The rise of the religious left

[Catherine_D]

Unborn children have never had full legal recognition as persons in the history of the planet. Abortions have rarely ever been equated with the murder of legally recognized post-partum individuals, and abortion has always been tolerated–although scorned–by societies, in part, because fetuses are not and have not ever been given full recognition of personhood and legal recognition of protection. All societies have understood this and followed this general pattern.

That doesn’t make it right.

 

[larkin31]

That doesn’t make it right.

Like the argument against gay marriage, huh?

 

[Catherine_D]

Like the argument against gay marriage, huh?

No possible moral equivalence. So, no, not at all.

Babies are being murdered in numbers that make the Holocaust look like a picnic.

 

[larkin31]

No possible moral equivalence. So, no, not at all.

Babies are being murdered in numbers that make the Holocaust look like a picnic.

I did not say that they were “morally equivalent,” nor did I even suggest it. I said that the same argument is used: just because something has always been done one way, doesn’t mean that it has been right. I entirely agree!

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Babies are being murdered in numbers that make the Holocaust look like a picnic.

Tell that to the Jews. If there’s one thng that inflames them about Christian insensitivity to what they hold to be the signal historical horror to the Jews and exclusively theirs, it is to use the Holocaust as a comparison to whatever else we find repugnant. The Holocaust as a picnic? Not by a long shot to any Jew.

 

[Catherine_D]

Tell that to the Jews. If there’s one thng that inflames them about Christian insensitivity to what they hold to be the signal historical horror to the Jews and exclusively theirs, it is to use the Holocaust as a comparison to whatever else we find repugnant. The Holocaust as a picnic? Not by a long shot to any Jew.

I think you missed the point of the comment.

I’m not saying the Holocaust was a picnic, nor am I even suggesting that the murder of millions of innocent babies is a Holocaust because Jewish people have made it clear that the word Holocaust refers only to their suffering under the Third Reich.

The point is that, just going by the numbers, millions more babies have been murdered by abortion, and continue to be murdered by abortion, than Jews (and others) were ever murdered during the Holocaust.

If we are horrified by the Holocaust, and we should be, then just based on sheer numbers of murders alone we should be even more horrified by the murders of innocent babies that has occurred and continues to occur. Yet many who would assert that the Holocaust was a great evil, which it was, will also defend the practice of abortion. That’s hypocrisy pure and simple.

 

[donsnow]

Well, if Roe vs Wade did not launch an American holocaust upon hundreds of millions of unborn American citizens, show me a worse word to use for such a massacre.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Well, if Roe vs Wade did not launch an American holocaust upon hundreds of millions of unborn American citizens, show me a worse word to use for such a massacre.

Even if you think it appropriate to call it the American Holocaust or the American Shoah, it is repugnant to the Jews who consider that term exclusively theirs in referenced to the tragedy the Jews suffered at the hands of the Germans.

BTW, there were no deaths of unborn American citizens through abortion. Citizenship is bestowed at birth at the same time that the newborn becomes legally a person.

 

[GeoCyclist]

Tell that to the Jews. If there’s one thng that inflames them about Christian insensitivity to what they hold to be the signal historical horror to the Jews and exclusively theirs, it is to use the Holocaust as a comparison to whatever else we find repugnant.

I agree there is a tendency to use the word holocaust inappropriately, but I dont subscribe to the idea that the jews have exclusive ownership of the term.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I agree there is a tendency to use the word holocaust inappropriately, but I dont subscribe to the idea that the jews have exclusive ownership of the term.

You are correct, they don’t. A holocaust originally meant a burnt offering and by extension great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire. The use of the term to describe the Jewish tragedy at the hands of the Germans dates to the very late 1940s and early 50s. The term, however, is so closely identified with what the Germans did that its use otherwise borders on disregard for the feelings of the Jews.

Because of that sensitivity, and because of widespread Jewish suspicion of Christian motives in general, Christians need tread lightly when wanting to apply it to the Abortion Tragedy.

 

[Catherine_D]

BTW, there were no deaths of unborn American citizens through abortion. Citizenship is bestowed at birth at the same time that the newborn becomes legally a person.

That may be a legal definition, but, as we have seen repeatedly lately, just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. So yes, LEGALLY, millions of unborn American citizens may not have died through abortion, since they were killed before they reached the point in time where they could be legally defined as citizens under civil law.

But as Catholics we are called to listen to a higher power, and to resist unjust laws. Any law, or interpretation of law, that permits abortion is an unjust law. By that definition, which is the definition of the Church, millions of American babies, as well as babies of many other countries, have been murdered through abortion.

The legalistic approach to this topic may work for some people, as some sort of silly salve to their conscience, but it cannot work for Catholics who are required by Catholic teaching to believe/accept that life begins at conception, and that life needs to be protected until natural death. That’s the position of the Church, which, at least for Catholics, takes precedence over civil law.

Those that, for whatever reason, support an alternative position which allows abortion, separate themselves from Church teaching. As Catholics we are called to accept all that the Church has set forth as doctrine. For a Catholic to carve support of abortion rights out as some sort of exception is contrary to Catholic doctrine. That’s just a fact.

There is no rationalizing out of this fact. Any Catholic that supports abortion, or even supports a political candidate that supports abortion, separates themself from Catholic teaching on the subject of LIFE. Those that wonder about this need to talk to their Priest. For the Church, the position is unequivocal. The protection of life trumps all.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

That may be a legal definition, but, as we have seen repeatedly lately, just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. So yes, LEGALLY, millions of unborn American citizens may not have died through abortion, since they were killed before they reached the point in time where they could be legally defined as citizens under civil law.

And, it’s the law that counts.

But as Catholics we are called to listen to a higher power, and to resist unjust laws. Any law, or interpretation of law, that permits abortion is an unjust law. By that definition, which is the definition of the Church, millions of American babies, as well as babies of many other countries, have been murdered through abortion.

The Church’s definition doesn’t count in American law.

The legalistic approach to this topic may work for some people, as some sort of silly salve to their conscience,

It’s not a salve, it’s the law, whether we like it or not. We can work to have the Supremes overturn RvW, but until then, it’s accepted law.

It cannot work for Catholics who are required by Catholic teaching to believe/accept that life begins at conception, and that life needs to be protected until natural death. That’s the position of the Church, which, at least for Catholics, takes precedence over civil law.

We Catholics have to obey the law nevertheless.

Those that, for whatever reason, support an alternative position which allows abortion, separate themselves from Church teaching.

Absolutely right, but Protestants and Jews aren’t bound by Canon Law.

 

[Catherine_D]

And, it’s the law that counts.

The Church’s definition doesn’t count in American law.

It’s not a salve, it’s the law, whether we like it or not. We can work to have the Supremes overturn RvW, but until then, it’s accepted law.

We Catholics have to obey the law nevertheless.

Absolutely right, but Protestants and Jews aren’t bound by Canon Law.

My point was not about civil law.

As stated before, we are required to resist an unjust law, and any law that permits the murder of anyone, whether an unborn child or an elderly infirm person, or anyone else, is an unjust law.

For Catholics, Church teaching overrides civil law in the matter of abortion. Any Catholic who uses the excuse of the civil law permitting the murder of innocents lto justify their support of abortion is going against Church teaching. That’s just a fact. No argument regarding civil law changes that. That was the point.

 

[larkin31]

That may be a legal definition, but, as we have seen repeatedly lately, just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. So yes, LEGALLY, millions of unborn American citizens may not have died through abortion, since they were killed before they reached the point in time where they could be legally defined as citizens under civil law.

I don’t begrudge Catholics their moral opposition to abortion. But you are incorrect in claiming that aborted fetuses are “citizens.” As has been pointed out above, they are not.

Still, however anathema you think supporting abortion may be, more and more religious people are doing so. And, I predict, the US will never outlaw it again. We are a modern country of over 300 million persons, and we know that abortion has ALWAYS occurred and very frequently was winked at legally as long as it was done behind closed doors (so to speak). I read one study that estimated that 1 million back room abortions occurred in America in the 1890s. The fact of our historical hypocrisy over this, the fact of our expansion of individual rights, particularly over the medical rights of privacy and in this case for the rights of a woman over her own body, and the fact of now 40 years of relatively easy access to safe abortions means that the country will not reverse itself in this matter. The religious left is rising, in part, from this context.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Still, however anathema you think supporting abortion may be, more and more religious people are doing so. And, I predict, the US will never outlaw it again. We are a modern country of over 300 million persons, and we know that abortion has ALWAYS occurred and very frequently was winked at legally as long as it was done behind closed doors (so to speak). I read one study that estimated that 1 million back room abortions occurred in America in the 1890s. The fact of our historical hypocrisy over this, the fact of our expansion of individual rights, particularly over the medical rights of privacy and in this case for the rights of a woman over her own body, and the fact of now 40 years of relatively easy access to safe abortions means that the country will not reverse itself in this matter. The religious left is rising, in part, from this context.

As a Catholic, I believe that abortion is a sin and that Catholics may and should express their opposition to abortion and work to limiting it. I, however, also believe what Larkin said - that it’s here, it’s been here for well over a century, that most of America accepts it to some degree, and that it’s here to stay. Nowhere on earth has abortion gone from being legal to illegal.

My hope would be to see it resorted to very infrequenty, that restrictions, such as no late term abortions, be placed on it, and that an emphasis be placed on teaching the young why abstinence, for both medical and psychological reasons, is the best course of action as they become sexually aware, and why abortion is an appalling alternative to preventing pregnancy in the first place.

 

[donsnow]

Even if you think it appropriate to call it the American Holocaust or the American Shoah, it is repugnant to the Jews who consider that term exclusively theirs in referenced to the tragedy the Jews suffered at the hands of the Germans.

BTW, there were no deaths of unborn American citizens through abortion. Citizenship is bestowed at birth at the same time that the newborn becomes legally a person.

Picky picky.

Thank you, for bringing that to my attention.

 

[donsnow]

Well, as long as the “religious left” avoids quoting Karl Marx and other ungodly savants, it can rise as far up as it wants to go, as far as I’m concerned.

But, when an allegedly religious person quotes civil law and progressive propaganda, they leave religion and enter politics, imho.

Let’s leave being a political religion to Islam and Catholics don’t put political values over Church truths, OK?

 

[Catherine_D]

I don’t begrudge Catholics their moral opposition to abortion. But you are incorrect in claiming that aborted fetuses are “citizens.” As has been pointed out above, they are not.

Still, however anathema you think supporting abortion may be, more and more religious people are doing so. And, I predict, the US will never outlaw it again. We are a modern country of over 300 million persons, and we know that abortion has ALWAYS occurred and very frequently was winked at legally as long as it was done behind closed doors (so to speak). I read one study that estimated that 1 million back room abortions occurred in America in the 1890s. The fact of our historical hypocrisy over this, the fact of our expansion of individual rights, particularly over the medical rights of privacy and in this case for the rights of a woman over her own body, and the fact of now 40 years of relatively easy access to safe abortions means that the country will not reverse itself in this matter. The religious left is rising, in part, from this context.

Where did I say they were citizens? I believe others may have referred to unborn babies as citizens but I did not.

If I did, then I retract that. But I don’t believe I did. I believe I referred to them as BABIES because that is what they are. I reject the legalistic excuse. Persons who try to rationalize their support of the murder of innocent babies often resort to the legalistic justification. That doesn’t make it right or just.

As for the rest, you may be right that the law may never be overturned or reversed. That is no reason to stop trying and especially to stop pointing out to Catholics that supporting pro-abortion candidates for public office is a mortal sin.

In the end, education and truth are powerful allies in this matter. The more people learn, the more they realize that an unborn baby is not merely a collection of cells as the abortion activists like to allege. When people realize that these unborn babies are more than a collection of cells but are little tiny humans, they start to realize the truth.

I suspect a decline in abortions will occur, at least at first, due to reduced demand. The reduced demand will be a result of education and truth.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Let’s leave being a political religion to Islam and Catholics don’t put political values over Church truths, OK?

Catholics on both the left and the right do that. There aren’t Catholic values, but that someone will have trouble with them. The Pope is against abortion? He’s a reactionary. The Pope opposes the death penalty? He’s a knee-jerk liberal.

 

[larkin31]

Where did I say they were citizens? I believe others may have referred to unborn babies as citizens but I did not.

If I did, then I retract that. But I don’t believe I did. I believe I referred to them as BABIES because that is what they are.

Sorry. I conflated your answer with Don’s

As for the rest, you may be right that the law may never be overturned or reversed. That is no reason to stop trying and especially to stop pointing out to Catholics that supporting pro-abortion candidates for public office is a mortal sin.

Who said voted for a pro-choice candidate is a “mortal sin”?

When people realize that these unborn babies are more than a collection of cells but are little tiny humans, they start to realize the truth.

We have always known this. The trends are not moving your way.

I suspect a decline in abortions will occur, at least at first, due to reduced demand. The reduced demand will be a result of education and truth.

Maybe, but the trend is moving opposite to what you claim here. So I am not sure, other than “hope,” what would make you think that something else will happen. No one doubts that a zygote is the beginning of a human’s life. This has not been in debate.