United Church of Christ Pastor Blesses Planned Parenthood After It Sells Aborted Babies

[commenter]

I fully believe that the President should immediately defund planned parenthood and arrest all the individuals that participate in the mutilation of dead bodies-surely there are federal and state statutes that relate to this-it would at least shock the nation and hopefully lead to an attempt to a constitutional amendment regarding abortion ( so at least the people would get a vote on this issue)

with this said **contraception should be available to all:**mad:

Contraception goes against the Natural Law, which had been the common belief for all Christians (and Jews, and I believe Moslems). The gradual acceptance of it, beginning in 1930 with the Anglicans accepting it in rare, extreme cases, led to acceptance in all cases; which helped clear the way to abortion, and now other things.

The reality is that abortion rates are not lowered even when contraception is promoted heavily in schools, neighborhoods, etc. It is a myth that expanding access to contraception lowers abortion rates.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Contraception goes against the Natural Law, which had been the common belief for all Christians (and Jews, and I believe Moslems). The gradual acceptance of it, beginning in 1930 with the Anglicans accepting it in rare, extreme cases, led to acceptance in all cases; which helped clear the way to abortion, and now other things.

The reality is that abortion rates are not lowered even when contraception is promoted heavily in schools, neighborhoods, etc. It is a myth that expanding access to contraception lowers abortion rates.

 

[MarkInOregon]

Some Catholic countries do condemn women to jail for miscarriages and stillbirths. I would assume they are not accused of murder, but rather manslaughter. Regardless, it is the natural extension of claiming that a zygote/embryo/fetus has the same legal rights as a person who has been born – that the mother is responsible for any termination of a pregnancy. If you are going to say that life begins at conception, and that the embryo/fetus trumps the mother, then you have to hold the mother accountable for all terminations, which is what the countries that incarcerate women do.

I assumed we were speaking of america. And no it is not the logical extension of protecting the life of a living human. Manslaughter is the crime of killing a human being without malice a forethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder. In the case of miscarriage–the mother has done nothing – it occurs for who knows what reason–nature not the mother is responsible for the termination of the pregnancy. If you and I are walking around and you drop dead–I’m not guilty of manslaughter–I haven’t killed you or caused you to be killed. We hold people accountable when their actions cause death.

I don’t think it is correct to say that the unborn baby trumps the mother–rather both have an equal right to life and you can’t kill one of them to save the other. I don’t think you would allow us to kill a mothers born child by say taking its liver in order to save its mothers life would you? It would seem that in your view we could say the mother trumps the unborn child though.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

So you really see a difference between the born child on the day of it’s birth and that same child they day before in it’s mothers womb? You see enough difference in them to say the one deserves protection and that anyone should have the right to kill the other one? That until birth - no rights or protections should attach – even though these two babies are basically identical? Not looking to debate but to understand your position.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

ComplineSanFran,

Thank you for responding to the first part of my post but do you care to respond to the second part quoted above? I’m trying understand your position and how you see a difference in these two babies and what you would allow.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[simspt]

With all due respect to Catholic theology, there are nevertheless many religious and theological perspectives on when life and personhood begins so I would argue it is a defense once one comes to such an understanding that not all equate a fertilized egg or zygote, nor an embryo or fetus with the Holocaust of the Jewish people. And the UCC joins others in advocating that public policy must honor this rich religious diversity. The UCC takes the view that this is not a pro-abortion position but a pro-faith, pro-family and pro-woman position.

d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/unitedchurchofchrist/legacy_url/455/reproductive-health-and-justice.pdf?1418423872

And no. A UCC tradition was one of the first to take a stand against slavery.

ucc.org/about-us_old-firsts

What I think is that I do not walk in her shoes to be able to even begin to know what she sees herself facing as realities within her own life or within her family’s lives. Nor do I think I can get inside her conscience, as only God can, deep within where it is we are alone with God. (CCC 1776) And I then think it is best for me to leave such a decision to her and her drs, her family, her clergy, and to God. When in many cases I can imagine she struggles and prays deeply over her decision. And then most importantly of all, I think it is best to leave it to Jesus to know and judge her mind, her soul, her heart. Not for I.

But then this is just one reason why I do not hold to the Catholic faith as you do.

To all who walk in faith and to those faced with their own personal struggles and conflicted realities they find in their own sacred lives, God’s peace and blessings.

Catholics are never to honor " this rich religious diversity" that involves murdering unborn babies. Only a complete moral imbecile would do so…religious or secular

 

[Sy_Noe]

ComplineSanFran,

Thank you for responding to the first part of my post but do you care to respond to the second part quoted above? I’m trying understand your position and how you see a difference in these two babies and what you would allow.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

I can’t speak for ComplineSanFran but just speaking for myself, I’m no longer responding to questions directed to me on this thread only to see Compline or I then be attacked with such accusations of “false prophets”, “nonsense”, “ludicrous” or that I favor “murdering unborn babies” and that only a “complete moral imbecile” would do so. Accusations of those types do nothing to win me over. In fact they do the opposite. Besides I know ComplineSanFran already explained the pro choice Christian view way back there in posts #48 and #52. And then in the very next post after 52 it was proclaimed everything in Compline’s post was “ludicrous”. I’m not referring to you personally, Mark, but it’s impossible for me, at least, to carry on a discussion in such an environment. And as Compline wisely said, we’re not going to come to an accord anyway. Peace and God’s blessings.

(Forgive me Peter Plato for posting)

 

[Michael1978]

I can’t speak for ComplineSanFran but just speaking for myself, I’m no longer responding to questions directed to me on this thread only to see Compline or I then be attacked with such accusations of “false prophets”, “nonsense”, “ludicrous” or that I favor “murdering unborn babies” and that only a “complete moral imbecile” would do so. Accusations of those types do nothing to win me over. In fact they do the opposite. Besides I know ComplineSanFran already explained the pro choice Christian view way back there in posts #48 and #52. And then in the very next post after 52 it was proclaimed everything in Compline’s post was “ludicrous”. I’m not referring to you personally, Mark, but it’s impossible for me, at least, to carry on a discussion in such an environment. And as Compline wisely said, we’re not going to come to an accord anyway. Peace and God’s blessings.

(Forgive me Peter Plato for posting)

I notice that you have some quotes from Pope Francis in your signature. I leave you with some of his quotes on life:

It is God who gives life. Let us respect and love human life, especially vulnerable life in a mother’s womb.

All life has inestimable value even the weakest and most vulnerable, the sick, the old, the unborn and the poor, are masterpieces of God’s creation, made in his own image, destined to live forever, and deserving of the utmost reverence and respect.

Let’s say ‘Yes’ to life and ‘No’ to death.

Every child who, rather than being born, is condemned unjustly to being aborted, bears the face of Jesus Christ, bears the face of the Lord, who even before he was born, and then just after birth, experienced the world’s rejection. And every elderly person…even if he is ill or at the end of his days, bears the face of Christ. They cannot be discarded, as the “culture of waste” suggests!

Unfortunately, what is thrown away is not only food and dispensable objects, but often human beings themselves, who are discarded as ‘unnecessary.’ For example, it is frightful even to think there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day; children being used as soldiers, abused and killed in armed conflicts; and children being bought and sold in that terrible form of modern slavery which is human trafficking, which is a crime against humanity.

Among the vulnerable for whom the church wishes to care with particular love and concern are unborn children, the most defenseless and innocent among us. Nowadays efforts are made to deny them their human dignity and to do with them whatever one pleases, taking their lives and passing laws preventing anyone from standing in the way of this.

…Precisely because this involves the internal consistency of our message about the value of the human person, the church cannot be expected to change her position on this question… It is not ‘progressive’ to try to resolve problems by eliminating a human life…

The fight against abortion is “part of the battle in favor of life from the moment of conception until a dignified, natural end. This includes the care of the mother during pregnancy, the existence of laws to protect the mother postpartum, and the need to ensure that children receive enough food, as well as providing healthcare throughout the whole length of life…"

The right to life is the first human right. Abortion is killing someone that cannot defend him or herself.

Human life is sacred and inviolable. Every civil right is based on the recognition of the first, fundamental right, the right to life, which is not subject to any condition, of a qualitative, economic and certainly not of an ideological nature.

It is necessary to reaffirm our solid opposition to any direct offense against life, especially when innocent and defenseless, and the unborn child in its mother’s womb is the quintessence of innocence. Let us remember the words of Vatican Council II: “Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.”

 

[estesbob]

. Besides I know ComplineSanFran already explained the pro choice Christian view way back there in posts #48 and #52.
(Forgive me Peter Plato for posting)

He didn’t explain it. He did a very poor job of trying to rationalize how a Christian can support abject evil . Archbishop Chaput summed up this attitude best:

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide.* Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an ***Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

 

[Michael1978]

He didn’t explain it. He did a very poor job of trying to rationalize how a Christian can support abject evil . Archbishop Chaput summed up this attitude best:

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide.* Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an ***Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

And the argument that “well, that’s what you Catholics believe, other Christians believe differently” is pure hogwash. They may indeed believe differently, but they are not Christians. I make no apology for that statement either. I don’t mean it uncharitably, but sometimes the truth is painful.

21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.’

Matthew 7:21-23

 

[estesbob]

And the argument that “well, that’s what you Catholics believe, other Christians believe differently” is pure hogwash. They may indeed believe differently, but they are not Christians. I make no apology for that statement either. I don’t mean it uncharitably, but sometimes the truth is painful.

Matthew 7:21-23

I don’t think it is productive to get into a semantics argument as to what constitutes a Christian.

The problem I have with denominations who now accept abortion is that not a single one of them did 75 years ago. in fact most have come to embrace abortion only in the last 30 years. So either morality is fungible OR they have surrendered to the mores of the current culture. Of course this has been the problem with our separated brethren since the so called reformation. Basically they create a god in their own image and likeness-one who just happens to approve of whatever it is they want to believe. And if their beliefs come to conflict with the current culture they just mint a new set of beliefs.
We have seen this, for example, with abortion, contraception and homosexuality.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I don’t think it is productive to get into a semantics argument as to what constitutes a Christian.

The problem I have with denominations who now accept abortion is that not a single one of them did 75 years ago. in fact most have come to embrace abortion only in the last 30 years. So either morality is fungible OR they have surrendered to the mores of the current culture. Of course this has been the problem with our separated brethren since the so called reformation. Basically they create a god in their own image and likeness-one who just happens to approve of whatever it is they want to believe. And if their beliefs come to conflict with the current culture they just mint a new set of beliefs.
We have seen this, for example, with abortion, contraception and homosexuality.

You have stated exactly what our pastor talked about last Sunday.This was in reference to the gospel.So many disciples walking away from Christ because he did’t fit into their idea of what they wanted him to be. So yes,this mindset is exactly why we have some 30,000 Christain faith.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I can’t speak for ComplineSanFran but just speaking for myself, I’m no longer responding to questions directed to me on this thread only to see Compline or I then be attacked with such accusations of “false prophets”, “nonsense”, “ludicrous” or that I favor “murdering unborn babies” and that only a “complete moral imbecile” would do so. Accusations of those types do nothing to win me over. In fact they do the opposite. Besides I know ComplineSanFran already explained the pro choice Christian view way back there in posts #48 and #52. And then in the very next post after 52 it was proclaimed everything in Compline’s post was “ludicrous”. I’m not referring to you personally, Mark, but it’s impossible for me, at least, to carry on a discussion in such an environment. And as Compline wisely said, we’re not going to come to an accord anyway. Peace and God’s blessings.

(Forgive me Peter Plato for posting)

I’ll forgive you when you show that Compline’s claim – (paraphrased) that if any state here in the US passes a personhood law, it would follow that women would also be criminalized when a pregnancy is terminated, either voluntarily or non-voluntarily – is NOT pure nonsense and an obvious use of scare tactics.

Your due diligence is also now due!

You can’t come on a forum making far-fetched claims hoping no one will notice and then try to defend those claims by complaining that those who do notice are “attacking” you.

You want an appeal to pity to cushion you against other’s comments, well perhaps the same pity ought to serve to “win you over” with regard to the fate of the unborn who undergo much worse treatment than a bit of verbal abuse on a largely anonymous Internet forum.

 

[MarkInOregon]

I can’t speak for ComplineSanFran but just speaking for myself, I’m no longer responding to questions directed to me on this thread only to see Compline or I then be attacked with such accusations of “false prophets”, “nonsense”, “ludicrous” or that I favor “murdering unborn babies” and that only a “complete moral imbecile” would do so. Accusations of those types do nothing to win me over. In fact they do the opposite. Besides I know ComplineSanFran already explained the pro choice Christian view way back there in posts #48 and #52. And then in the very next post after 52 it was proclaimed everything in Compline’s post was “ludicrous”. I’m not referring to you personally, Mark, but it’s impossible for me, at least, to carry on a discussion in such an environment. And as Compline wisely said, we’re not going to come to an accord anyway. Peace and God’s blessings.

(Forgive me Peter Plato for posting)

Sy Noe,

I understand. I have read posts #48 and #52 and I am seeking understanding/clarification of the position articulated. Particularly the idea that they are not a human deserving of any protection or right to life until they are born. I am interested in the difference those articulating/supporting that idea see between a baby on the day of its birth and that same baby on the day before its birth–the idea that one deserves protection and that the other should be able to be killed at the hands of an abortionist. I of course understand your reluctance to answer given the nature of some responses. We may not come to accord but perhaps we could come to greater understanding of each others positions.

The peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[7_Sorrows]

I notice that you have some quotes from Pope Francis in your signature. I leave you with some of his quotes on life:

thank you for posting those quotes Michael.

 

[7_Sorrows]

He didn’t explain it. He did a very poor job of trying to rationalize how a Christian can support abject evil . Archbishop Chaput summed up this attitude best:

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide.* Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an ***Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

I cannot say enough good things about Archbishop Chaput. Thanks for posting this quote.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Perhaps the crux of the matter is that I (and others) believe that a living human being starts at birth, not at conception. That is why birth certificates are issued and legal personhood begins. We do not baptize until after birth. We do not allow rights in our social structure until after birth. That is why we do not condemn to jail women who have miscarriages or stillbirths. That is why we, unlike some countries, allow abortions to be legal. Judaism says life begins with breath. I agree.

I agree that this is the crux of the question–how we define a human life. Once a person is redefined as less than a person it becomes very easy, even logical, to take away their fundamental human rights, enslave them, and kill them. My thought on the matter is that if there is a question about whether a pre-born child is a person or not, we should, as a practical matter, err on the side of assuming that s/he is a person. Doing the opposite would amount to gross negligence, even reckless conduct, on our part as a society.

Also, I believe that under the rationale in Roe v. Wade, the determining factor was not “personhood” per se, but a child’s viability outside of the womb. Thus, when an unborn child reached an age of development where it could live outside of her mother’s uterus, she was entitled to greater protections under the Constitution, but those unborn who were less developed and could not survive on their own were not granted equal protection under the law. It always seemed odd to me that the weakest were given the least protection. Usually, laws in the United States are enacted to protect the most weak and vulnerable. While I recognize out of fairness that in many instances women who find themselves in an unwanted pregnancy are among the less powerful in our society, and that such a situation is a tragedy, those whose lives are ended in abortion are certainly much more vulnerable. And I have to ask myself the question: Killing the most vulnerable (child) in an attempt to protect a vulnerable (mother) is advancing whose interests?

The only answer I can come up with: It advances the most powerful interests at play in a contraceptive society that uses sex to sell… everything.

Peace,
Robert

 

[estesbob]

I cannot say enough good things about Archbishop Chaput. Thanks for posting this quote.

We were sorry to lose him in Colorado. I hope he has a red hat in his future!

 

[Jeanne_S]

We were sorry to lose him in Colorado. I hope he has a red hat in his future!

I second that!

 

[7_Sorrows]

We were sorry to lose him in Colorado. I hope he has a red hat in his future!

I hope he has a red hat in the future too. I hope during the Pope’s visit to Philadelphia he will have time to visit with Chaput.