N
nydas
Guest
Im no by no means a bible expert, so can you show me where God says he implants a soul at the moment of conception?
- Status
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Cells? At the time of conception the fetus has it’s own DNA. It may be small, but it is a person.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
People use the term “Christian right” without ever saying just who it is they’re talking about. I think most of the time they mean “Christian who opposes abortion on demand”. If that is what is meant, the Christian right is probably the majority of people in this country, or very close to it.
If, by “Christian right” something else is meant, I think a person needs to define what he means before characterizing a group to whom he applies that name.
E
estesbob
Guest
That comment show such a profound ignorance of basic biology I am at a loss of how to respond.
E
estesbob
Guest
Jeremiah 1:5
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, .”
Ecclesiastes 11:5
As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things.
N
nydas
Guest
I may not be the smartest person, but i think “before” means, and im just taking a wild guess here, before conception!
Actually, i do know how the body is formed in the womb. Also, its fairly easy to know the path of the wind. YAY science!
Again, im no bible expert, but to me neither one of those says anything about implanting a soul at the moment of conception. Heck, neither one is actually talking about conception. To me, the first one is BEFORE conception. And the 2nd is just a metephore.
E
estesbob
Guest
BINGO-now youv’e got. God kenw us even before conception! Kinda puts a kink in jusityfiyning abortion , wouldnt you agree?
I guess in your case what you beleive is a metaphor justifies killing the child? So God formed us in the womb for our Mothers to have us killed?
He knew us **before **conception but that doesnt show you that we have a soul from AT LEAST the moment of Conception??
Here some verses about spiritual blindness for you to consider;
John 9
*39Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.” *
40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?” 41Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.
M
mvinca
Guest
I love questions like this. It is like saying “if God was Satan…” It is a complete nonsense question. Of course Hilter wasn’t Pro-Life. He murdered tons of Jews. That doesn’t really fit into the Pro-Life position. And if anyone would have been for testing to see if your baby was blond and blue eyed and aborting it if the result was negative, well, I’d bet he’d be high on the list.
And which Clinton are you talking about? I’d vote for Bill over Hillary anyday!
E
estesbob
Guest
I beleive that internet debate rules say the fitst one to invoke Hitler losesI love questions like this. It is like saying “if God was Satan…” It is a complete nonsense question. Of course Hilter wasn’t Pro-Life. He murdered tons of Jews. That doesn’t really fit into the Pro-Life position. And if anyone would have been for testing to see if your baby was blond and blue eyed and aborting it if the result was negative, well, I’d bet he’d be high on the list.
And which Clinton are you talking about? I’d vote for Bill over Hillary anyday!
It is a fun game to play howver. There was a thread not to long ago where the question was asked what if one canidate was pro-life but wanted to nuke everyone in the world (bush obvioulsy) and the ohter loved peace and social justice but was pro-abortion.(Hillary, of course) Of course the answer is none fo the above. The funny part is that no one would vote the former but even many Catholics would vote for the latter even though the latter supports those who have killed 40 million children in the last 30 years. go figure.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
The answer on who to vote for may be hard to discern but it is simple.
Abortion is INTRINSICALLY evil. The only way you can vote for anyone who is for intrinsic evil is IF the other candidate is for More intrinsic evil–there are only two candidates–and write in voting is not allowed.
Say Hitler ran against Clinton and was in favor of killing more people than the number of children who would be aborted and killed.
If those were the only choices you had it would be morally permissable to vote for the lessor of two evils. It wouldn’t be permissable if there were other candidates–even if they had little chance of winning–and were not in favor of intrinsic evil.
In that case you would be morally obliged to vote for them instead of Clinton or Hitler–EVEN if the possibility existed that by doing so that the GREATER of those two evils would be elected!
IF Bush ran and said he was in favor or nuking the entire world then it would be morally permissable to vote for Hitler or Clinton if they were the only choice and were not in favor of nuking the world because Bush would be in favor of more intrinsically evil killing.
The test with “INTRINSIC” evil though is that it must be known and certain.
If you just think that someone may be in favor of intrinsic evil–but you do not KNOW that–then you can’t go voting for the one who it is KNOWN and it is CERTAIN is for intrinsic evil.
In other words: If Clinton and Bush were the only two choices and no write in voting was allowed and you THOUGHT that Bush wanted to nuke the world but you weren’t CERTAIN of that and you KNEW Clinton was in favor of abortion you would be morally obligated to vote for Bush! Why?
Because you must always vote against candidates who you KNOW are for intrinsic evil and who you are CERTAIN will support that evil.
If ANY third party candidate is not for INTRINSIC evil then you are morally OBLIATED to vote for them against ANY abortionist who is running against any candidate that wants to nuke the world.
If ONLY two abortionists are running and they’re the only choices it is permissable to vote for the one who is for a lower number of abortions.
Abortion is MORALLY unacceptable and is always morally impermissable. Only other known and certain intrinsic evil that is of a greater degree and is the only choice possible would make it permissable to vote for anyone who is for abortion!
The REAL answer for Catholics who want to vote for Democrats for all sorts of other great and moral reasons is to get more pro-life Democrats to run and if there are none in your area to form Pro-Life Democrat thrid parties. That way you can vote for ALL of what you might think is right.
Abortion is INTRINSICALLY evil. The only way you can vote for anyone who is for intrinsic evil is IF the other candidate is for More intrinsic evil–there are only two candidates–and write in voting is not allowed.
Say Hitler ran against Clinton and was in favor of killing more people than the number of children who would be aborted and killed.
If those were the only choices you had it would be morally permissable to vote for the lessor of two evils. It wouldn’t be permissable if there were other candidates–even if they had little chance of winning–and were not in favor of intrinsic evil.
In that case you would be morally obliged to vote for them instead of Clinton or Hitler–EVEN if the possibility existed that by doing so that the GREATER of those two evils would be elected!
IF Bush ran and said he was in favor or nuking the entire world then it would be morally permissable to vote for Hitler or Clinton if they were the only choice and were not in favor of nuking the world because Bush would be in favor of more intrinsically evil killing.
The test with “INTRINSIC” evil though is that it must be known and certain.
If you just think that someone may be in favor of intrinsic evil–but you do not KNOW that–then you can’t go voting for the one who it is KNOWN and it is CERTAIN is for intrinsic evil.
In other words: If Clinton and Bush were the only two choices and no write in voting was allowed and you THOUGHT that Bush wanted to nuke the world but you weren’t CERTAIN of that and you KNEW Clinton was in favor of abortion you would be morally obligated to vote for Bush! Why?
Because you must always vote against candidates who you KNOW are for intrinsic evil and who you are CERTAIN will support that evil.
If ANY third party candidate is not for INTRINSIC evil then you are morally OBLIATED to vote for them against ANY abortionist who is running against any candidate that wants to nuke the world.
If ONLY two abortionists are running and they’re the only choices it is permissable to vote for the one who is for a lower number of abortions.
Abortion is MORALLY unacceptable and is always morally impermissable. Only other known and certain intrinsic evil that is of a greater degree and is the only choice possible would make it permissable to vote for anyone who is for abortion!
The REAL answer for Catholics who want to vote for Democrats for all sorts of other great and moral reasons is to get more pro-life Democrats to run and if there are none in your area to form Pro-Life Democrat thrid parties. That way you can vote for ALL of what you might think is right.
J
Jerry-Jet
Guest
The answer on who to vote for may be hard to discern but it is simple.
Abortion is INTRINSICALLY evil. The only way you can voet for anyone who is for intrinsic evil is IF the other candidate is for More intrinsic evil–there are only two candidates–and write in voting is not allowed.
Say Hitler ran against Clinton and was in favor of killing more people than the number of children who would be aborted and killed.
If those were the only choices you had it would be morally permissable to vote for the lessor of two evils. It wouldn’t be permissable if there were other candidates–even if they had little chance of winnin–and were not in favor of intrinsic evil.
In that case you would be morally obliged to vote for them instead of Clinton or Hitler–EVEN if the possibility existed that by doing so that the GREATER of those two evils would be elected!
IF Bush ran and said he was in favor or nuking the entire world then it would be morally permissable to vote ofr Hitler or Clinton because Bush would be in favor of more intrinsically evil killing.
The test with "INTRINSIC evil though is that it must be known and ceratin.
If you just think that someone may be in favor of intrinsic evil–but you do not KNOW that–then you can’t go voting for the one who it is KNOW and it is CERTAIN is for intrinsic evil.
In other words: If Clinton and Bush were the only two choices and no write in voting was allowed and you THOUGHT that Bush wanted to nuke the world but you KNEW Clinmton was in favor of abortion you would be morally obligated to vote for Bush! Why?
Because you must always vote against candidates who you KNOW are for intrinsic evil and who you are CERTAIN will support that evil.
If ANY third party candidate is not for INTRINSIC evil then you are morally OBLIATED to vote for them against ANY abortionist.
If ONLY two abortionists are running and they’re the only choices it is permissable to vote for the one who is for a lower number of abortions.
Abortion is MORALLY unacceptable and is always morally impermissable. Only other known and certain intrinsic evil that is of a greater degree and is the only choice possible would make it permissable to vote for anyone who is for abortion!
Abortion is INTRINSICALLY evil. The only way you can voet for anyone who is for intrinsic evil is IF the other candidate is for More intrinsic evil–there are only two candidates–and write in voting is not allowed.
Say Hitler ran against Clinton and was in favor of killing more people than the number of children who would be aborted and killed.
If those were the only choices you had it would be morally permissable to vote for the lessor of two evils. It wouldn’t be permissable if there were other candidates–even if they had little chance of winnin–and were not in favor of intrinsic evil.
In that case you would be morally obliged to vote for them instead of Clinton or Hitler–EVEN if the possibility existed that by doing so that the GREATER of those two evils would be elected!
IF Bush ran and said he was in favor or nuking the entire world then it would be morally permissable to vote ofr Hitler or Clinton because Bush would be in favor of more intrinsically evil killing.
The test with "INTRINSIC evil though is that it must be known and ceratin.
If you just think that someone may be in favor of intrinsic evil–but you do not KNOW that–then you can’t go voting for the one who it is KNOW and it is CERTAIN is for intrinsic evil.
In other words: If Clinton and Bush were the only two choices and no write in voting was allowed and you THOUGHT that Bush wanted to nuke the world but you KNEW Clinmton was in favor of abortion you would be morally obligated to vote for Bush! Why?
Because you must always vote against candidates who you KNOW are for intrinsic evil and who you are CERTAIN will support that evil.
If ANY third party candidate is not for INTRINSIC evil then you are morally OBLIATED to vote for them against ANY abortionist.
If ONLY two abortionists are running and they’re the only choices it is permissable to vote for the one who is for a lower number of abortions.
Abortion is MORALLY unacceptable and is always morally impermissable. Only other known and certain intrinsic evil that is of a greater degree and is the only choice possible would make it permissable to vote for anyone who is for abortion!
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Actually, even overturning Roe vs. Wade will NOT ban abortion in the United States. Before Roe vs. Wade, the states had the power to determine whether or not abortion was illegal, and under what circumstances. Roe vs. Wade said that states could not ban abortion in the first trimester, but could regulate it or even ban it in the latter trimesters.
If Roe vs. Wade is overturned tomorrow, then the states will once again have the power to decide whether or not abortion will be permitted. It’s entirely conceivable that, if Roe vs. Wade is overturned, then many states will keep abortion in legal, and a few states may even pass constitutional ammendments to keep abortion legal in their states.
Overturning Roe vs. Wade is NOT the same thing as banning abortion in the United States. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, then pro-life people must either
1 fight to ban abortion in all 50 states, or
2 pass an ammendment to the United States Constitution to ban abortion.
Just keep in mind, if you think the fight to overturn Roe vs. Wade is hard and bitter, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet! If it is overturned, the fight will only get harder and dirtier.
E
estesbob
Guest
Yes it will get harder and bitterer-but the stakied are high-47 million dead children to date. I hope that people will turn out tomorrow and vote for the abortionists becuase defeating them is “too hard”
V
valient_Lucy
Guest
Well, nothing worthwhile was ever easy. But I wanted to point out that overturning Roe vs. Wade will not mark the end of the battle to end abortion in the US.
M
mosher
Guest
This is because you don’t understand the new method in which the military has been organized to reflect the more mobile and tactical form of the Marine Corps in their MEU setup. This has been a transition that has been underway since about 1998.
This shows that you have no historical perspective. Among students of the Revolutionary War and the time period it is the general consensus that it was the Revolutionary War that acted as the catalyst for all modern liberal societies especially in France. If anything is agreed upon among historians it is this.
And yes, it is impossible to establish Democracy without bloodshed. Every democracy has been founded in the blood of thousands. One cannot cite an example to the contrary. Further, diplomacy does not establish something new but rather diplomacy insures a staus quo. This is the reality of international politics.
This again shows that you do not know the Conventions. There is a particular clause that states that if Combatants do not wear a regular uniform but represent themselves as civilians then they lose all protection of the conventions. If it needs to be cited I will cite it. This is not a position but a fact of international law and treaty. Now, I don’t feel that this clause is morally just but it is within the rights of a nation to suspend any perceived rights given by the Conventions if a person is not a uniformed combatant.
This is not a legal action but a military action and as such innocense is not presumed. These are treated as very different things in our legislation. Further, there is and has not been any evidence of institutionalized torture. It is a Red Hering and an argument from silence.
When we start putting people in plastic shredders feet first then you can make the claim that we are stooping to the level of our enemies. Abu Grab was a frat party. It was an isolated incident (as has been determined by third party investigation). We can beat this drum all day but such an instance is not a reflection on the whole. Rather, it demonstrates a serious departure from the stated practices. Hence the reason why they were punished. Remember that the criminal investigation was started by the DOD on this issue months before it ever became a news story.
Do you want to know something about Vietnam. I have some very close friends who spent time in Chinese prisons. I have one friend that was forced to watch his family murdered in front of him. I have another friend that was shot about six times. do you know why? Because they were Catholic. They live here in the US now and every time they meet a US military man they tank him (in their words) “for what you tried to do.” The only reason why Vietnam was unpopular is because Americans are stupid. If you think that we lost Vietnam because the Vietnamese were against us then you have proved to me that you know absolutely nothing about history, the nature of war, and really anything of substance. We lost Vietnam because of a combination of direct involvement by Washington (Lyndon Johnson) and public unpopularity brought on by the news reporting on the war which gave Americans their first view of war as it is and not how it was romanticized. Further, public demonstration was perpetuated by Communist Organizations which has now been released in the last two years (which is also well documented). However, militarily we were winning the war but our military cannot accomplish a mission without the support of the people.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
My view has probably been discussed here many many times. If so I apologise for bringing it up yet again.
I find myself in a dilema. I understand and whole-heartedly agree that we, as catholics, cannot vote for a pro-death candidate. However, I find that in many ways I lean more towards the democratic party then the republican (I realize that this is a very unpopular place to be amongst these forums).
Therefore I feel I am forced to leave many a ballot empty. In my state (MA), we presently have two primary candidates for Governor. The republican and democratic candidates boast loud and clear they are pro-choice. Another is a self-professed lesbian, the fourth final candidate is also pro-choice.
It’s a rare find to find a pro-life democrat. I find myself stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either I am a bad catholic or unpatriotic.
Anyone know what is on TV Tuesday night, looks like I’ll be staying home.
I find myself in a dilema. I understand and whole-heartedly agree that we, as catholics, cannot vote for a pro-death candidate. However, I find that in many ways I lean more towards the democratic party then the republican (I realize that this is a very unpopular place to be amongst these forums).
Therefore I feel I am forced to leave many a ballot empty. In my state (MA), we presently have two primary candidates for Governor. The republican and democratic candidates boast loud and clear they are pro-choice. Another is a self-professed lesbian, the fourth final candidate is also pro-choice.
It’s a rare find to find a pro-life democrat. I find myself stuck between a rock and a hard place. Either I am a bad catholic or unpatriotic.
Anyone know what is on TV Tuesday night, looks like I’ll be staying home.
M
mosher
Guest
I know many catholics that say that often. They say something to the nature that they are socially more aligned with Democrats. I have never understood this. I mean, I know that Democrats say they are for but I have yet to see them follow through with any of it. Further all of their Party Platform is un-Christian at best when in contrast the Republican Party Platform is very Christian in its ethical stand. The Republicans were founded to end slavery, they were the ones who fought on the side of blacks during the civil rights movement against the Democrats who tried to block civil rights legislation. The republicans believe in fiscal responsibility and personal responsibility and generally that the law should reflect the natural moral order. I have yet to see how any catholic who takes their faith seriously can vote for and with the modern DNC.
W
wcknight
Guest
Sorry, your explanations and excuses don’t jive with reality, The fact remains that thousands of the troops in Iraq are National Guard and not regular Army, Marines or Navy, and many have been or are on their second, third or fourth go round.
Second the treatment of prisoners at Getmo and other sites is not as soft shoe as you suggest, people do not commit suicide when they are getting humane treatment. No one knows what kind of treatment these poeple are getting, the idea that these people are military prisoners versus civilain prisoners doesn’t cut it either.
I will grant you the benefit of a doubt that these prisoners “may be” treated more humanely than that of the Vietnam era, but that is not guaranteed either. Only the inmates and the guards know for sure what is going on there.
IF you think we were winning in Vietnam, I think you are the one who is naive. I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about war, it’s causes for failure or success, but Vietnam was a failure not just because of LBJ and the unpopularity on the home front and the press. When you have a corrupt local govenrment and the people are not really behind you, I think you’re doomed to start with. That’s just my opinion and I’m not a war fanatic.
I’m sure the victims in Abu Graib don’t think of it as much of a frat party. Even if it is only an isolated incident, the fact that it hapened totally wipes out any good that the whole invasion of Iraq ever accomplished. Add to that the rape of the teenage girl and the murder of her family, and Americans don’t even resemble.a liberation force, but a bunch of marading thugs.
The fact remains Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, and IF they don’t want us there, then we need to get out pronto. Let them vote on what they want. Isn’t that what democracy is all about ?
When you invade a country that is 90 to 100% Islamic, IF you expect to establish a democracy there, odds are they will vote for an Islamic state. The Sunnis and the Shia hate each other and they both hate Americans. Democracy doesn’t work when you have that kind of irreconcilable division.
Second the treatment of prisoners at Getmo and other sites is not as soft shoe as you suggest, people do not commit suicide when they are getting humane treatment. No one knows what kind of treatment these poeple are getting, the idea that these people are military prisoners versus civilain prisoners doesn’t cut it either.
I will grant you the benefit of a doubt that these prisoners “may be” treated more humanely than that of the Vietnam era, but that is not guaranteed either. Only the inmates and the guards know for sure what is going on there.
IF you think we were winning in Vietnam, I think you are the one who is naive. I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about war, it’s causes for failure or success, but Vietnam was a failure not just because of LBJ and the unpopularity on the home front and the press. When you have a corrupt local govenrment and the people are not really behind you, I think you’re doomed to start with. That’s just my opinion and I’m not a war fanatic.
I’m sure the victims in Abu Graib don’t think of it as much of a frat party. Even if it is only an isolated incident, the fact that it hapened totally wipes out any good that the whole invasion of Iraq ever accomplished. Add to that the rape of the teenage girl and the murder of her family, and Americans don’t even resemble.a liberation force, but a bunch of marading thugs.
The fact remains Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, and IF they don’t want us there, then we need to get out pronto. Let them vote on what they want. Isn’t that what democracy is all about ?
When you invade a country that is 90 to 100% Islamic, IF you expect to establish a democracy there, odds are they will vote for an Islamic state. The Sunnis and the Shia hate each other and they both hate Americans. Democracy doesn’t work when you have that kind of irreconcilable division.
M
mosher
Guest
I will just chalk up your ignorance on this to just that, ignorance. I am aware that most Americans are not aware of the changes and modifications of the managing of our military since the late 1990’s so I can forgive your ignorance on this.
People commit suicide in prison often and they are treated humanely. Your statement is not consistent with reality. Further you are dealing with fanatics of Islam who consider their suicide in such a setting a quick path to heaven - this now demonstrates a basic ignorance of Islam.
Sorry I just happen to have been a historian at a time and a formal student of Political Science and trained to conduct war so I tend to have a clearer grasp of this stuff than one who was not so educated. But my point about the military successes of Vietnam are just a matter of fact and are not even up for dispute as it is well documented. While you are correct that many other factors caused us to leave Vietnam I cited the major contributors to illustrate a point. Further, it is also incorrect to say that the people of Vietnam did not support us. Vietnam just like Korea was really a war between us and China & Russia. In both cases they were able to at least force a stalemate.
It is irrelevant what they perceive but rather what a thing is. What we saw in Abu Grab was in fact not much more than what we see at an average college frat initiation. My point is not that it was not a form of torture but rather that it is being blown out of proportion.
Also, it is absurd to say that a single un-institutionalized act wipes out any good of the action in Iraq. It is like saying that any sinner in the Church wipes out any good that she does. Your logic is faulty.
They have already voted with higher turn-out rates than the average US election and their vote continues to support what we are doing and what they Government is doing.
It has worked in Turkey. It is hard but it can work. Further, the people have already voted and they voted for democratic rule. I don’t see your point.
W
wcknight
Guest
Since when did the National Guard become a major resource for foreign occupation ? and even IF that is the normal policy, IF we have sufficient troops why are they being rotated back in on a regular basis ? Your claim doesn’t hold water.
Iraqis voted for democratic rule, not for whether they wanted Americans to stay. There should be a referendum on whether they want the American occupation to continue. IF they want us to leave, then we need to pack up and go. The American press would have us believe the majority wants us out, and IF it this were not the case, I would think the President would be stressing that the Iraqis do want us there…
Iraqis voted for democratic rule, not for whether they wanted Americans to stay. There should be a referendum on whether they want the American occupation to continue. IF they want us to leave, then we need to pack up and go. The American press would have us believe the majority wants us out, and IF it this were not the case, I would think the President would be stressing that the Iraqis do want us there…
- Status