my god, i cannot believe i just asked that on a CATHOLIC forum no less.

my brain my just drip out of my ear.

people, i agree that abortion isnt chappy, but i do think that a woman should be given the right to CHOOSE what to do with her body.

after all, lets face it, she’s going to have to carry the child for 9 months, go through the irreversable rigours of child birth, and then either give up the child or raise a kid they weren’t prepared for.

damn some people are hypocrites.
 
Wammy101 said:
So for you the loss of a wife, mother and friend is worse than the loss of a clump of cells.

Oh my god, i cannot believe i just asked that on a CATHOLIC forum no less.

my brain my just drip out of my ear.

people, i agree that abortion isnt chappy, but i do think that a woman should be given the right to CHOOSE what to do with her body.

after all, lets face it, she’s going to have to carry the child for 9 months, go through the irreversable rigours of child birth, and then either give up the child or raise a kid they weren’t prepared for.

damn some people are hypocrites.
Click to expand...
I wonder what option Mary would have chosen if she lived in the USA?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top