The pro-life common sense clincher

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Don’t make promises you can’t keep Charlemagne.
You’re still asking complex questions, which is the main beef I have with your “commonsense” mantra anyway (apart from the fact that you treat me and others as if we’re imbeciles).
Your rhetoric is good, but it doesn’t follow that your argument is sound.
 
Doc Keele

(apart from the fact that you treat me and others as if we’re imbeciles).

That’s your word, not mine. To be challenged for not seeing the common sense of a concept is not to be called an imbecile. Common sense has been overcome by several generations of the nauseating mantra that the right to kill a child is a privacy right; and that the legalization of abortion is a check on the police power of the state, when in fact legalized abortion increases the police power of the state to not only execute the innocent, but defend those who do the killing.

And now the U.S. Senate wants to get on board and increase that State power of executing the innocent by using federal funds to pay for abortions.

We are fast getting to be a wicked nation … and our Senators are happy to lead the way! :mad:
 
Yes, you’re right - it’s having the same slogan repeated dozens of times which amounts to being treated like an imbecile.
And you have resorted to type.

When you’re really ready for dialogue, I’ll know.
 
Doc Keele

*Yes, you’re right - it’s having the same slogan repeated dozens of times which amounts to being treated like an imbecile. *

If you would go back over this thread from the start, you have repeated the same slogans over and over. I don’t accuse you of treating others as imbeciles. But if the *ad hominem *is your argument of choice, I think we have nothing more to say to each other.

Go in peace. 🙂
 
No, I haven’t browbeaten people with slogans:rolleyes:
Incidentally I’m not arguing ad hominem:thumbsup:
but yes, you’re right - we do have nothing to say to each other because you don’t have anything to say except your commonsense mantra:shrug:
 
Doc Keele

but yes, you’re right - we do have nothing to say to each other because you don’t have anything to say except your commonsense mantra.

Some day, God willing, the mantra will catch on throughout the world.

We do not kill our children. 🙂
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Doc Keele

but yes, you’re right - we do have nothing to say to each other because you don’t have anything to say except your commonsense mantra.

Some day, God willing, the mantra will catch on throughout the world.

We do not kill our children. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, I did warn you to not make promises you couldn’t keep.
 
Doc Keele
*
Yes, I did warn you to not make promises you couldn’t keep.*

Good luck with your academic work. God bless.

Thanks to all who participated. 👍
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Doc Keele
*
Yes, I did warn you to not make promises you couldn’t keep.*

Good luck with your academic work. God bless.

Thanks to all who participated. 👍
Click to expand...
Well, I’m not quite done just yet. I had never seen that mantra before: “We do not kill our children” and I like it very much (I mean the mantra, not the act of killing our children).

I’ve read numerous proabort rationalizations but the one that frightens me the most is: “Yes, what we kill is a human being, but it is killing of a very special sort.” (that is paraphrased from another post of mine and if anybody actually cares I’ll find it).

So we do kill our children because if they are human beings, whose children would they be, but ours as we are their mothers and fathers? We are no more civilized than those who would sacrifice an innocent human being on an altar to a pagan god. We are no more civilized today than people were when Vlad was building a new kind of fence around his huge property - a fence of people impaled.

Science has moved forward but morality hasn’t, not on a societal level. If anything it’s moved backward IMHO. Nowadays it seems that moral relativism is more popular than ever but it’s moral relativism with a twist. Now we can twitter our abortions. Remember when snuff films first came out (at least the ones we knew about)? How awful everyone felt? I remember that, but now someone has produced a twitter snuff film and is proud of it.

How far we as women have come! We have moved forward from being property of the men who have fathered us or married us for we are now free; we have the vote; we are no longer circumcised in most parts of the word; the glass ceiling is disappearing; and we kill our children. We’ve come so far just to turn around and head back into the world of immorality. We want immediate gratification and if a life is lost, who cares?

“If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one!” How’s that for an illogical mantra?
Or how about this one: “I Love My Abortion Doctor!” (seen as a bumper sticker)

During this thread I’ve noticed one poster who just puts a 🙂 for a reply. I think that means he really cannot comprehend what has been put to him, so he just smiles and forgets it. I see another poster who seems to want to take on the Church and prove her wrong, which ain’t gonna happen.

I’ve seen prolifers here try and try and it’s like we’re on some sort of turbo merry-go-round, we go round and round and up and down very quickly but we end up just where we started.

About the mantra: “We do not kill our children” - not that long ago I was talking to a group of children from about six to maybe ten years old. One of them brought up the word “abortion.” I didn’t bring it up. But suddenly all the children wanted to know what it was. I told them to ask their parents as I didn’t feel it was my place to explain to those so young, especially as I am not their mother. But they kept persisting and finally the oldest child told the others what “abortion” means. She didn’t quite have it right so I did clarify for her. I kept my conversation completely neutral. I didn’t say “some mothers actually murder their babies!” But once those children understood what abortion was they all (without exception) said “THAT’S WRONG!” and “PEOPLE SHOULDN’T DO THAT!” and “HOW CAN A MOMMY KILL HER BABY BEFORE IT’S EVEN BORN!”

I think we should pray for all children. They know and aren’t afraid to say it, even if so many adults are.

Out of the mouths of babes comes Truth…

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
jrgiancola said:
Why am I a Catholic? Because our church contains the most true and complete revelations from God: the Holy Trinity, the complete divinity and humanity of Christ, the Eucharist, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, the Papacy founded upon Christ’s commission to Peter, the Sacraments. No other church can compare, although the Orthodox churches come close. Does being a Catholic mean that I have to agree with everything the church teaches? I think not. Compare pre-Vatican II doctrines with post-Vatican II doctrines. Many ancient dogmas were either discarded or changed; the entire Mass was not only written in the vernacular, but many parts of it were changed or omitted, such as the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Our church is a living church, not a dead one like so many of the others and, being a living church, it is not afraid to re-evaluate its positions from time to time. We no longer consider Galileo a heretic; we no longer accept the “6-day creation” except as a metaphor (of course, God did create the universe, probably in six intervals of time, but certainly not in 6-24 hour days, although He could have if He had wanted to). I love our church; but I do disagree with a few of its doctrines. I have rarely met a Catholic who agrees with everything. I don’t like taking communion in my hand; should I stop taking communion? I don’t think so. As a Catholic who believes 98-99% of the church’s teachings, I think that makes me more of a Catholic than most I’ve met in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
Being a Catholic means you have to agree with Church dogma, not Church discipline. All the examples you give are examples of discipline. The pre-Vatican II Mass was a celebration of the Last Supper; the post-Vatican II Mass is a celebration of the Last Supper. Galileo didn’t even enter into Church dogma. Taking Communion in the hand? Not dogma and not even required - I’ve seen people open their mouths and take Communion that way. The important thing is that Communion is taken. That is dogma. How it is taken is discipline.

You have now met a Catholic who agrees with absolutely everything the Church teaches. But if I were to be like you I could start ripping pages out of my Catechism. Maybe I don’t like something, let’s say I don’t agree with the Church’s teaching on Immaculate Conception. This is dogma, this is a matter of faith and morals, this is very, very, very important. It’s one of the most important parts of Church dogma. But I don’t like it, so I’ll just tear out those pages and tell people I’m a Catholic and maybe even more Catholic than they are. If you think having an abortion is OK and I think the Immaculate Conception is a bunch of hooey, are you more Catholic than me?

Does that make sense to you? I’ve read a lot of your posts and I am honestly confused. I see a great love of our Holy Mother in you and that’s a love I share. Why do you compare yourself to other Catholics the way you do? Nobody is *more *Catholic than another. That’s like being more pregnant. You are either Catholic or you aren’t.

Not accepting Truth which has been shown to you by the very Church you state you are a member of and then rejecting that Truth is very frightening to me. What you have written really scares me. The Church’s stand on abortion is not discipline; it is dogma. We can disagree about disciplines all day, but not dogma. Dogma is the base of the Church - it’s what the Church is built on. It won’t change. Ever.

And any Catholic who procures an abortion or who aids another in procuring an abortion is automatically excommunicated and commits a mortal sin whenever she takes Communion. That’s why I am scared for you.

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
jrgiancola

I love our church; but I do disagree with a few of its doctrines. I have rarely met a Catholic who agrees with everything.

Only Protestants can choose the doctrines they want to believe.

A Catholic is by definition a universalist, one who believes that the truth is universal and is meant to be known by all. But truth is singular. Opposing doctrines cannot both be true. If you say you do not believe in some Catholic doctrines, you are saying the Church is fallible and not universal. Why then be a Catholic? You have set yourself up as the judge of Christ’s Church. Does that seem a little presumtutous to you?

On the other hand, there are areas of Church teachings and practice where doctrine is not settled, and discipline and practice vary from one part of the Church to the other. In these areas we are free to disagree with one practice in favor of another. You may prefer the Latin Mass to the English, or you may prefer Holy Communion on the tongue rather than in the hand. The thing to know is what is essential to believe in and what is not.

It is essential to believe that abortion is the taking of innocent human life, and that this is evil. It is important to know that the homosexual act is a grave sin. You don’t get to tell the Church what is right and what is wrong. The Church gets to tell you. You don’t get to mount a high horse and ride roughshod over Catholic doctrine. You get to be humble and say, even when it goes against your grain, “Thy will be done.” :bowdown::bible1:
 
Doc_Keele said:
That’s a logical fallacy:rolleyes:
Maybe people have just got fed up with being browbeaten by slogans???🤷
Click to expand...
What is really illogical is for you to combine two quotes (by two different people) into one and then pronounce that it is a fallacy!

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
 
LittleSoldier said:
What is really illogical is for you to combine two quotes (by two different people) into one and then pronounce that it is a fallacy!

Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
Click to expand...
The fallacy was contained only in CM’s post, so not illogical at all - just potentially confusing.
 
Worthy5

Not sure what the shrug signifies.

It’s very clear from this article that the zygote stage is the first stage of human development which follows a continuum all the way from there to old age and finally death.

All abortions are performed long after the zygote stage has begun.

From the Westchester Institute article referenced above:

From the moment of sperm-egg fusion, a human zygote acts as a complete whole,
with all the parts of the zygote interacting in an orchestrated fashion to generate the
structures and relationships required for the zygote to continue developing towards
its mature state. Everything the sperm and egg do prior to their fusion is uniquely
ordered towards promoting the binding of these two cells. Everything the zygote does
from the point of sperm-egg fusion onward is uniquely ordered to prevent further
binding of sperm and to promote the preservation and development of the zygote
itself. The zygote acts immediately and decisively to initiate a program of development
that will, if uninterrupted by accident, disease, or external intervention, proceed seamlessly
through formation of the definitive body, birth, childhood, adolescence, maturity,
and aging, ending with death. This coordinated behavior is the very hallmark of
an organism.

This passage perhaps best sums up the point of it. These facts are not in dispute within the medical community.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top