So, it’s the name? Or, it is just that you think someone’s opinion changes the human quality of the unborn child?
Yes he did and hate is a strong word to use just because someone might disagree with many of their political policies.
CMatt needs to address where the logic of his argument leads, not what “some people think.”So, it’s the name? Or, it is just that you think someone’s opinion changes the human quality of the unborn child?
The zygote/embryo/fetus has distinct, human DNA. A human life has begun, and it is not a part of the mother. I won’t let the ignorance of others determine the morality of killing an innocent human being.
You’re the one who put the phrase in there. And I had already addressed the amount of support I believe there is to make slavery and pedophilia legal in the future. If you want to believe pedophilia and slavery have a chance at becoming legal in the future, you’re free to believe so.
Call “it” anything you like. But when you have your own DNA you are a person. Abortion aside, how about gay marriage, euthanasia, human cloning and fetal stem cell research? Those are also non-negotiables as far as the Church is concerned, and the Dems support all of those as well.
I actually prefer using the term “human being” because it prevents the liberal equivocation by getting into the meaning of “personhood” and “baby.” There is no way to argue against the use of “human being” because the unborn child, whether zygote, embryo or fetus, has human DNA and is a distinct “being.”
While we’re at it, we can let those who disagree with us on when human life begins, to know when science determines it has a human soul too or becomes a person with personhood rights. And some would argue if it’s not part of the mother, then it should be viable to live outside her womb.
Those “some” would be scientifically illiterate. To be “part” of the mother would mean the DNA is the same as the mother’s. The being has distinct, human DNA. Do you condone ignorance in making these decisions?
I’m not asking you what people think, I’m asking you if you see where your logic leads you. What people accept as normal has obviously changed in the past 100 years. If we accept that the unthinkable has become ok, why woud you thinkg other unthinkables like incest and pedophilia would become acceptable?
Yet if it is true that Catholics can only vote for the GOP candidate and not vote for Obama’s reelection, why does the Church not come out and say, “You must vote for his Republican opponent and not for Barack Obama”? Because surely if that were true, Christ’s one and only true Church would not withhold a truth just to avoid paying taxes.
Depends on the liberal. Not all think “it’s just fine”. Some of them have addressed this on the thread earlier.
The Church says abortion is a grave and moral sin. It is never ok to support abortion.
Right, but, to you, it’s a “personal, private decision,” right? It may not be fine with you, but, like slavery, pedophilia, etc., some people may have different moral views, and you don’t want to impose your morality on others…
Nobody ever said a Catholic could only vote for the GOP canidate. What was said (and backed up with extensive documentation) is that a Catholic can not vote for a canidate who supports abortion. It is unfortunate that this eliminates most democrats from Catholic consideration but that is the fault of the Democrat party, not the Church
But not one of them was able to reference any Church teaching to back up their opinion.
That’s a good way of putting it, Bob.
I think the problem is some people have not taken logic 101, or philosophy 101.
You’re not asking what people think but yes I see and understand where you think my logic might lead.
Only if you dismiss the words some quoted from a document put out by an entire conference of bishops which guide and teach Catholics that the bishops are not giving direction on how to vote.
Actually, estesbob hasn’t dismissed that document. He has quoted from it to clearly explain the Church’s position. The Church does give direction; she just doesn’t tell you which candidate to vote for. The fact of the matter is that pro-choice liberals completely ignore and/or twist the document to mean something it doesn’t. They put their politics ahead of Church teaching.