Where is the Catholic political anti-abortion mandate?

[cena]

Merry Christmas!

You defined murder differently from its legal definition in an earlier post. However, the exact definition is irrelevant. In an earlier thread from March (Is it possible to join the Catholic Church and support gay marriage and abortion rights?), people on CAF categorically, unequivocally told me no, that it is not possible to be a Catholic and support gay marriage and abortion rights. They alluded that I would be a Catholic in bad standing, and possibly in mortal sin, if I supported those things.

If their absolute, unqualified “no” is wrong, and what I stated on my previous post is a possibility, then I want an apology.

If it IS possible to be Catholic and “not oppose” abortion and gay marriage rights because opposition of those things is bad, ineffective policy, then I want an apology.

Then we are all excommunicated. Almost all governments on earth fund abortion to some extent, usually through their state healthcare systems. What are we gonna do, overthrow all our governments? Or is the US correct to have government healthcare only for the poor? (Take that, non-Americans!)

No. Because in a marriage, the two have expressed their commitment.

Now regarding gay relationships (which your paragraph could allude to), the world now understands that in the same way blacks are born black and whites are born white, gays are born gay. You may not like this analogy, but in the same way we cannot discriminate against race as it’s a born trait, we cannot discriminate against sexual orientation.

We just can’t deny people civil rights based on sexual orientation, especially since gay relationships are between consenting parties. There are no victims at all, unlike in abortion.

Danger from not having abortions? The very post of mine you quoted. That it will only lead to abortions being done underground, putting women further into danger.

We have tried prohibiting alcohol. It may have reduced alcohol sales, but it was a bad policy as it led to rising crime, and alcohol sales underground.

Today we are revisiting whether marijuana should be criminalized, for the same reason.

In general, the Catholic Church is a global, universal church. Logically, it cannot be possible for the Catholic Church to proscribe a formula for how to act politically, because every political system is different. What works in America does not work in Cuba.

Combined with the fact that Catholic social teaching is all about promoting the public good, it logically follows that there is no requirement for Catholics to overturn Roe v. Wade, defund Planned Parenthood, or vote yes on gay marriage bans. Especially if we can prove that those policies are ineffective or lead to unintended bad consequences.

In the end, this issue doesn’t matter. Politics does not save us. Only a relationship with Christ as Lord and Savior does. With this point, Protestant Evangelicals are correct to de-emphasize the importance of politics in their ministries.

No one should be denied salvation because of his political views.

In the same way that Muslim Americans are not politically advocating for every county to be dry, we should not politically advocate for abortion and gay marriage bans.

In the same way that Christian Americans do not push for divorce and pornography bans, they should not push for abortion and gay marriage bans.

In the same way that Muslim Europeans are wrong for pushing for sharia law in Europe which would impose Islam on the population, we should not push for the political imposition of Christianity on the population.

Evangelism, not politics, is the key.

I said directly funding one, taxes paid to the government that government turns and uses it for that purpose is not the same thing.

There are people speaking out against pornography and there were people pushing for it to be banned on wifi in public places.

The sharia law comparison is not a good comparison.
It’s not like we are trying to get laws saying everyone has to go to church every Sunday and holiday of obligation, obey the fasting and abstinence laws of the Church, etc. Even atheists can be pro life and against gay “marriage”, it is not exclusive to religion.

I honestly can’t believe you think abortion helps the common good. Go read about abortion procedures and tell me that is for the common good. I know people who were born out of wedlock. One person I knew her mom was a teen and she almost got aborted. She ended up getting put up for adoption and she has a lot of friends, boyfriends, etc.

Sexual orientation is not the same as race. Biologically, race doesn’t come in the way of marriage, having kids, etc. Having two people with the same body does.You don’t need religion to realize this. And we are discriminating against a sexual orientation.

Racism said a white could marry a white, but a black could not marry a white. The Church is Agaisnt people getting “married” to someone of the same sex whether you were born straight, gay, bi, etc.

If people are having sex before marriage and there is no “victim” does that make fornication okay?

If I was born being sexually attracted to animals would prohibiting me from entering a relationship with an animal be discrimination?

 

[Rau]

…In an earlier thread from March (Is it possible to join the Catholic Church and support gay marriage and abortion rights?), people on CAF categorically, unequivocally told me no, that it is not possible to be a Catholic and support gay marriage and abortion rights. They alluded that I would be a Catholic in bad standing, and possibly in mortal sin, if I supported those things.

I’m not surprised. You constantly confuse, both in your own mind, and in your expression, the moral thing in question, what should be done now, and the end-state we want to arrive at. If you ask me “do you support the right to abortion” - then of course I say “no”, and so should anyone who holds to the tenets of Catholic morality. If you ask me, would you support an immediate change of law that from tomorrow declares abortion to be murder and with the same penalties, I’d be far less certain that that would be a good policy.

If their absolute, unqualified “no” is wrong, and what I stated on my previous post is a possibility, then I want an apology.

If it IS possible to be Catholic and “not oppose” abortion and gay marriage rights because opposition of those things is bad, ineffective policy, then I want an apology.

You appear to declare the policy “bad” based just on the “end-state” it intends. Yet, the end-state is good! As an intending Catholic, you ought to know that abortion wrong, and that gay “marriage” is wrong. You should instead focus on the substance of the policy and support it when both the end-state is pursues is good, and the means to get there is good.

… in the same way we cannot discriminate against race as it’s a born trait, we cannot discriminate against sexual orientation.

We should not discriminate (unjustly) against anyone. We don’t discriminate - in marriage - against a person seeking to marry a person of the same sex because they are homosexual, we discriminate because marriage is not (should not) be available for same sex couples.

We just can’t deny people civil rights based on sexual orientation, especially since gay relationships are between consenting parties.

What civil right are you talking about?? Having the State acknowledge the sexual union of two men is not a civil right in my book. If it concerns you that same sex couples and other grouping’s are denied arrangements for asset sharing, mutual care, inheritance, visitation rights and so on, then by all means, advocate for such arrangements.

Evangelism, not politics, is the key.

If I recall from your earlier posting history, you are very concerned about how you might be perceived by your circle of friends (who I understand are all “pro-abortion”, “pro-gay marriage”) were you to take contrary positions. Now, you would have us believe that “personally”, you oppose these sins, but “politically” you support them. I’ll bet that when chatting with your friends, it’s your “political” self that is on show. From today, I expect you to put just as much effort into evangelising - no need to go out of your way - just share your deeply-held “personal” views that:

• abortion is murder and a gravely evil act;
• sexual relations belong only between a married man+woman.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Where in Catholic teaching is the Catholic mandate to oppose abortion politically? Let’s discuss.

Why doesn’t the Catholic Church meet in the middle and allow abortion in cases of incest, rape, or abuse? Wouldn’t that be a better practical solution, and in turn, reduce most abortions?

Why does it have to oppose all abortion at all costs, alienating all of society?

Let’s not bring up political parties this time; let’s keep the thread open.

Why does the Catholic Church not allow for the killing of a child to save it’s mothers life? Well for one, how is it morally justifiable to take a life of an innocent person for another to live?

The reality is the issue of medical and sexual abuse abortions are less than 2% of all abortions and as such are statistically insignificant, given the majority of abortions are for convenience only in the West. The abortionist lobby, being the liars they are, only will discuss medial and sexual abuse abortions as they realize trying to promote justifiable homicide is not enviable position.

“Justifiable homicide” is exactly what abortion is given that science has established that a human is created at conception. This scientific fact is not up for debate. Even in the US no law can state anything to the contrary, rather the legality of justifiable homicide depends at the point at which the Constitution would defend a human life, which is now dependent on the vague term “fetal viability”.

Also, since the catholic Church is an international organization they have a more rounded view of abortionists deceptive practices.

For example, Planned Parenthood and their international counterpart, the US gov’t and the UN have been trying to coerce Latina American Catholic countries, many with a concordat, to accept medical and sexual abuse abortions based on "humanitarian and at some point have been successful at having abortion legalized, only to return a few years later pushing abortion on demand.

Therefore, the catholic Church can’t afford to take abortionist tactics likely, given their deceptive practices.

Finally, most Latin American countries recognize the scientific fact that a human life is created at birth, unlike the US constitution, therefore the abortionists can never claim that abortion saves a life, only that it is a morally justifiable homicide - a truly precarious position.

this is what the said atheist organizations have to resort to deceptive means to try to get abortion on demand legalized, such as embarrassing poor countries regarding the teen pregnancy rate, which has always been high since the dawn of man as poorer person generally marry in their teens. Supposedly this is considered morally reprehensible by the atheists and their solution is none other than to teach 11 year olds about sex and given them condoms and subsidized abortions, like in the US. In other words the supposedly “morally reprehensible” act of pregnancy is reduced while the real morally reprehensible act of children having irresponsible sex is promoted. That is why since public education was started by the atheists that teenage highschool sex has increased from 5% to 50%.

If anyone were to claim teenage marriage is wrong keep in mind the Jewish traditions and by all accounts the Blessed Virgin Mary was married when she was 15 or 16.

 

[cena]

Why does the Catholic Church not allow for the killing of a child to save it’s mothers life? Well for one, how is it morally justifiable to take a life of an innocent person for another to live?

The reality is the issue of medical and sexual abuse abortions are less than 2% of all abortions and as such are statistically insignificant, given the majority of abortions are for convenience only in the West. The abortionist lobby, being the liars they are, only will discuss medial and sexual abuse abortions as they realize trying to promote justifiable homicide is not enviable position.

“Justifiable homicide” is exactly what abortion is given that science has established that a human is created at conception. This scientific fact is not up for debate. Even in the US no law can state anything to the contrary, rather the legality of justifiable homicide depends at the point at which the Constitution would defend a human life, which is now dependent on the vague term “fetal viability”.

Also, since the catholic Church is an international organization they have a more rounded view of abortionists deceptive practices.

For example, Planned Parenthood and their international counterpart, the US gov’t and the UN have been trying to coerce Latina American Catholic countries, many with a concordat, to accept medical and sexual abuse abortions based on "humanitarian and at some point have been successful at having abortion legalized, only to return a few years later pushing abortion on demand.

Therefore, the catholic Church can’t afford to take abortionist tactics likely, given their deceptive practices.

Finally, most Latin American countries recognize the scientific fact that a human life is created at birth, unlike the US constitution, therefore the abortionists can never claim that abortion saves a life, only that it is a morally justifiable homicide - a truly precarious position.

this is what the said atheist organizations have to resort to deceptive means to try to get abortion on demand legalized, such as embarrassing poor countries regarding the teen pregnancy rate, which has always been high since the dawn of man as poorer person generally marry in their teens. Supposedly this is considered morally reprehensible by the atheists and their solution is none other than to teach 11 year olds about sex and given them condoms and subsidized abortions, like in the US. In other words the supposedly “morally reprehensible” act of pregnancy is reduced while the real morally reprehensible act of children having irresponsible sex is promoted. That is why since public education was started by the atheists that teenage highschool sex has increased from 5% to 50%.

If anyone were to claim teenage marriage is wrong keep in mind the Jewish traditions and by all accounts the Blessed Virgin Mary was married when she was 15 or 16.

Yeah I heard the Obama administration was trying to bring abortion to Africa

Also I heard that some Planned Parenthood people going door to door pushing people to accept gay “marriage” and abortion.

 

[CaliLobo]

I’m not surprised. You constantly confuse, both in your own mind, and in your expression, the moral thing in question, what should be done now, and the end-state we want to arrive at. If you ask me “do you support the right to abortion” - then of course I say “no”, and so should anyone who holds to the tenets of Catholic morality. If you ask me, would you support an immediate change of law that from tomorrow declares abortion to be murder and with the same penalties, I’d be far less certain that that would be a good policy.

You appear to declare the policy “bad” based just on the “end-state” it intends. Yet, the end-state is good! As an intending Catholic, you ought to know that abortion wrong, and that gay “marriage” is wrong. You should instead focus on the substance of the policy and support it when both the end-state is pursues is good, and the means to get there is good.

I really don’t think we’re that far apart in our thinking at all. What you are saying in bold is similar to what I’ve been saying.

I wasn’t precise with my words. But yes, I am saying that just because I believe something is a sin and is morally wrong, it doesn’t necessitate that I support specific policies on it, such as legal bans. I believe this is true even if the end result is something good. Like you said, the ends don’t justify the means.

I supplement my argument by saying that I don’t think these policies will achieve the desired ends at all. Once again I don’t believe that banning abortion will reduce abortion as much as you anticipate. I don’t believe it will change sexual behavior, or have a deterrent effect on extramarital sex. I am convinced that it will merely lead to underground abortions, or even desperate, dangerous trips to the Mexican border. It will make it more dangerous for the population you are seeking to protect.

I definitely don’t believe that gay marriage bans will have a deterrent effect on people being gay. (Isn’t gay people changing their ways–to turn away from their sin–what Christians want?)

It makes sense now, why certain parishes appear to be “dissenting” parishes. It is possible simply because there was nothing to dissent from to begin with.

Rau:

We should not discriminate (unjustly) against anyone. We don’t discriminate - in marriage - against a person seeking to marry a person of the same sex because they are homosexual, we discriminate because marriage is not (should not) be available for same sex couples.

What civil right are you talking about?? Having the State acknowledge the sexual union of two men is not a civil right in my book. If it concerns you that same sex couples and other grouping’s are denied arrangements for asset sharing, mutual care, inheritance, visitation rights and so on, then by all means, advocate for such arrangements.

How about this compromise? Get the government out of marriage. Then both sides of the debate can have what they want.

Rau:

If I recall from your earlier posting history, you are very concerned about how you might be perceived by your circle of friends (who I understand are all “pro-abortion”, “pro-gay marriage”) were you to take contrary positions. Now, you would have us believe that “personally”, you oppose these sins, but “politically” you support them. I’ll bet that when chatting with your friends, it’s your “political” self that is on show. From today, I expect you to put just as much effort into evangelising - no need to go out of your way - just share your deeply-held “personal” views that:

• abortion is murder and a gravely evil act;
• sexual relations belong only between a married man+woman.

Practically speaking, it’s not worth it to care too much about what people think.

To end this thread, do you agree, Rau, that we are not that far apart in thinking?

 

[BrassAnkles]

I really don’t think we’re that far apart in our thinking at all. What you are saying in bold is similar to what I’ve been saying.

I wasn’t precise with my words. But yes, I am saying that just because I believe something is a sin and is morally wrong, it doesn’t necessitate that I support specific policies on it, such as legal bans. I believe this is true even if the end result is something good. Like you said, the ends don’t justify the means.

I supplement my argument by saying that I don’t think these policies will achieve the desired ends at all. Once again I don’t believe that banning abortion will reduce abortion as much as you anticipate. I don’t believe it will change sexual behavior, or have a deterrent effect on extramarital sex. I am convinced that it will merely lead to underground abortions, or even desperate, dangerous trips to the Mexican border. It will make it more dangerous for the population you are seeking to protect.

I definitely don’t believe that gay marriage bans will have a deterrent effect on people being gay. (Isn’t gay people changing their ways–to turn away from their sin–what Christians want?)

It makes sense now, why certain parishes appear to be “dissenting” parishes. It is possible simply because there was nothing to dissent from to begin with.

How about this compromise? Get the government out of marriage. Then both sides of the debate can have what they want.

Practically speaking, it’s not worth it to care too much about what people think.

To end this thread, do you agree, Rau, that we are not that far apart in thinking?

Abortions have increased in the US tenfold since Roe and Wade.

The statistics used to justify abortion were falsified.

 

[Rau]

…I wasn’t precise with my words. But yes, I am saying that just because I believe something is a sin and is morally wrong, it doesn’t necessitate that I support specific policies on it, such as legal bans. I believe this is true even if the end result is something good. Like you said, the ends don’t justify the means.

I don’t recall saying, in this context, ‘the ends don’t justify the means’. All I recall saying is that the specific policy position to be taken now, given the widespread support for and utilisation of abortion is not self-evident to me. Perhaps ask yourself this question: If abortion had never been made legal - what policies would you be advocating to address the difficulties faced by families? Would you be advocating for its legalisation in any and all circumstances (and would you use slogans such as “it’s a woman’s right to choose”…), would you advocate for the establishment of abortion clinics, and for the inclusion of abortion in health insurance schemes and government medical programs?

I supplement my argument by saying that I don’t think these policies will achieve the desired ends at all. Once again I don’t believe that banning abortion will reduce abortion as much as you anticipate. I don’t believe it will change sexual behavior, or have a deterrent effect on extramarital sex. I am convinced that it will merely lead to underground abortions, or even desperate, dangerous trips to the Mexican border. It will make it more dangerous for the population you are seeking to protect.

I was seeking to protect innocent lives, as far as possible.

I definitely don’t believe that gay marriage bans will have a deterrent effect on people being gay. (Isn’t gay people changing their ways–to turn away from their sin–what Christians want?)

There is no sin in being gay. There is sin in same sex sexual relations, but I see little point in ruling that illegal. I see no reason for the State to be expected to recognise the sexual union of 2 men or 2 women.

Practically speaking, it’s not worth it to care too much about what people think.

Your prior posts Cali make it clear that what your friends think is terribly important to you. I recall your observation that if you were not a supporter of abortion, no woman would go out with you!

To end this thread, do you agree, Rau, that we are not that far apart in thinking?

I don’t know Cali. Will you be sharing your pro-life, anti-gay marriage personal opinions, when asked, with your friends, or only your political opinions?

 

[CaliLobo]

I said directly funding one, taxes paid to the government that government turns and uses it for that purpose is not the same thing.

There are people speaking out against pornography and there were people pushing for it to be banned on wifi in public places.

The sharia law comparison is not a good comparison.
It’s not like we are trying to get laws saying everyone has to go to church every Sunday and holiday of obligation, obey the fasting and abstinence laws of the Church, etc. Even atheists can be pro life and against gay “marriage”, it is not exclusive to religion.

And despite my belief that porn is immoral, I believe porn bans are bad policy, because it will send us on the slippery slope towards MORE First Amendment restrictions. Look at what is happening with The Interview.

cena:

I honestly can’t believe you think abortion helps the common good. Go read about abortion procedures and tell me that is for the common good. I know people who were born out of wedlock. One person I knew her mom was a teen and she almost got aborted. She ended up getting put up for adoption and she has a lot of friends, boyfriends, etc.

It’s not that abortion itself helps the common good, but rather, that banning abortion hurts the common good, for the reasons I have stated.

Sexual orientation is not the same as race. Biologically, race doesn’t come in the way of marriage, having kids, etc. Having two people with the same body does.You don’t need religion to realize this. And we are discriminating against a sexual orientation.

Racism said a white could marry a white, but a black could not marry a white. The Church is Agaisnt people getting “married” to someone of the same sex whether you were born straight, gay, bi, etc.

That’s fine. And my position is that, although I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, that it is bad policy to ban gay marriage rights. Rau has stated that he is okay with legal arrangements that facilitate gay couples living together. My position is that only gay marriage will guarantee those protections.

If people are having sex before marriage and there is no “victim” does that make fornication okay?

As far as secular law is concerned, yes, as long as it is between consenting adults.

If I was born being sexually attracted to animals would prohibiting me from entering a relationship with an animal be discrimination?

No. Animals are incapable of consent. We have animal cruelty laws to protect them. Gandhi has stated that you can judge a culture by how it treats its animals.

 

[CaliLobo]

Why does the Catholic Church not allow for the killing of a child to save it’s mothers life? Well for one, how is it morally justifiable to take a life of an innocent person for another to live?

The reality is the issue of medical and sexual abuse abortions are less than 2% of all abortions and as such are statistically insignificant, given the majority of abortions are for convenience only in the West. The abortionist lobby, being the liars they are, only will discuss medial and sexual abuse abortions as they realize trying to promote justifiable homicide is not enviable position.

“Justifiable homicide” is exactly what abortion is given that science has established that a human is created at conception. This scientific fact is not up for debate. Even in the US no law can state anything to the contrary, rather the legality of justifiable homicide depends at the point at which the Constitution would defend a human life, which is now dependent on the vague term “fetal viability”.

Also, since the catholic Church is an international organization they have a more rounded view of abortionists deceptive practices.

For example, Planned Parenthood and their international counterpart, the US gov’t and the UN have been trying to coerce Latina American Catholic countries, many with a concordat, to accept medical and sexual abuse abortions based on "humanitarian and at some point have been successful at having abortion legalized, only to return a few years later pushing abortion on demand.

Therefore, the catholic Church can’t afford to take abortionist tactics likely, given their deceptive practices.

Finally, most Latin American countries recognize the scientific fact that a human life is created at birth, unlike the US constitution, therefore the abortionists can never claim that abortion saves a life, only that it is a morally justifiable homicide - a truly precarious position.

Okay. So what?

this is what the said atheist organizations have to resort to deceptive means to try to get abortion on demand legalized, such as embarrassing poor countries regarding the teen pregnancy rate, which has always been high since the dawn of man as poorer person generally marry in their teens. Supposedly this is considered morally reprehensible by the atheists and their solution is none other than to teach 11 year olds about sex and given them condoms and subsidized abortions, like in the US. In other words the supposedly “morally reprehensible” act of pregnancy is reduced while the real morally reprehensible act of children having irresponsible sex is promoted. That is why since public education was started by the atheists that teenage highschool sex has increased from 5% to 50%.

And what is the alternative? Abstinence-only education (which is proven not to work)? Not have sex ed (and put children in danger)? I see a chicken and egg problem. Teenagers are gonna have sex anyway. It is unrealistic to believe that we can get people to stop having sex.

If anyone were to claim teenage marriage is wrong keep in mind the Jewish traditions and by all accounts the Blessed Virgin Mary was married when she was 15 or 16.

Our culture is different and people are no longer adults when they are 12 years old.

 

[CaliLobo]

I don’t recall saying, in this context, ‘the ends don’t justify the means’. All I recall saying is that the specific policy position to be taken now, given the widespread support for and utilisation of abortion is not self-evident to me. Perhaps ask yourself this question: If abortion had never been made legal - what policies would you be advocating to address the difficulties faced by families? Would you be advocating for its legalisation in any and all circumstances (and would you use slogans such as “it’s a woman’s right to choose”…), would you advocate for the establishment of abortion clinics, and for the inclusion of abortion in health insurance schemes and government medical programs?

Yes, you have quoted the Catechism paragraph that says a moral goal can’t be used to justify an immoral action. Or something like that.

Okay, so you are unclear what policies regarding abortion we should have. But I can answer your questions:

1. No I don’t support unfettered abortion.
2. I support the establishment of abortion clinics and inclusion of abortion in health insurance and government programs, because abortion is a woman’s health issue.
3. I do not support parental consent requirements. Theoretically there should be parental consent, but realistically, abusive parents are everywhere and this is the most delicate of issues. Here too, the more moral-appearing policy is a bad policy.
4. I support, instead, mandatory ultrasound as part of informed consent.
5. No, I do not support reversing Roe v Wade. The consequences to US constitutional law as a whole are too unknown and potentially hazardous.

There is no sin in being gay. There is sin in same sex sexual relations, but I see little point in ruling that illegal. I see no reason for the State to be expected to recognise the sexual union of 2 men or 2 women.

And I do, because that is the only way to guarantee the protections to gay couples to facilitate their living together, which is what you agree with.

Your prior posts Cali make it clear that what your friends think is terribly important to you. I recall your observation that if you were not a supporter of abortion, no woman would go out with you!

And I still have that fear. I fear that potential dates will reject me if I were anti-abortion. Single women are the biggest supporters of abortion because they are the most victimized by unwanted pregnancies. Anti-abortion, to their minds, is per se misogynistic. I might as well just say misogynistic comments on dates.

I don’t know Cali. Will you be sharing your pro-life, anti-gay marriage personal opinions, when asked, with your friends, or only your political opinions?

I will say that I personally believe that abortion is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that Jesus is a loving, forgiving God, and that I believe banning those things legally is not only a violation of civil rights, but is bad, ineffective policy. I will say that there is nothing in the Bible or Catechism that requires me to oppose abortion and gay marriage at the ballot box.

 

[Rau]

…And I do, because that is the only way to guarantee the protections to gay couples to facilitate their living together, which is what you agree with.

who cares whether they are gay? The “civil union” I suggested involves mo recognition of a sexual content to the relationship. It is of no civil consequence. The aim is to deliver a legal framework, not more. Two spinsters could enter such a civil union.

And I still have that fear. I fear that potential dates will reject me if I were anti-abortion. Single women are the biggest supporters of abortion because they are the most victimized by unwanted pregnancies. Anti-abortion, to their minds, is per se misogynistic. I might as well just say misogynistic comments on dates.

Well, you need to figure that out. You should be prepared to give witness to what is right. And you can’t be a party to a future abortion yourself. It always comes back to what you truly believe, doesn’t it Cali?

I will say that I personally believe that abortion is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that Jesus is a loving, forgiving God, and that I believe banning those things legally is not only a violation of civil rights, but is bad, ineffective policy. I will say that there is nothing in the Bible or Catechism that requires me to oppose abortion and gay marriage at the ballot box.

The civil rights to which you refer are man made. So this particular observation is of no great substance.

 

[cena]

Okay. So what?

And what is the alternative? Abstinence-only education (which is proven not to work)? Not have sex ed (and put children in danger)? I see a chicken and egg problem. Teenagers are gonna have sex anyway. It is unrealistic to believe that we can get people to stop having sex.

Our culture is different and people are no longer adults when they are 12 years old.

"Our research has shown that no single school-based CSE program has produced evidence of a reduction in teen pregnancy or STD rates. None has produced a sustained increase in consistent condom use by teens - a behavior that’s necessary to achieve even the partial risk reduction afforded by their use. And none has shown compelling success at promoting both abstinence and increased condom use within the same program - the very advantage claimed by CSE proponents.

These findings were confirmed in a recent Centers for Disease Control meta-analysis that showed that among school-based programs, no significant effect was found for pregnancy reduction, STD prevention or increased condom use. But this is not what most people believe. Most believe that CSE programs are effective.

Read more: washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/evaluating-what-matters/#ixzz3N9wIujJC
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter"

 

[cena]

Yes, you have quoted the Catechism paragraph that says a moral goal can’t be used to justify an immoral action. Or something like that.

Okay, so you are unclear what policies regarding abortion we should have. But I can answer your questions:

1. No I don’t support unfettered abortion.
2. I support the establishment of abortion clinics and inclusion of abortion in health insurance and government programs, because abortion is a woman’s health issue.
3. I do not support parental consent requirements. Theoretically there should be parental consent, but realistically, abusive parents are everywhere and this is the most delicate of issues. Here too, the more moral-appearing policy is a bad policy.
4. I support, instead, mandatory ultrasound as part of informed consent.
5. No, I do not support reversing Roe v Wade. The consequences to US constitutional law as a whole are too unknown and potentially hazardous.

And I do, because that is the only way to guarantee the protections to gay couples to facilitate their living together, which is what you agree with.

And I still have that fear. I fear that potential dates will reject me if I were anti-abortion. Single women are the biggest supporters of abortion because they are the most victimized by unwanted pregnancies. Anti-abortion, to their minds, is per se misogynistic. I might as well just say misogynistic comments on dates.

I will say that I personally believe that abortion is a sin and that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that Jesus is a loving, forgiving God, and that I believe banning those things legally is not only a violation of civil rights, but is bad, ineffective policy. I will say that there is nothing in the Bible or Catechism that requires me to oppose abortion and gay marriage at the ballot box.

Yes, Jesus is a loving, forgiving God but we shouldn’t support things that offend him. Don’t we have to be sorry to be forgiven?

Abortion kills a human being. I wonder what the individuals I know who could have (or almost were) aborted would say to you thinking that killing them would help their biological mother. How would you react if hypothetically your mother decided to kill you before you were born to exercise a so called right she had.

If someone doesn’t want to date you for an immoral view they have then they aren’t worth dating.

Even the person in Roe vs Wade has changed their mind is pro life and wants it reversed
lifenews.com/2013/01/22/woman-behind-roe-v-wade-im-dedicating-my-life-to-overturning-it/

Why would you vote for things that you personally find immoral? Also, how do people find out what you voted? If they ask you don’t have to say anything.

 

[Rau]

1. No I don’t support unfettered abortion.
2. I support the establishment of abortion clinics and inclusion of abortion in health insurance and government programs, because abortion is a woman’s health issue.
3. I do not support parental consent requirements. Theoretically there should be parental consent, but realistically, abusive parents are everywhere and this is the most delicate of issues. Here too, the more moral-appearing policy is a bad policy.
4. I support, instead, mandatory ultrasound as part of informed consent.
5. No, I do not support reversing Roe v Wade. The consequences to US constitutional law as a whole are too unknown and potentially hazardous.

1). Would you ban abortion in some cases for an adult? What cases?
2). Most abortions are for convenience. How then is this a health issue? One would have thought that caring for mother and child would be the health issue.
4). It will be fiercely opposed by pro-abortion advocates, though I think it an appropriate step to introduce.

 

[cena]

who cares whether they are gay? The “civil union” I suggested involves mo recognition of a sexual content to the relationship. It is of no civil consequence. The aim is to deliver a legal framework, not more. Two spinsters could enter such a civil union.

Well, you need to figure that out. You should be prepared to give witness to what is right. And you can’t be a party to a future abortion yourself. It always comes back to what you truly believe, doesn’t it Cali?

The civil rights to which you refer are man made. So this particular observation is of no great substance.

Civil unions give rights to a couple. Two men or two women should not be in a sexual/not platonic relationship. Why give legal benefits to a couple that can’t be married?

 

[Rau]

Civil unions give rights to a couple. Two men or two women should not be in a sexual/not platonic relationship. Why give legal benefits to a couple that can’t be married?

A couple of what? A couple of arbitrary persons in my book. Or maybe more than two. If the rights are reasonable, and make sense, why not? Two persons wish to live together and share assets and look after each other and so forth. I have no issue with such persons acquiring relevant legal accommodation. There should be no presumption of a sexual relationship in the arrangement, because such has nil relevance to the arrangement. It is not marriage.

 

[cena]

A couple of what? A couple of arbitrary persons in my book. Or maybe more than two. If the rights are reasonable, and make sense, why not? Two persons wish to live together and share assets and look after each other and so forth. I have no issue with such persons acquiring relevant legal accommodation. There should be no presumption of a sexual relationship in the arrangement, because such has nil relevance to the arrangement. It is not marriage.

What exactly constitutes a civil union? Is it expected for non platonic partners to enter it or can anyone (like family members) enter it?

Why should they be cohabiting and receive rights if they are not going to ever get married

 

[Rau]

What exactly constitutes a civil union? Is it expected for non platonic partners to enter it or can anyone (like family members) enter it?

Why should they be cohabiting and receive rights if they are not going to ever get married

I have no idea the nature of existing civil unions. I proposed an arrangement which enables groups of people to share assets and provide mutual care, and so forth.

Why do you oppose people sharing assets and providing mutual care, except when they marry?

The debate is academic however. Gay groups would reject the arrangement, in fact have already done so, which establishes that gay marriage “rights” was not about overcoming discrimination in regard to legal/financial rights. It’s about validating something deeply personal, but few in public life have had the courage and wisdom to explain why that can’t be.

 

[brian_custer]

i wish pope francis would talk more about being pro-life than the hoax of man-made global warming