T
teeboy
Guest
And you have not proven to me that you are right.
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
I have proven that your argument, as presented, was wrong. Let me repeat the first sentence for you:
This is an exaggeration of what is actually taught. As I said before, fornication is not in line with the moral law. You statement implied that we have a duty to vote for someone who will work to pass laws against fornication. I don’t think even you believe that.
T
teeboy
Guest
Laws already exist that are against fornication. These laws are usually found in the body of law called family law. Laws on substance abuse can also be found in the aforementioned body of law.
We are obligated to act as part of the political community to depose candidates who wish to weaken society by passing or enforcing laws which are contrary to the moral law.
The penalties for the laws must be in proportion to the violation itself. The penalties, at least in my state, are in proportion to the damages and accrue to the plaintiff in a civil suit when that plaintiff can produce a preponderance of the evidence.
R
Rau
Guest
Is sex between 2 unmarried adults, male and female, illegal in your state? I’m sure it is not - I know of know western democracy where such an instance of fornication is illegal, or where there is any move to make it so. Should it be illegal? With what punishment?
T
teeboy
Guest
Jesus has extra mercy on sins which you mention. I believe our society should have mercy as well.
Who is the affected party, other than the two consenting adults? No spouse is affected. Who is going to bring suit? Because we can’t come to an obvious conclusion, we don’t need such laws.
R
Rau
Guest
Contrast that statement with you blanket claim in your post #35!
The law takes the view that the unborn is not a “party” under the law. So your rationale here sustains the view that anti-abortion laws are not required.
R
Rau
Guest
No, I am not proposing a law against formication. Your post #35 could be read to imply that, since you suggest the moral law should be reflected in the law of the state. And your most recent post stating the reverse position could almost be read to imply we don’t need a law against abortion.
R
Rau
Guest
So what is your view on abortion law? Is it needed (why)? Should it be criminal law or family law?
R
Rau
Guest
I ask this with an open mind. Why are anti-abortion laws needed? What should the criminal penalties be?
P
phil19034
Guest
What all due respect, from post #35 (quoted above) this this one, everyone has been talking in circles.
The Catholic Church expects us to use Moral Theology when voting. The Right to Life (Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research) and Human Cloning are top issues and trump every other issue for Catholics.
Other issues become important if they are “in play politically,” for example “Same Sex Marriage.” Religious liberty is now quickly becoming an important issue for Catholics and other Christians.
Issues like birth control, no fault divorce, outlawing IVF, etc are still non-negotiables, but there are not “in play” politically. No single candidate is going to be able to push the legislature to outlaw no-fault divorce or birth control.
However, abortion is still in play because:
- laws can be made to make abortion harder, state legislatures are always trying to put laws in place.
- a future Supreme Court could overturn Roe vs Wade
- Plus, people with pro-choice views usually do not line up with other Church teachings regarding life, like euthanasia & embryonic stem cell research.
R
Rau
Guest
I read you to be saying 2 things:
1). The law should align with Catholic morality;
2). We should feel obliged to vote accordingly if the issue has a chance of being won.
Is that right?
The question on my mind, with abortion as the working example, is “what law would reduce the evil”? Is it a total prohibition akin to the law of murder? Is it a paring back on the parameters that separate legal from illegal abortion? Must it be accompanied by strong social (ie. Expensive) support programs. Can strong laws be effective prior to broad community support (which means far greater than 51%) or will they be counter-productive?
For now, I leave aside the challenges of point 1.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
This looks like a nice exposition of your personal strategy for living out your Catholic faith. If it works for you, then fine. But it is not a pure and necessary consequence of Church teaching. It is your prudential judgement.
The notion of one or a small number of issues absolutely “trumping” every other issue of moral value is an invention of American political conservatives. You won’t find this principle stated in the catechism. What you will find is instruction to weigh all issues in the light of the Church teaching through an informed conscience. But you still have to do the weighing. No one else is doing it for you.
With regard to the specific issue of voting, that is just one of many ways we may express our faith values. It is odd that these absolutes of issue-trumping only seem to apply to voting and not to other activities where more discretion is allowed.
In the area of personal behavior, there is no conflict between moral values. Which moral rules should we personally abide by? The answer is “all of them”. The difficulty comes when we are called upon to control the behavior of others (as in voting). Here we don’t have as much fine-grain control over individual decisions. We can only pick people or platforms. And the catechism provides no simple formula for doing that.
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
Society is alienating itself.
Fr. Robert Spitzer has a good series, “In Defense of God’s Likeness,” on EWTN that covers this topic. He states that the debate over abortion is the exact same one using the exact same arguments as the Valladolid debate in which Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda argued that the Indians [in the New World Spanish colonies] were less than human and required Spanish masters to become civilized. His opponent, Bartolomé de Las Casas, maintained that they were fully human and that forcefully subjugating them was unjustifiable. It is also the same debate as the Dred Scott case where the Supreme Court agreed that slaves were not fully human. It is also the same debate as the Roe v. Wade case where the Supreme Court agreed that the pre-born are not fully human. Anyone notice a pattern here? Whenever the decision of who is a human is subjective, it will necessarily exclude some weak segment of society [usually because someone’s financial interests are at stake]. That’s why the determination must be based on objective criteria, or criterion: so no one is left out.
All this talk about when brainwaves start is subjective, and who knows if that is really a good determination in the first place? The baby’s heart starts to beat before the mother knows she’s pregnant anyway. Can a heart start beating without brainwaves operating? The best we have now is the human genome. If it [whatever “it” is] has a complete human genome, then it is human, and all human beings are due equal justice i.e., life, liberty, and property [in that order] from all other human beings. The Supreme Court must have forgotten this because it placed the mother’s right to privacy [liberty] above the baby’s right to life. Just like in Valladolid, Dred Scott, and Roe v. Wade, they were just rationalizing to be expedient, and big bucks were at stake.
And all this business on “forcing your beliefs on others” is just a smokescreen. In any organized society, someone’s views are going to prevail. We were supposed to have solved this in 1789.
So if we expect the same basic human rights, life, liberty, and property, as others, we have to accord them the same.
Another thing to consider is the talk going on now justifying a mother murdering her baby up to years after giving birth. These lovers of death never quit.
P.S. I might not have done a good job describing Fr. Spitzer’s work, so I urge you to look it up on your local EWTN channel. You can also purchase his book and/or DVD.
P
phil19034
Guest
Then, that invention is an invention of the American political conservatives who just happen to be Catholic Bishops.
There is an episode of Catholic Answers Live where Archbishop Sample talks about the non-negotiables. He says that the official Church documents, from especially the USCCB, are written in a way which assumes the reader understands moral theology (aka - they are really written for priests & bishops). He says he’s in favor of re-writing them to be more straightforward and says that Catholic Answers’ list of non-negotiable is the correct understanding of our voting requirements.
Life issues should trump every other Catholic or political issue, because if people don’t have the right to life, then all other rights are meaningless.
From a secular point of view, the founding fathers of America came up with some inalienable rights too… The right to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness.
That order is important… you cannot have the right to “the pursuit of happiness” if you do not have the rights of life and liberty. You cannot have the rights of liberty & “the pursuit of happiness” without the right to life. The Rights to Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness are DEPENDENT on the Right to Life.
This is why the founding fathers didn’t say “The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness, Liberty, and Life.” Today’s society has everything backwards, even these rights. We put happiness above all else. People put their happiness above other people’s rights to life and liberty (especially the unborn, sick and elderly).
America, let’s get back in order!
R
Rau
Guest
That’s all good. No argument on the morality and the principal. The question is - how does society go about delivering on the “right to life”? I think it is far more difficult than simply declaring abortion to be pre-meditated murder (punishable accordingly), even if 51% of the population were to agree. The motivation to commit the crime is often high. Many parents/parents-to-be reject the idea that it is murder and are vehement in their view that the rights of the mother are paramount. The crime is not that difficult to conceal (if committed early) as the victim is not even known to exist by other than the perpetrators. So simply legislating (ie. abortion == murder) seems highly unlikely to reduce the level of evil, and will undoubtedly boost some other forms of evil (off-shore ‘treatment’, back-yard’ practitioners, civil uproar and violence, etc.)
I’m not in the USA, so can I ask:
- What exactly does the typical “pro-life” candidate or party in the US propose to do in terms of the law and its relationship to murder?
- How do they propose to achieve widespread endorsement of “pro-life” laws?
- Do they generally have an “anti-IVF” stance also?
P
phil19034
Guest
No, that is not correct. We should feel obligated to vote in terms of Catholic morality even if the issues has NO chance of being won. But we don’t have to feel obligated to vote for issues which are NOT on the table. For example: Candidates A and B are 100% in line with Catholic teaching except for one issue… Candidate B is pro Birth Control. He doesn’t agree with the Catholic Church on people using birth control. We can ignore this fact and feel free to look at economic policies, etc. because the issue of birth control is NOT going to be discussed in the legislature. So this Catholic issue is NOT a political issue.
In regards to abortion, legislatures are always discussing this topic on the federal and state levels. States and conservatives in Congress are always tying to make abortion more difficult and place limitations on it (until repeal of Roe v Wade becomes a possibility). Curbing abortion by increasing limitations is better than doing noting. It’s the concept of the lesser of two evils.
The ultimate law would be a complete repeal of Roe v Wade and make abortion illegal. What the penalties should be, I’m not sure. I would say jail for sure for a doctor illegally performing it. But for someone who self aborts… perhaps a minimum security location with counseling? Motive and psychological examinations will be needed. Why did the person abort vs. give the child up for adoption? Were they scared, traumatized, etc? That’s why I think punishments of the women should be light and focus on counseling and the psychological pain from the ordeal.
But in the meantime, I would be 100% in support of laws and regulations which limit abortions and educate mothers.
Examples:
- an abortionist should be required to earn admittance to a hospital. Why? To make sure the doctors are practicing beyond reproach.
- before electing an abortion, abortionists should be required to show the mother what the child looks like at that moment in time, so mothers are fully aware of what they are electing to do.
- abortionists should be required to perform an ultrasound before the abortion to help make sure the patient doesn’t change her mind.
- counseling about adoption should be mandatory before an abortion. (if abortions were required to be in a hospital, then this could be done by a pro life medical professional)
- abortionists should be required to discuss the abortion procedure completely with the mother, so she knows exactly what will happen to the child. (if abortions were required to be in a hospital, then this could be done by a pro life medical professional)
- It should be considered MURDER to kill a child who is born after a failed abortion. Every effort should be made to save the life of the child once it is outside the womb and alive (especially with third trimester abortions).
- Which leads me to this: third trimester abortions should be illegal. Period.
- Abortion clinics should be required to provide post abortion counseling to help with the grief women have after an abortion. (if abortions were required to be in a hospital, then this could be done by a pro life medical professional or at least someone professionally trained in this area)
C
CaptFun
Guest
Brownback wins in a runaway
GOP runs table in Kansas races
cjonline.com/news/state/2010-11-02/brownback_wins_in_a_runaway
Sometimes we just have to stand for what is right regardless of whether we are rewarded or … matyred even. The polls at the time this poster wrote this seemed to portend bad things for Sam Brownback. But he was re-elected by a solid 3 points (33,052 votes ahead) and would not have had to have run again in a runoff election as he eclipsed the 50% mark in the multi-candidate race.
Given the hard data of the recent election perhaps it’s time to ask the secularists where ***their ***abortion mandate is … and oughtn’t they “get with the program” and join decent society now that abortion is fashionably “out”.
The preceeding paragraph is a bit crass for my own taste as it makes an appeal to the shallowness of the abortion proponents rather than an appeal to what is best in them. But getting the proper result (abortion virtually … or actually eliminated) is so important that scrupling to make a shallow argument that works - in favor of a high minded appeal that might go over the heads of low minded people that doesn’t work - might be a mistake.
- Status