Vatican: Catholics Who Back Abortion Shouldn't Take Communion

[Mom_of_one]

Bella3502:

The idea of criminalizing abortion again and telling women that their babies will be adopted is ludicrous, and a big fat lie.

For every white couple that adopts a non white baby here, hundreds go overseas to adopt from Romania, and China…etc. This is reality. You don’t have to agree.

For example, how many white couples go to Africa and adopt children/ babies with AIDS? Very very few. But these same couples pay top dollar to Baby brokers for children with matching skin color. That, to me is sad.

You can count me as one of the “whites” who is planning to adopt a “non-white” child. I want to adopt a child with AIDS. At this point, it is only an issue of money. I’ve also considered adopting a child with Down’s syndrome. And I already have a child that is being worked up for autism. (He’s my birth child) And I am a single woman. I also took care of a child who is black with AIDS, who was adopted by a white woman. My aunt has two children of mixed race—one is bi-racial and one is black, white, and American Indian.

It does happen.

 

[Mom_of_one]

Bella3502:

The abortion problem will never be resolved by making it illegal again.

It may never be resolved until Jesus returns, but there is no reason to say that it can’t be lessened by making it illegal. If you make it harder for an abortion to happen, then a woman who “needs” one will be less likely to get one.

Legality has only made the “abortion problem” worse.

 

[legeorge]

OneLife2live:

Bella3502:

Why not add artificial birth control to the list?

People will use artificial birth control

, and then take Communion unless you stop them. At the beginning of each Mass, it should be made clear that if you use any form of contraception not sanctioned by the Church, then you ARE NOT to take Communion, period.

And we can also add, People who miss mass on Sunday should refrain from receiving Communion the next time unless they go to confession first.

I see the Communion lines dwindling down… :twocents:

That’s exactly right!!! What is this so hard to understand? This is not banning people from communion forever! We have confessionals, people!! We need to start using them! No One should be accepting communion with mortal sin on their souls! This is the whole point of this 88 page working document which, BTW, is for use in a synod of bishops to be held in October. So I assume we will have more information on it after that. Why, pray tell, are the confession lines so small and the communion lines so long that we need all these EMHCs? Because the teaching is not there. That is what this document is trying to bring to light. People need re-catechized in this country. It is a terrible problem. This article only brings out some of the more pressing issues of the day.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

legeorge:

That’s exactly right!!! What is this so hard to understand? This is not banning people from communion forever! We have confessionals, people!! We need to start using them! No One should be accepting communion with mortal sin on their souls! This is the whole point of this 88 page working document which, BTW, is for use in a synod of bishops to be held in October. So I assume we will have more information on it after that. Why, pray tell, are the confession lines so small and the communion lines so long that we need all these EMHCs? Because the teaching is not there. That is what this document is trying to bring to light. People need re-catechized in this country. It is a terrible problem. This article only brings out some of the more pressing issues of the day.

All good points, but you haven’t addressed the primary objection, which is that we pick and choose which sins we enforce. We go bonkers over unusual sex life, but say nothing of people with chronic anger problems who go to parish meetings and openly curse their brothers ten minutes after receiving the Eucharist. I’ve seen priests lose their patience right after Mass.

Why don’t we take sins of the heart as seriously as sins of the flesh? Two reasons I’m guessing. One is that we don’t presume to control anger because it’s too much to expect from Christians (and beside Christ got angry once so it’s OK to be constantly upset with other brothers while presenting our sacrifices) and besides we don’t want to open that can of worms. Second, sometimes I think we just haven’t gotten over the mentality that we want Jesus to look the other way just once so we can cast that first stone at the prostitute.

I suppose we do it based on the percent chance of confidence we have that certain externally observable behavior indicates an actual occasion of mortal sin. By the Church’s infallible teachings on mortal sin, there are factors that go into making a sin mortal that cannot be discerned by a human being. To say that I can objectively know another person has mortally sinned is to say that I’m either St. Pio or the Church has contradicted herself.

Alan

 

[Ani_Ibi]

AlanFromWichita:

To say that I can objectively know another person has mortally sinned is to say that I’m either St. Pio or the Church has contradicted herself.Alan

Which are the venial sins? Which are the mortal sins?

 

[Bella3502]

Projective identification. Correction: you are not us.

A very extreme point of view unsubstantiated by the evidence. By the way responding to a statistical analysis by implying variables which you have determined arbitrarily, doesn’t cut it. Are you suggesting that hospitals do not keep records on their procedures and that such a practice is chosen solely on the basis of white clientele?

In the upper class (rich) parts of town - yes… Happens every day. Money talks and protects the privacy of those who can afford it.

My point - Roe v Wade will not be overturned. We must find other ways to reduce the need for abortion.

 

[legeorge]

All good points, but you haven’t addressed the primary objection, which is that we pick and choose which sins we enforce. We go bonkers over unusual sex life, but say nothing of people with chronic anger problems who go to parish meetings and openly curse their brothers ten minutes after receiving the Eucharist. I’ve seen priests lose their patience right after Mass.

I don’t think the Church picks and chooses. It is all quite clearly defined in the CCC and the Bible. However, it is necessary for the Church to comment on the grevious evils we are facing in this culture. If people can’t even understand that they absolutely cannot support things such as abortion and euthanasia, which are so obviously evil, how are we to convince them of the seriousness of losing their temper?

Why don’t we take sins of the heart as seriously as sins of the flesh? Two reasons I’m guessing. One is that we don’t presume to control anger because it’s too much to expect from Christians (and beside Christ got angry once so it’s OK to be constantly upset with other brothers while presenting our sacrifices) and besides we don’t want to open that can of worms. Second, sometimes I think we just haven’t gotten over the mentality that we want Jesus to look the other way just once so we can cast that first stone at the prostitute.

You may be correct about this somewhat, but I think serious Catholics, who truly wish to do God’s will and try to hold fast to the teachings of the Church take all sin very seriously. I, myself, have to confess losing my temper with my children or husband. I recognize this as sin. But when you are dealing with a morally relativistic society, it is necessary to state the obvious things, don’t you think?

I suppose we do it based on the percent chance of confidence we have that certain externally observable behavior indicates an actual occasion of mortal sin. By the Church’s infallible teachings on mortal sin, there are factors that go into making a sin mortal that cannot be discerned by a human being. To say that I can objectively know another person has mortally sinned is to say that I’m either St. Pio or the Church has contradicted herself.

Alan

That is true, except in the case of politicians who openly support grave evil while saying they are Catholic. This causes scandal, which needs to be nipped in the bud. There is nothing hidden about it. It is quite out there in the open, and if allowed to continue, sends many down the slippery slope of the culture of death. Some grave offenses are quite visible, while others, may be hidden. Why should the Church not teach about those that are causing scandal? This kind of sounds like the logic that was used in catechizing my generation. "We shouldn’t talk so much about sin. It’s not our job to ‘judge’, Let’s just talk about how Jesus loves us all no matter what."etc. etc. All that got us was a bunch of poorly catechized Easter/Christmas Catholics who vote for abortion and euthanasia while boo-hooing about the shortage of priests.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

My point - Roe v Wade will not be overturned. We must find other ways to reduce the need for abortion.

I my not be necessary to overturn RvW. Circumventing it may be enough.

 

[Bella3502]

Momofone:

You can count me as one of the “whites” who is planning to adopt a “non-white” child. I want to adopt a child with AIDS. At this point, it is only an issue of money. I’ve also considered adopting a child with Down’s syndrome. And I already have a child that is being worked up for autism. (He’s my birth child) And I am a single woman. I also took care of a child who is black with AIDS, who was adopted by a white woman. My aunt has two children of mixed race—one is bi-racial and one is black, white, and American Indian.

It does happen.

I applaud you… and your efforts.

I never said that it didn’t happen. It just doesn’t happen enough. :clapping:

 

[Traditional_Ang]

In the upper class (rich) parts of town - yes… Happens every day. Money talks and protects the privacy of those who can afford it.

My point - Roe v Wade will not be overturned. We must find other ways to reduce the need for abortion.
[/quote]

Bella:

You haven’t answered my question as to whether or not the Fetus is a Human Being who has a Right to Life which requires that we work toward the overturning of Roe v. Wade which denies the Fetus that right if the mother decides her Right to Privacy" supercedes the Fetuses Right to Life.

Bella, is the Fetus a Human Being who has a Right to Life which must be legally protected over and against the mother’s “Right to Privacy” or any Property Rights she might choose to claim since the Fetus is residing in her body?

Or, Are you saying the fetus’s Right to Life is dependant on the wishes of the mother by reason of his/her location and state of development?

I can’t see how these questions can remain unanswered, as they are basic to the discussion at hand, and their answers naturally require certain responses from those providing those answers.

So, Bella, is the Fetus a Human Being? or, Is it not? When do you believe the fetus becomes a Human being? Based on what?

After the Turncoat Betrayal of early June, I also have my doubts as to whether or not we can provide a set of Justices on the Supreme court whose view of the Constitution will allow them to Reverse or Overturn Roe V. Wade. but, Because I’m sure that the Fetus is a Human being created in God’s image, I know that I have to do my best to help bring about the conditions that will lead to just those conditions where the Justices will overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue to the states.

I’m enough of a realist to know that my work won’t be finished when that is done, but I know that I have to do everything I can to bring that about.

It’s called “The Duty to stop the slaughter of the Innocent”. It’s the same duty that compelled Cardinal Roncalli and Pope Pius XII to hide Jews from the Nazis in WW II. Howver, unlike Cardinal Roncalli and Pope Pius XII, we live in a Republic which gives us a voice in the laws of our states and our country, and processes to change and challenge them.

So, Bella, will you help? or, will you just stand there and say that Roe v. Wade can’t be overturned?

Blessed are they who act to stop the slaughter of the Innocent, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Michael:

I seem to recall that Cardinal Sedano was disciplined by Pope John Paul II and disgraced for precisely these sorts of actions…

## Question: so what was Cardinal Sodano doing, giving a Papal knighthood to a “pro-abortion” politician ?

… Since Pope John Paull II vocally expressed his disaproval for the granting of that Knighthood both before and after the granting of the award, and since the Pope did “Call Cardinal Sedano on the Carpet”, I don’t see how you can say that the Pope gave that politician the honor you’re refering to.

If you’re refering to the awarding of an award to a DIFFERENT Pro-Abortion polition by the Pope himself, I’m all ears. Otherwise, I see no reason to hold any Prelate responsible for those actions taken by people under his authority when they act contrary to his stated orders and/or desires.
Gottle of Geer:

It just does not make sense to get in a flap about evil “pro-abortion” politicians, when one of them gets an honour from the Pope. The denunciations sound very unconvincing, because the Church is being very inconsistent, in saying one thing to one lot of of people, and then torpedoing that by honouring someone who represents what it claims, so energetically & explicitly, to reject. This sort of inconsistency is exactly what Tony Blair gets up to.

Since the “Inconsistency” you referred to hasn’t existed with either Pope John Paul II with Pope Benedict XVI, I don’t see how you can see how you would say THEIR denunciations don’t sound convincing, esp. since neither was involved with the award you spoke about above, and both publicly disapproved of the award.

If you’re trying to say that various Bishops of the Catholic Church often torpedo the Gospel and the Culture of Life by their inconsistent stands on behalf of Life and against Death, you’re probably right, and you won’t get an argument from me on that issue.

Michael, I believe that people have been attracted to both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI because of their consistency coupled with compassion. For 27 years, they’ve both stood for the Truth, and they’ve done so in love (or Christian Agape).
Gottle of Geer:

Result: not a lot of respect for authorities which can so spectacularly wrong-foot themselves. God bless Benedict XVI, and save him from such disastrous behaviour ##

Since salvation involves realising that one is under the very same condemnation as those whom one criticises, so that both alike may receive grace and mercy, it’s tolerably easy - and very comfortable - to guess what He might say ​

I am well aware that salvation has a, “But for the grace of God…,” And, that but for a certain Orthodox Rabbi and a multiple truckloads of Grace poured on me as I struggled through the doors, I would be in an even worse situation than the Pro-Abortion politicians the Pope is trying to bring to repentence.

But, if Pro-Abortion Politicians and Abortionists going to be brought to repentence (and the teaching of the Church is clear regarding where their actions are taking them - the same place mine were taking me), the Pope and the Bishops of the church have to use ALL the tools at the Church’s disposal, and at the same time, they can’t allow them to eat and drink judgment on themselves (1 Cor 12 - You know the passage). That would be a violation of the the prophetic part of their office, that part of their office which requires them to warn us when they see us getting near danger.

The fact that many leaders of the Church have failed to live up to that part of the office doesn’t make the requirement null and void. It only means that our leaders have failed to warn us when they should have.

Blessed are they who act to stop the slaughter of the Innocent, Michael

 

[Bella3502]

Lisa4Catholics:

Why?I want to hear you reasons for saying this:ehh: Why?

Making abortion illegal will NOT stop women from seeking them. And they will get them by any means available. But here is where the race card comes in again>>>> Rich women will still be able to see their nice doctors in their nice Beverly Hills clinics where they will get abortions in safe sterile surroundings. The poor minority woman will go back to the coat hanger and most likely end up somewhere bleeding to death.

There are no easy answers to the problem of abortion. Making it illegal for the poor (which is what most Catholics advocate) is not a solution.

 

[Bella3502]

Bella:

You haven’t answered my question as to whether or not the Fetus is a Human Being who has a Right to Life which requires that we work toward the overturning of Roe v. Wade which denies the Fetus that right if the mother decides her Right to Privacy" supercedes the Fetuses Right to Life.

I don’t know the answer.

But I do know that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned.

Bella, is the Fetus a Human Being who has a Right to Life which must be legally protected over and against the mother’s “Right to Privacy” or any Property Rights she might choose to claim since the Fetus is residing in her body?

Again, I don’t know.

Or, Are you saying the fetus’s Right to Life is dependant on the wishes of the mother by reason of his/her location and state of development?

I would have to say that this is a true statement, at least for now.

I can’t see how these questions can remain unanswered, as they are basic to the discussion at hand, and their answers naturally require certain responses from those providing those answers.

So, Bella, is the Fetus a Human Being? or, Is it not? When do you believe the fetus becomes a Human being? Based on what?

I honestly don’t know the answer

After the Turncoat Betrayal of early June, I also have my doubts as to whether or not we can provide a set of Justices on the Supreme court whose view of the Constitution will allow them to Reverse or Overturn Roe V. Wade. but, Because I’m sure that the Fetus is a Human being created in God’s image, I know that I have to do my best to help bring about the conditions that will lead to just those conditions where the Justices will overturn Roe v. Wade and return the issue to the states.

You lost me after Turncoat Betrayal of early June… Huh

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Bella3502:

Making abortion illegal will NOT stop women from seeking them. And they will get them by any means available. But here is where the race card comes in again>>>> Rich women will still be able to see their nice doctors in their nice Beverly Hills clinics where they will get abortions in safe sterile surroundings. The poor minority woman will go back to the coat hanger and most likely end up somewhere bleeding to death.

There are no easy answers to the problem of abortion. Making it illegal for the poor (which is what most Catholics advocate) is not a solution.

You know what:nope: You just took this too far Catholics, want abortion illegal for rich and poor Do you want to know why? Because it is murder plain and simple:nope: Whether it is a rich mother or a poor mother,the result is a dead baby and it is wrong!Whatever gave you the idea that Catholics only want to “take abortion away from the poor?”

 

[dennisknapp]

Bella3502:

I don’t know the answer.

But I do know that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned.

If you don’t know the answer then the following applies to you: (this is from another thread I started at:forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=52922)

Many in our current culture argue that abortion is a moral choice, whether by those in support of abortion, who claim it is immoral to take choice away from the women, or those against abortion who claim it is immoral to kill an innocent person.

What is not dealt with enough (in my opinion) is knowledge. I believe we, on the prolife side, tend to argue in away that speaks past those we are trying to convince.

What I purpose is using the argument of choice against those who are pro-choice. How do we do this? Here is my method.

What is needed to make an adequate moral choice?

a. The ability to make the choice, i.e., it cannot be forced.

b. Having the adequate knowledge necessary to insure the choice being made is not immoral, i.e., knowing the status of the unborn.

c. The more sever the choice, the greater the need for knowledge.

d. If all three criteria are met, we can be certain an immoral decision has not been made.

Examples of why knowledge is needed to make an adequate choice. (Taken from peterkreeft.com)

Either the unborn are persons, or not; and either we know what it is, or not.

1. that it is not a person and we know that,
2. that it is a person and we know that,
3. that it is a person but we do not know that, and
4. that it is not a person and we do not know that.

What is abortion is each of the cases?

In case (1) abortion is perfectly permissible. We know it is not a person, therefore it is not immoral to abort it.

In case (2) abortion is murder. For killing an innocent person knowing it is an innocent person is murder.

In case (3) abortion is manslaughter, for it is killing an innocent person not knowing and intending the full, deliberate extent of murder.

In case (4) abortion is criminal negligence, for even if abortion kills what is not in fact a person, but the killer does not know for sure that it is not a person, the result is criminal negligence.

In all cases, expect when it is known with certainty that the unborn is not a person, abortion is an immoral choice.

Why?

The knowledge needed to make the choice a moral choice is non-existent. Remember, we not only need the ability to choose, but the knowledge necessary to make an adequate moral choice.

Our current situation:

Of the four cases just stated our current situation falls under either case three or four, and in both cases abortion is an immoral choice.

How?

Let’s use an example form the real world. Say you and a friend go hunting in the woods and you both split up. After an hour or so you spot a sudden movement in a bush. It could be a dear or it could be your friend. What do you do? If you shoot the bush and it is your friend you have just committed manslaughter. If it is not your friend and but dear, you still have committed an immoral choice because it could have been your friend. Your choice was not moral, just lucky!

Conclusion, abortion is only a moral choice if and only if we know that the unborn is not a person and it is not.

By fucusing on choice and what makes a choice moral we can show that the current pro-choice argument is not “pro” choice at all, but an immoral counterfeit.

Peace

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Bella:

This is a conversation being carried out by people who have thought long and hard over this very issue, and I believe that you will find out that most of those on the Pro-Life side have done the most thinking…

I think those who don’t know have a duty to read and do the research. I would advise that, at some point, you find a solidly orthodox Priests and get the Scriptures on these - God says that he knew us before he formed us in our mother’s womb. Elizabeth greeted the Blessed Virgin Mary with, "Who am I that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" when Jesus wasn’t even 3 months in utero! and, She claimed that John who was in her womb, recognized the coming of Mary and Jesus!

Just so you know, Scripture, and the sayings of the Early Church Fathers, are full of things like this!

If you’re a Catholic, or an Anglican, you have to accept that testimony as inspired of God and TRUE…

Bella3502:

I don’t know the answer.

But I do know that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned.

Again, I don’t know.

This is what Margaret Sanger had to say:
Margaret Sanger quotes
eadshome.com/MargaretSanger.htm

The Truth about Margaret Sanger
blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

Feminists for Life
feministsforlife.org/

This is from a woman who had several abortions:
Pro-Choice versus Pro-Life Fetus versus Baby - Looking at the debate from a different angle
illinoisrighttolife.org/ProChoiceVsProLife.htm

This is from an Abortionist:
Reaper of an Inner Harvest: A look at an abortion provider
cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?183

FIRST GLIMPSE - Prenatal Imaging
firstglimpseusa.com/

Galleries of Images of Aborted Children
priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/index.htm

The Partial Birth Abortion Procedure
priestsforlife.org/partialbirth.html#showit

Abortion staff ignores baby boy born alive?
worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43962

I would have to say that this is a true statement, at least for now.

The questions aren’t - Can Roe v. Wade be overturned? and, Do you feel the Law will continue to allow women to decide their “Right to Privacy” and Convenience are more important than the Baby’s Right to Life?

I knew your answer to those questions before I asked. I’m NT an attorney - David Levy was. So I ask Questions to get answers I hope I don’t know…

Allow me to ask it this way - Do you believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned? Are you willing to work for it’s repeal?

Do you believe that the Baby has a natural Right to Life which must be recognized by law (as in “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all humans are created by their Creator and are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, among them, the Rights of LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”)? or, Do you believe that the only rights that unborn babies should have are those allowed by their mothers (i.e “Mater Familias”)?

I honestly don’t know the answer

The purpose of this is so that you will do the research needed to know the Truth and, by knowing the Truth, know the answer.

color=darkred]You lost me after Turncoat Betrayal of early June

… Huh

If you relied on the MSM, you didn’t realize that most of the manuevering during May and June was for he purpose of placing Judges in position where they would be able to, by strictly applying the actual words of the Constitution and intent of the framers, to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That’s why the Democrats were Filibustering all of those Judicial Nominees - because the Pro-Abortion activists who pay the DNC’s bills and supply most of the hardcore activists demanded that these judges be kept out of position at all costs.

The Republicans were on the verge of breaking the Judicial Filibuster, which had NEVER been used as the Democrats have been using it for the past 4 years when the “Gang of 14” (7 Democrats and 7 Republicans) saved the day for the Judicial Filibuster and for Roe v. Wade.

What the Gang of 14 did was equivalent to allowing to the Werhmacht to escape right after the Battle of Kursk and then sending them all the prisoners and equipment that was captured over the previous 6 months of Red Army victories. It was about as bad as it gets.

I’m shocked that we may still have a shot just by replacing one solid pro-Roe vote with someone who may pursuade someone else (Kennady or Souter) across.

Blessed are they who act to save the Innocent, Michael

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Bella3502:

Making abortion illegal will NOT stop women from seeking them. And they will get them by any means available. But here is where the race card comes in again>>>> Rich women will still be able to see their nice doctors in their nice Beverly Hills clinics where they will get abortions in safe sterile surroundings. The poor minority woman will go back to the coat hanger and most likely end up somewhere bleeding to death.

There are no easy answers to the problem of abortion. Making it illegal for the poor (which is what most Catholics advocate) is not a solution.

The Catholic Church does not advocate making abortion illegal for the poor. The Catholic Church advocates the Gospel of Life. Not part of it. All of it. No back doors.

I’ve already addressed your coat hanger argument. You have ignored my response.

The coat hanger argument rests on the (false) assumption that social norms are exactly the same as they were prior to RvW and prior to the Morgentaler ruling. In the coat hanger days, many (not all) women could expect to be fired from their jobs for being pregnant, particularly if unmarried. They could expect to be evicted from their housing. They could expect to be ostracized from friends, neighbours, family. They could expect to have little (if any social welfare nets) in place.

Is this the case now?

No.

It is illegal to fire a woman for being pregnant.

It is illegal to evict a woman for being pregnant.

Unmarried pregnant women are widely accepted and live among us as equals.

Social welfare nets support unmarried pregnant women.

The evidence suggests that we have become a more caring society than we were during the coat hanger days.

Will this evidence stop the coat hanger wielders?

No.

Why not? Because there is a fair degree of paraphilia involved in wielding a coat hanger. Coat hanger wielders are not motivated by compassion. They are predators. As most wolves among sheep, they prey not on the strongest but on the most vulnerable and anonymous marginalized women among us. And in order to sustain their addiction, they confect misrepresentations of what exactly it is that they do.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

A very forwarding approach. I have copied it to file. Thank you. That leaves us with this:

1. that it is not a person and we know that

This has never been determined, only assumed arbitrarily. Roe v Wade utterly failed to determine this. Roe v Wade should be repealed only on the basis of being badly framed law. As law it fails.

The reason this particular point is doomed is because of the inherent circularity in the notion. How do I know you are a person? How do I know I am a person?

This gets to be deeply dedicated discussion, doesn’t it? And of course it involves ‘mature’ humans and whether or not they are human and therefore whether or not they should be ‘terminated.’

But the language shifts then not to right to life (in the Declaration of Independence) but to quality of life. Where is ‘quality of life’ in your founding documents? One could say the pursuit of happiness plays into that. But then one would have to discuss ‘paramountcy’ and ‘proportionality.’

What I have been saying is that the rule of proportionality cannot be applied to abortion or euthanasia because death is not proportional. It is absolute.

Moreover the pursuit of happiness is recognized. Happiness itself is not recognized. Life is not a rose garden. Who said that it was? And why are people listening to such a blatant lie?

I doubt if the people who have dedicated their energies to relanguaging the attributes of life have even the foggiest notion of what the foundational language says let alone means.

How American is that? In my view, not at all American. My experience of ‘American’ is that ‘American’ revolves around the American Revolution. Who are these people in your midst who do not know even the first portion of what even the humblest among you takes as a given?

 

[Rosalinda]

In the upper class (rich) parts of town - yes… Happens every day. Money talks and protects the privacy of those who can afford it.

My point - Roe v Wade will not be overturned. We must find other ways to reduce the need for abortion.
[/quote]

Bella, I didn’t think I’d ever live to see the day the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 either but it did. In 1917 Our Lady of Fatima requested we pray the rosary for the conversion of Russia and a lot of children together with their families honoured that request daily praying that rosary on their knees. The Soviet Empire collapsed without a single fire being shot because of the obedience of countless ordinary people faithfully picking up their rosaries and praying. Likewise, bad laws can be changed; after all, they are not carved in stone. I don’t know how or when God is going to put an end to this holocaust but that isn’t the point. We are called to serve Our Lord in the fields daily so that tomorrow another will harvest the rewards of our labor.

 

[fix]

Bella3502:

Making abortion illegal will NOT stop women from seeking them. And they will get them by any means available. But here is where the race card comes in again>>>> Rich women will still be able to see their nice doctors in their nice Beverly Hills clinics where they will get abortions in safe sterile surroundings. The poor minority woman will go back to the coat hanger and most likely end up somewhere bleeding to death.

There are no easy answers to the problem of abortion. Making it illegal for the poor (which is what most Catholics advocate) is not a solution.

This logic is perverse. In any abortion the baby is murdered, rich or poor. Most of the abortions in the USA are about convenience. Surgical abortion is part of the issue, but there are uncounted numbers from contraception and other chemicals.