Trump calls out Biden on religion

[Jeanne_S]

Interesting it’s akways the individuals who have been given the opportunity to be born,have a voice,that don’t have a problem with moms taking their own babies lives in their wombs.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Do you have any kind of “drop-dead point” (no pun intended) at which you would override the woman’s right to choose? First trimester? Second trimester? Some point not married to the trimester scenario (which is basically a construct anyway)?

I suppose it would be when the child is independent, probably when he takes his first breath. If the mother is doing all the breathing for the two of them, she should be the one deciding for the two of them. Something like that I suppose.

I do not think a woman should ever choose abortion. I was hoping you would convince me that we have some authority that would justify preventing abortion. I have not heard anything along those lines.

Authority?

The natural law, the perennial teaching of God’s One True Catholic Church, from which she has never wavered one iota, the consensus of many, many Christians (and possibly not just Christians) that abortion is murder and it must be prevented — just as you would prevent any other kind of murder. I am assuming that you are a faithful Catholic loyal to the magisterium (and faithful Catholics can surely come at social questions from different angles, see different problems, and propose different solutions). The teachings of the Church regarding human life and its protection, I wouldn’t know where to begin giving citations — it’s a constant theme. Teachings of the Church vindicating the right of secular authorities to make and keep abortion a private matter, I don’t think there are any. I would stand corrected if it were demonstrated otherwise.

The idea that the unborn child only has an inalienable right to life independent of the mother is not defensible from the standpoint of constant Catholic magisterial teaching. That is really more of a Jewish concept, though I might be misunderstanding that — I have a hard time thinking that a rabbi or scholar could be confronted with the reality of a six-month fetus, so well-developed that it is already taking on a resemblance to its family, so many fine features in place, brain waves, heartbeat, nervous system, and say “no, it doesn’t have a right to life, that’s the mother’s call”.

The only defenses that remotely make sense to me, are (a) Dr Bernard Nathanson’s example, in Aborting America, of the thrashing madman tethered to the sane man drowning at sea — the sane partner can either cut the madman free, let him drown, and save himself, or he can stay tethered and they will both drown, or (b) JJ Thompson’s A Defense of Abortion, using the example of the violinist who has been tethered to a person, kidnapped by the Society of Music Lovers, who has a unique blood type which can save the violinist, and will have to stay tethered to the violinist for nine months. I would really like to see a Catholic moralist, of the stature of Dr Germain Grisez or someone like him, address both of these hypotheticals.

 

[Freddy]

Who on earth do you hang out with? The Yakuza?

 

[Freddy]

What if God allowed it?

 

[NevermoreLenore]

She, nor I, have defended abortion. We are trying to point out the reasons and thought process that leads a person to considering an abortion.

Your emotion seems to be clouding your ability to understand the other side. Understanding does not mean approval or agreement. Like your pizza guy–do we address the fact he stole on its face, or look to the reason he stole, ie hunger?

 

[NevermoreLenore]

I’m glad Almighty God is my judge and not you. He knows the good and bad of my heart and deeds. Life, morals, culpability are rarely black and white. Our Heavenly Father knows the nuances, ignorancies, emotional, and physical aspects that go into decisions we make. He is Charity. For all the defence of the unborn, I have seen very little charity. Do not say I’m supporting abortion in any form–I’m not. I just know the manner into which this discussion has unraveled and being a psychologist who understands how and why people think and act as they do, the harsh rhetoric would be more likely to push a woman away from Jesus than toward.

 

[Freddy]

Then I wonder why a late term abortion is considered worse than an early one. People seem to think there’s a difference. Could you explain why they think that way?

 

[Freddy]

How would you know it was God’s will? Maybe it could be the devil.

 

[NevermoreLenore]

Er, have you read the Old Testament? There’s a lot of killing in God’s name.

 

[Freddy]

It would come through the proper channels, ie the Church or government, like the Crusades, or the campaign against the Canaanites, like I said. Or the death penalty. It’s all laid out in Sacred Scripture.
[/quote]

So what would happen if the Trump government said you could kill certain people and then Bidden wins the election and says you can’t. Which one is following God’s wishes? How do you tell?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Then I wonder why a late term abortion is considered worse than an early one. People seem to think there’s a difference. Could you explain why they think that way?

Hope nobody minds me jumping in here.

People tend to go with what things look like, appearances, and just some gut feeling. Something that does not look the slightest bit like a human being, can more easily be dismissed, than a fetus with definite facial features, finely formed hands and feet, toes and fingers, eyes, a mouth, and so on. The more it gets to “looking like a baby”, the more natural the revulsion is. It may be a kind of “uncanny valley” thing. It’s human nature — I could dissect a frog (and have done so, both in my own schooling and in my son’s homeschooling) more easily than I could dissect a fetal pig (which I have never done).

To perceive a multi-celled conceptus as a human being, possibly (some would say “certainly”) with an immortal soul, is a theological matter, not something that would naturally occur to an observer uninformed by faith. At best they might see it as “potentially a new life”, “a new human being in the making”, and so on. Notice that people speak of “going to be a mother (or father)”, “the baby’s on the way”, “when the baby comes into the world”, and so on. They just don’t “close the spark gap” between “life-that-doesn’t-quite-seem-like-life” and “new baby” — below a certain threshold, it’s just too abstract, it just doesn’t “feel real yet”. Catholic theology does not defend this commonly held thinking one iota, but it is just the way people think, and sadly, Catholics are induced to think, see, and speak the same way by the larger secular society that molds us far, far more than we should allow it to do. They couldn’t do it without our permission.

That is why people resist late term abortion more than they resist early abortion.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Then I wonder why a late term abortion is considered worse than an early one. People seem to think there’s a difference. Could you explain why they think that way?

Hope nobody minds me jumping in here.

Not at all. Always find what you have to say worth reading.

And you are right. People, and I mean all people, consider what a woman is carrying a week before giving birth to be drastically different to that which she is carrying a week after conception. And it obviously is different. We’re talking about a fully formed baby versus a few cells.

Yes, there is an argument (well, it’s not an argument - it’s fact) that those cells are human. No disputing that. And a potential person. You or I for example. But…they are considered differently by the person who counts most. The woman who decides to have an abortion.

And I’ll go back to a personal situation I mentioned earlier. If my daughter had had a third pregnancy it would have been a serious threat to her life. So if she had found out that she was pregant and took something to end it, some people on this forum would jail her for doing that.

Needless to say I think that view is not just wrong. But abhorrent. If someone had tried to prevent her ending the pregnancy I would do anything to ensure that she could. And I really mean anything.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Yes, there is an argument (well, it’s not an argument - it’s fact) that those cells are human. No disputing that. And a potential person. You or I for example. But…they are considered differently by the person who counts most. The woman who decides to have an abortion.

I don’t know what these women think. I really would not want to push anybody to dredge up painful memories, least of all with my being a male, but I would be interested to know “did you regard the being inside of you as not quite a human life, or did you regard it that way, and if so, how were you able to justify doing what you did?”.

I would be willing to bet “well, it was legal” is an argument that would frequently be advanced.

My heart goes out to any women who have ever been in that situation, and it is not my intent to condemn or judge them. What’s done is done.

 

[Freddy]

Why do people think any abortion is ok? They aren’t, no matter what term. I don’t think one is worse than the other.
[/quote]

I’ve given you the reason. Homeschooldad has given you the reason. Ask any woman who has had an abortion and she will give you the reason.

Taking your position to the extreme, as you claim that there is no difference in ending an abortion at two weeks to killing a baby just short of being born then there wouldn’t be any difference in taking a day-after pill to shooting someone.

If there is, could you explain what that difference would be? And if there isn’t then your views will be treated as extreme and will not convince any reasonable person.

 

[pnewton]

Did we read the same post? I saw no accusation, except now yours. We really need to not use this sort of verbal bludgeon for political differences. Biden’s faith gives no pass to scrutiny and analysis.

 

[Freddy]

It was a rhetorical reply to the quoted section.

any difference in taking a day-after pill to shooting someone.

Depends on context. If they were guilty of something, or provoked the shooting (ie, were attacking the person doing the shooting), then there is a difference.

If they were just innocent people walking by, then yes, a murder is a murder. I would actually argue that the one killing the baby did something worse than the other.
[/quote]

Then you are holding to a position that would make no sense at all to the vast majority of people. Using that position from which to formulate any argument against abortion will fail. You must realise that. Anty debate must find common ground. You have no position from which to determine that common ground. You are excluding yourself from the debate.

 

[Freddy]

So if you personally think it’s a just cause then it’s God’s will. And if you don’t, it isn’t. Have I got that right?

Let’s say that you were the pilot of the Enola Gay. The government said it was OK. So you are then obliged to obey and drop the bomb.

 

[Freddy]

The Church defines Just Cause, not me. I have criteria I can use so it isn’t a personal judgement.

Yes, if the government ordered me to drop the bomb I would, because God gave the government the ability to use that. If I was filled with remorse I would go confess my sins and do what I could to prevent that from happening again.

God has ordered the obliteration of cities before.

[/quote]

And the massacre of it’s inhabitants. Including women and children.

So what if God is on both sides. Or at least both sides claim that He’s on their side. A civil war perhaps. How do you tell? It seems that you are suggesting that it would be down to your opinion (based on Church doctrine) as to whether you are justified in taking a life. Because someone on the other side would use the same argument.

How do I know who is doing God’s will?

 

[LilyM]

Thank you for a shot of Catholicism 101 (indeed, Christianity 101) here!

I’m not sure I’d endorse each and every one of your comments in this thread, but this absolutely needed to be said! Otherwise we fall back on the concept of “those values all good men hold in common” — and that’s Freemasonry. (Our whole society is basically founded on concepts not inimical to, and in some cases positively influenced by, Freemasonry, so that should come as no surprise.)

Was Jim Crow right because (possibly) a majority of Southerners favored it? Lynching? (It drew awfully big crowds sometimes, with no one standing up and saying “No! This is wrong!”.)

This discussion (or at least my part in it) is purely about appropriate (or at least workable) secular legal responses, not just about the moral rightness or wrongess of acts. Remember separation of Church and state?

I think lots of things are wrong - adultery, divorce in most cases, fornication, pornography, theft, not going to Mass on Sunday. And am more than happy to speak out on the moral wrongs of abortion and of many other things.

That doesn’t mean the best or most workable response in each and every case is to force or forbid the relevant act on pain of secular legal punishment.

What the heck, if the only way you can think of to send a message that behaviour is wrong is to criminalise it, why not simply go the whole nine yards and require everyone to do all that is required of a faithful Catholic on pain of punishment by civil law? Fine or imprison everyone who doesn’t baptise or confirm their children, or who fails go to Mass on Sundays, or who does anything else that is contrary to Church teaching in any particular. Cut out the middle man?

 

[LilyM]

Freddy:

Yes, there is an argument (well, it’s not an argument - it’s fact) that those cells are human. No disputing that. And a potential person. You or I for example. But…they are considered differently by the person who counts most. The woman who decides to have an abortion.

I don’t know what these women think. I really would not want to push anybody to dredge up painful memories, least of all with my being a male, but I would be interested to know “did you regard the being inside of you as not quite a human life, or did you regard it that way, and if so, how were you able to justify doing what you did?”.

I would be willing to bet “well, it was legal” is an argument that would frequently be advanced.

My heart goes out to any women who have ever been in that situation, and it is not my intent to condemn or judge them. What’s done is done.

I really think the sort of arguments raised would be much more likely things like

“I/We couldn’t afford to raise the child”

“My health (or possibly the child’s if it is found to have a serious genetic or other health problem) would be at serious risk if the pregnancy went ahead”

“my parents/husband/boyfriend would refuse the support I would need, and possibly be violent or kick me out of the house etc”