Mixed reaction to Caritas abortion decision

Eliminating the access to this evil is a good way to reduce these murders. The unborn children will be grateful.

Worthy is the Lamb

Wow: "The unborn children will be grateful."

I'm not quite sure that a non-viable nine-week old fetus that is aborted has any thoughts about anything--since their brain is miniscule. Are they ungrateful when they are miscarried? Who is responsible for that "evil?" God?

No, the intrinsic evil is the decision to abort the life that is created 99+% of the time by the volitional act of two people. They will be grateful when they are born to know they have life, rather than become medical waste. Are you not grateful your mother chose not to abort you?

Miscarriages are not evil, and is in the permissive will of God. The volitional killing of an unborn child is intrinsically evil, and has always been recognized it as such by the Church... this blog entry is about the Catholic Church, isn't it?

I applaud the Roman Catholic Church for being true to the teachings of Christ. All of the ills of society and all of the ignorance here on these pages are for want of the knowledge of these teachings. Praise God!

Ok, the Bible was written by men in a time WELL before science, before any one had a CLUE regarding embryonic development. As recently as the middle ages, it was thought that a developing fetus was a "homunculus" - a tiny, minaturized, FULLY developed human. As we know now, this is outright wrong, even laughable today.
What religions force you to do, in spite of the science, is label everything as black or white - its not a ball of cells, its a HUMAN. Well, in the age of stem cells, isn't every CELL a human? Isn't eating an egg eating a potential chicken? Where does it stop? We need to starting seeing things as shades of grey - which action will cause the least amount of suffering, for MOM or fetus alike, instead of pointing fingers of blame based on mythology and pseudoscience.

Hi MikeP,

ST: As Time/Knowledge moves on Good Change may occur

Thanks Mike for all the good source links. Later I will read more thoroughly all your links.

As I look at some of these letters I see a firmness in "Walk Away" that is too rigid to stand the test of time as a Christian or a Catholic. If you as a "C" met a man running around naked, in a cemetary saying and acting evil would you just "Walk Away" as these statements lay out as their Christian procedure? Would you give no guidance "Walk Away", or no hope for a new direction to those who seem to your tenets to be people in need (rich or poor)?

Also in "NO" there is the same rigidity that one does not see when you read the Catholic Bishop's Just War Doctrine which strives for Christianity in a complex situation. BTW As an aside, Sadly in 2001 implementation of Just War tenets was overshaddowed by the Globe and USA media in non stop coverage of other Catholic related news. Remember that Curse Mike..

Anyway I hope they re-evaluate how they move forward and on the "NO" side think of Pope Urban's goof and Just War.

Yours in GOD,

Because the Catholic Church has been so right on so many things... let's recap:

The Inquisition
The Crusades
Threatening Gallileo with torture because he correctly stated that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around.
Siding with the Nazis during WWII
An endless reign of sexual abuse and cover-up (in Boston and elsewhere).

I'm so glad that God has clearly chosen the right people to decide how we should live. I mean, how would I know what magic jujubee in the sky to pray to if it wasn't for the oh-so-perfect-and-right Catholic Church? These pesky women need to learn their place as the breeders of God's holy army. Now, when are we finally going to do away with all those infidels who don't believe what we believe

Caritas doesn't have a great reputation anyway. If you want good hospital care, go somewhere else.

They are a private organization, therefore they can run it how they please in this regard.

If you want an abortion, go to an abortion clinic. There's no need to be taking up hospital beds with these procedures that can be done elsewhere.

Ok, the Bible was written by men in a time WELL before science, before any one had a CLUE regarding embryonic development. As recently as the middle ages, it was thought that a developing fetus was a "homunculus" - a tiny, minaturized, FULLY developed human. As we know now, this is outright wrong, even laughable
What religions force you to do, in spite of the science, is label everything as black or white - its not a ball of cells, its a HUMAN. Well, in the age of stem cells, isn't every CELL a human? Isn't eating an egg eating a potential chicken? Where does it stop? We need to starting seeing things as shades of grey - which action will cause the least amount of suffering, for MOM or fetus alike, instead of pointing fingers of blame based on mythology and pseudoscience.

=========================================
Pseudo-science?
Your the one using hyperbole and snark without taking stock in your own statements. Being an egg is only one half of the equation it takes two to tango, and then life is created. Stem cells themselves are not life in the explantation that they themselves can form a censiant being. That is why the use of stem cells harvested from willing adults has been the preferred moral and ethical choice. People who believe in life do not want to see embryos created which would grow into viable human beings created in order to be destroyed and harvested for their cells. If you think linearly then in the future what would be to stop us from raising a class of humans that we used simply to harvest a heart or lungs and destroyed the rest? You are right about one thing, in the game of life ther is no grey area. There is only to states; "life" and its antithesis "death". Which side are you on?

Could someone invent a time machine so we can go back and convince the mother of 'yours in christ' to get an abortion?

Because the Catholic Church has been so right on so many things... let's recap:

The Inquisition
The Crusades
Threatening Gallileo with torture because he correctly stated that the Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around.
Siding with the Nazis during WWII
An endless reign of sexual abuse and cover-up (in Boston and elsewhere).

I'm so glad that God has clearly chosen the right people to decide how we should live. I mean, how would I know what magic jujubee in the sky to pray to if it wasn't for the oh-so-perfect-and-right Catholic Church? These pesky women need to learn their place as the breeders of God's holy army. Now, when are we finally going to do away with all those infidels who don't believe what we believe

=================================

You are one seriously disturbed individual. We do not believe we have control of who lives. We believe that everyone including your de-ranged self has the right to life.

The contracts were signed, sealed, delivered, hundreds of physicians and staffers were hired, the Cardinal had to be embarrassed into bringing in John Hass whom he assured everyone would back up this contract he tried to hold onto with all his might - right up until hours before it was supposed to go into effect, looming injunctions and threatened lawsuits by prolife staff and physicians were on his plate - and Ann Fox has the unmittigated gall to claim she knew, she just knew the Cardinal had no intention of going forward with this deal and MCFL has saved the day. She has got to be kidding.

It sickens me when someone calls Christianity a mythology or a pseudoscience. Of course it is not either to those who believe in the personal relationship that we have with Jesus Christ. The Bible while written by men, was inspired by God. It holds true when it was written and it holds true today. We believe that life begins at conception and that God knows each and everyone one of us, before we are even born. This debate will never be won since one side believes this and the other does not. There is no compromise. And as long as Christians believe that life begins at conception, we will keep pushing to end abortion. I am not Catholic but I continually applaud the Catholic church for staying true to their beliefs and to the word of God.

Great posts, tictoc... any time now the appearance of the king of hyperbole will make his appearance and slam you as a Bush supporter..., arguing somehow that your position, whatever it is, on the Iraq war, sanitizes the holocaust of abortion.

Trite, trite,trite.

I don't get the eating the egg argument. If we didn't eat chickens also for moral reasons it might make sense.. I don't believe there is a moral issue with eating a chicken or an egg. Or a hamburger either.

Abortions lower crime and poverty rates and eventually increase the average intelligence of the human race. We should be giving out coupons for them and setting up express lanes. Another unwanted child who will end up on the welfare rolls and draining from society is not what we need. Spare me the jesus junkie talk, not everyone is special, get real. We're not going to fantasy JesusDisney land when we die, we decay and turn into carbon based waste. While we're alive though, let's make it the best we can - live every day like it's your last.

"MyReligionIsScience":

"Abortions lower crime and poverty rates and eventually increase the average intelligence of the human race."

Are you a Nazi? Orwellian, Brave New World- ian? That is the most frightening post on this Board in months (yes, even more so than ontheleft's)

MRIS - If you really believe all of that nihilism, then why bother concerning yourself with abortion, crime rates, poverty rates and the 'average intelligence of the human race'?

That's at least 15 seconds of your life you just wasted typing that nonsense.

I agree with KJR about MyReligionIsScience's post. But at least s/she is articulating what a lot of the abortion-on-demand-for-any-reason-at-any-time crowd is all about. Margaret Sanger's position on contraception and abortion were that the "unfit" and lower classes should not reproduce. It's all about eugenics and "improving the species". These people push abortion in minority communities. And KJR is showing their true colors.

Hey Tictoc02026: You say " Being an egg is only one half of the equation it takes two to tango, and then life is created." Yet YOU'RE the only who believes that Jesus was "immaculately" conceived - no egg OR sperm. Who's the one who believes in mythology? You might as well believe in the Greek myth that Athena was born from Zeus' forehead. How is it any different? The eating an egg analogy was to point out that the egg has the possibility of becoming a chicken. Every month when a woman menstruates, she's shedding an ovum. Should women be banned from having periods as well? Where do you draw the line? The line is when an organism can feel pain.
Which leads a rational person to this - (what is a "censiant" being by the way? Do you mean SENTIENT?) Hate to break it to you, but if it comes down to a Mom who has an ectopic pregnancy, and carrying that pregnancy to term will KILL her, the 8 week old NON-SENTIENT ball of cells does not override the life of the mother.

Funny TicToc,

Seems all Christians don't agree with your statement that everyone deserves to live! More Christians are pro death penalty and torture than atheists. Ann Coulter excused the murder of a doctor by calling it (sarcastically) a late-term abortion. A white supremacist walked into a holocaust memorial and killed three people in the name of the "pure christian race."

How does that work? I mean this god you talk about is all-knowing, all controlling. Shouldn't there be a lot of uniformity in the "christian" world?

Let's go back to my examples... Inquisition, Crusades, etc... The Christian church has a CRAZY amount of blood on its hands. FAR more traumatic blood than the abortion of an unborn cluster of cells with no actual life.

The problem is that you just don't get that it is a matter of opinion. You believe that a little cluster of cells is alive, I don't. I, however, believe that a person has the RIGHT to believe what you believe, whereas YOU want to tell ME what I should believe.

As long as there are religions which think they are "right" there will be insane people willing to torture, murder, and alienate in order to protect their little mind's inability to admit that there are perhaps differences in opinion.

It is YOU who are frightening. You worship a benevolent zombie who requires you to worship him through vampirism and cannibalism. You are delusional and dangerous to everyone.

Oh an another thing, your veiled death-threat also confirms my suspicion of your true nature. By implying that even I deserve to live, it shows that your TRUE response to my comments is to want to KILL ME, but that you have to give me the license to live because your religion tells you to, not because you actually believe it. Yeah, lotta love there jesus boy.

I've always liked Dawkin's explenation of Jesus as blackmailer... believe what I say, or burn for all eternity....

I'm just over-come with love today! Thank you Jesus!

MyReligionIsScience,

The use of science without morality has led to some of the worst atrocities over the past 100 years. Dr. Josef Mengele comes to mind as a prominant example of this. The Nazi's were eugenicists, they had a saying which roughly translate to "life not worthy of living". This does not sound to far from your own views.

In recent years Dutch Doctors have admitting to killing disabled newborns without parental permission. Do you support this too? This is where a culture of abortion leads.

Margarey Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood), in her own words (We are not making this up folks....)

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

"The undeniably feeble-minded should, indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their kind."
Margaret Sanger, quoted in Charles Valenza. "Was Margaret Sanger a Racist?" Family Planning Perspectives, January-February 1985, page 44.

This is the root mindset of the pro-choice crowd.... and it is utterly evil, as the Church has proclaimed for centuries.

kellmoops, you've made the wrong argument. Most reputable Catholic moral theologians would consider it morally licit for a woman with a tubal pregnancy to have a salpingectomy, or partial removal of the tube to save her life. This is the principle of "double effect". The intent is not to kill the embryo, but to save the mother's life. The embryo, however, cannot survive. It's death is a consequence of the treatment, and not the intent of the treatment. There is a moral difference.

And, kellmoops, Jesus was not "immaculately" conceived. He was conceived without a human father. The Immaculate Conception refers to the Virgin Mary, who was conceived without original sin. I suggest you review Roman Catholic beliefs before you criticize them.

Funny, KMS326, you bring up the Nazi eugenics movement, yet the catholic church and the POPE at the time supported the Nazi regime. The pope told the Catholics in Germany to follow Hitler's lead, and even sent out letters celebrating Hitler's birthday. And where would Hitler even GET the idea that it was god's will to kill those of jewish descent? That the "sins of the fathers would be visited upon the sons". Hmm...I don't know, maybe your bible?
If that isn't the definition of ironic, I don't know what is.

Sorry Highandinside - in my haste to type, I got my "Virgin Birth" and "Immaculate Conception" backwards. Either way, BOTH are in the realm of mythology, so my original statement still stands.

Oh an another thing, your veiled death-threat also confirms my suspicion of your true nature. By implying that even I deserve to live, it shows that your TRUE response to my comments is to want to KILL ME, but that you have to give me the license to live because your religion tells you to, not because you actually believe it. Yeah, lotta love there jesus boy.

I've always liked Dawkin's explenation of Jesus as blackmailer... believe what I say, or burn for all eternity....

I'm just over-come with love today! Thank you Jesus!

===================================
Did you have to take the tin foil off your head to read into what I said as a veiled threat? You make me laugh. Your a joke, you cannot even articulate the line between science in faith. You are disturbed! Nothing I ever said even remotely mentioned anything about religious beliefs. I believe abortion is a barbaric, and animalistic practice that is regularly performed by lesser species in the animal knigdom. You rant about what you say is science without any thing to back it up. Life is formed when a sperm and an egg join. IT IS PURE AND SIMPLE LINEAR LOGIC... If that clump of cells eventually develps fully into a human being than "LIFE" had to have been formed. There are only two doors in this debate LIFE OR DEATH. Since death was not formed by the joining of an egg and a sperm than it had to have been LIFE that was created. You see you have been lied to for many years and told that there was some sort of in between stage when it came to the "FETUS" that it was neither here nor there just something that was a health choice. Then you were somthered with more junk like privacy rights blah blah blah and you never thought about it past that. The pro choice stance is the true side of ignorance because you need to ignore all logic, reason , and science to support it. We can goo all day and you will never be able to break my arguement. YOU LOSE.... WE ARE RIGHT, AND YOU ARE WRONG AND THAT IS THE END OF THE STORY.

Funny, KMS326, you bring up the Nazi eugenics movement, yet the catholic church and the POPE at the time supported the Nazi regime. The pope told the Catholics in Germany to follow Hitler's lead, and even sent out letters celebrating Hitler's birthday. And where would Hitler even GET the idea that it was god's will to kill those of jewish descent? That the "sins of the fathers would be visited upon the sons". Hmm...I don't know, maybe your bible?
If that isn't the definition of ironic, I don't know what is.

==============================

That is a very sick slander, never at anytime did the Catholic Church Support the Nazis or the killing of Jews. You are a liar. Are you on drugs or something? Did someone not hold you enough as a child because you are way out there. What you have been saying is some of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this chat room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

No one derserves to die. Period. Please do not throw out there that pro-liferes belive in toture and murder. That is not true, in the slightest. The plain and simple difference in the pro life and pro abortion movements is that one believes a fetus is a "being" and and an individual. The other does not. The debate will never be one while this arguement is being fought.

Also, do NOT slam what Christians believe. If I was any other religion would you feel comfortable doing this? Why is it ok to slam Christianity?? Enough is enough. I'm sick of potical correctness and the fact that everyone feels is just fine to slam Christians.

For centuries the Bible has been twisted to serve an evil advantage and agenda. Nazi Germany is no different. Do not throw Christians in line with them.

kellmoops and 'yours in christ' have all the hater propaganda down, don't they?

And if they really believed the hateful lies they were spewing, then why would they waste precious time out of their very finite lives to troll in here and spout it?

These are angry, miserable, pitiable individuals. Please pray for them.

tictoc - there is no point in arguing with such deranged individuals. Misery loves company. Pray for them, ask Christ to remove the hatred from their hearts.

Pro-Choicer here....and I agree that Caritas Christi hospital can do whatever it wants....it is a private hospital, as such if they choose not perform abortions, then so be it.....go some place else. St E's is an overall cr*ppy hospital anyway, so why wouldnt you go someplace else....

TicToc02026 - Brilliant post!!!

psRight to Life movement members are America's jihadists....I hope th FBI, CIA, NSA, etc are actively monitoring the movements of psycho's that associate with this movement.

A hospital should be based on medical and scientific thought and rational, not religion. The church will stick its nose everywhere it shouldn't. i certainly hope they are being taxed to the full extent of the law. The only good thing about all this publicity is that women in need will not bother going to Caritas now that they know it is full of religious fanatics that care nothing about their health and well-being.

"We can goo all day and you will never be able to break my arguement. YOU LOSE.... WE ARE RIGHT, AND YOU ARE WRONG AND THAT IS THE END OF THE STORY."
Posted by tictoc02026 June 29, 09 03:08 PM

Except for the fact that you are wrong. You can scream your 2+2=5 equivalent all you like, but it's your side that's wrong. And a bunch of screaming, pedophile-enabling clerics aren't going to change the science now, any more than they could make the sun revolve around the earth 4 centuries ago. Chuck's absolutely right - the anti-choice movement went jihadist a long time ago, and it gets even further out there now that its candidates and party have been been soundly rejected by the American people. The story continues (but you can feel free to stomp your feet, cover your ears, and say "I don't hear it...I don't hear it...I don't hear it...".

A hospital should be based on medical and scientific thought and rational, not religion. The church will stick its nose everywhere it shouldn't. i certainly hope they are being taxed to the full extent of the law. The only good thing about all this publicity is that women in need will not bother going to Caritas now that they know it is full of religious fanatics that care nothing about their health and well-being.

Posted by anne smith June 29, 09 03:54 PM

===================================
I would say they they care about "EVERYONES" health and well being not just the mother.

This is ridiculous. Health care and hospitals should not be so presumptuous about what's "right" for people in need of health care. If a woman asks for an abortion, you don't refer her to an alternative. You provide her with the health care she seeks.

I don't care if an unborn fetus should have rights or not because the born should always take precedence over the unborn. And considering that I've yet to see a non-religious argument against abortion, I don't think that abortion should be made illegal, or be further restricted.

I think there's a serious misconception about how women make the decision to abort. It's not as if women say, "You know, I don't feel like it," five minutes after they realize they're pregnant. Many women are heartbroken when they find out that they are pregnant, and only opt for abortion after agonizing over the decision. It's disrespectful and uncalled for to make women's lives even harder by refusing to provide services or refer women to someone who WILL provide services.

Except for the fact that you are wrong. You can scream your 2+2=5 equivalent all you like, but it's your side that's wrong. And a bunch of screaming, pedophile-enabling clerics aren't going to change the science now, any more than they could make the sun revolve around the earth 4 centuries ago. Chuck's absolutely right - the anti-choice movement went jihadist a long time ago, and it gets even further out there now that its candidates and party have been been soundly rejected by the American people. The story continues (but you can feel free to stomp your feet, cover your ears, and say "I don't hear it...I don't hear it...I don't hear it...".

Posted by OnTheLeft June 29, 09 04:08 PM

===============================

You cannot come up with one SCIENTIFIC point to debate me on because you do not have a leg to stand on. You are weak minded and are incapable of explaining your position so you throw bombs. Science is on MY side not yours and so far you cannot break my arguement. Usually you guys think you can just bully everyone with your idiocy because you are just so damm distasteful. I love how I am being paited as a religious guy when I am not even that religious and I never have argued religion at all. You guys are incapable of spewing anything but anti-religious talking points when you lose to the science arguement. Quite pathetic actually.

You tell em Anne.
No one that works for these hospitals care anything for the women that come into their hospitals. All pro lifers care about is the unborn. Once they come out of the womb we smile broadly praying and hoping in our heart they will lead miserable little lives. Then as these hospital employees leave work each day they step on a couple of homeless people and steal an orphans last crust of bread. BWAHAHA. you figured us out. All of us 100% doctrine followingCatholics hate everyone except the unborn. The farther away they develop from conception the more we despise them.

Correction to my previous post where I incorrectly gave credit to TicToc02026. I meant to give credit to Yours in Christ instead....guess thats what happens when you only get 4 hours of sleep the night before....my bad.

To you pro-life terrorists - let me ask you this, how much $$$ did you donate today to an orphanage? Did you help a homeless kid out today??? Until your answer to either of these questions is something other than None or NO, your opinion is completely and totally irrelevant. I dont think debating abortion is wrong, however the fundamental hypocrisy coming out of right wingers regarding this issue is simply unbelievable. All I ask is that you BE CONSISTENT so I and others on the Pro-Choice side can actually take you seriously!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't see how anyone could be the least bit disturbed by tiny heads, torsos, and limbs that for some odd reason look exactly like small human (you know like babies) parts found in medical waste buckets at abortion mills. Just because they look human who cares. They should maybe serve coffee and snacks and open the procedures up to the public.

Tictoc02026 - Sorry, but I'm not lying here.:
"On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Orsenigo celebrated Hitler's birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany" and added with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars."
(Source: Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII).
IN ADDITION:
The Concordat between the Vatican and the Nazis

Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signed the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933. Nazi Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen sits at the left, Pacelli in the middle, and the Rudolf Buttmann sits at the right in an actual PHOTO of this event. The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world. The full text of the concordat appears on the Concordat Watch website.
So, no, sorry, I'm not lying or living in a fantasy world. It's the FACTS here.

All I'm saying is that the decision should be between the woman and her doctor, based on fact and science, not some made up mythology. The option that leads to the least amount of suffering should be the course to take. Women aren't HAPPY to go through this procedure, it's painful, both physically and emotionally. Especially if you're a woman who has been raped. That being said, I don't think abortions should be performed once the embryo can actually FEEL pain. It's not all black or white, which is what my original point was. A 4 week embryo is not the same as an 8 month old one.
And for those praying for me, because of my supposed "hatred of humanity" - you have me ALL wrong. I volunteer - at animal shelters, for gay rights, for OXFAM. I'm a scientist discovering drugs to save lives. But, I guess that doesn't matter because I don't believe in magic sky-gods.

Correction to my previous post where I incorrectly gave credit to TicToc02026. I meant to give credit to Yours in Christ instead....guess thats what happens when you only get 4 hours of sleep the night before....my bad.

To you pro-life terrorists - let me ask you this, how much $$$ did you donate today to an orphanage? Did you help a homeless kid out today??? Until your answer to either of these questions is something other than None or NO, your opinion is completely and totally irrelevant. I dont think debating abortion is wrong, however the fundamental hypocrisy coming out of right wingers regarding this issue is simply unbelievable. All I ask is that you BE CONSISTENT so I and others on the Pro-Choice side can actually take you seriously!!!!!!!!!!!

=================================
Fine then why dont you just be honest with yourself and everyone here and just say that you would rather kill those children than have them decide how and if THEY want to conduct their lives. Why do you think you have the right to decide who lives and who dies. You do not have that power, we are consistent in our arguement. I never donated a dime to an orphanage, and why should I have to in order to argue that abortion is something Rats, Lions, and other lesser animal species do, and humans should not. You are arguing ANTI-SCIENTIFIC talking points and rants. You guys have not proved anything, your too dumb or too idiologically brain washed by you NOW teacher to even understand what exactly you advocate for. To debate the science, actually in order to win scientifically you would have to admit what an immoral void of a person you are to come to grips with your logic.

This is ridiculous. Health care and hospitals should not be so presumptuous about what's "right" for people in need of health care. If a woman asks for an abortion, you don't refer her to an alternative. You provide her with the health care she seeks.

I don't care if an unborn fetus should have rights or not because the born should always take precedence over the unborn. And considering that I've yet to see a non-religious argument against abortion, I don't think that abortion should be made illegal, or be further restricted.
==================================
If it is not going to kill the mother it is not health care, and there is no difference between born and unborn only life and death.

Two can play this game...

Fine then why dont you just be honest with yourself and everyone here and just say that you would rather kill those children than have them decide how and if THEY want to conduct their lives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, then why dont you raise these babies after they enter the world then since you "care" so much???? Or are you going to get your panties in twist, and spew some more drivel because your logic here is inane.

Tictoc02026 - Sorry, but I'm not lying here.:
"On April 20, 1939, Archbishop Orsenigo celebrated Hitler's birthday. The celebrations, initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) became a tradition. Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany" and added with "fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars."
(Source: Hitler's Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII).
IN ADDITION:
The Concordat between the Vatican and the Nazis

Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signed the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933. Nazi Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen sits at the left, Pacelli in the middle, and the Rudolf Buttmann sits at the right in an actual PHOTO of this event. The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism, Christianity, and the world. The full text of the concordat appears on the Concordat Watch website.
So, no, sorry, I'm not lying or living in a fantasy world. It's the FACTS here.

==================

Almost as many christains and Catholic priests were also executed by the Nazis, That is an extremely controvesial book that has many inconsistencies in it. Its funny that nothing ever more was written in follow up because it has as many holes it it as "an inconvienent truth" or Farenheit 911".

I use to actuallt teach at a catholic school until they made this right turn into becoming "The Anti-abortion Church of God" . NOw they say the CORE belief of the church is anti-abortion. WOWO so glad that is where their efforts go. Let's beat others into our beliefs but god forbid they spend any time taking care of REAL children. Never!! especaily if the kids could be helped by those horrible gays. Better to leave the kids in orphanages. You wont find any of these marchers caring for kids. That would require REAL work. Better to march and hold big pictures of fetus. that is what Christ wanted. I think it was part of the Sermon on the mont. "Blessed are the sign holders and haters for they shall find entrance into hell" something like that. So glad I finally bolted from that church. Sad part is the real social justice the nuns, brothers and priets USE to do to help people. Now that church is all about signs, marches and trying to push their beliefs on others. Wonder where the new priests wil be comign from after the Africians and latin American men are used up? Hey maybe those "sacred virgins" could come in handy.

Why do you think you have the right to decide who lives and who dies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am a man so I have no say. A woman on the otherhand has every right to say what can, and cannot grow in her body. If the woman chooses to remove the fetus from her womb, and the fetus cannot survive outside the womb, then well it simply is not a person....

TicToc, you seem to have an answer for everything, you must be a really smart person.

(Hint - I am being sarcastic)

"how much $$$ did you donate today to an orphanage? Did you help a homeless kid out today??? "

Well, not today, or in the last 10 minutes, but to your point, YES and YES. Will you now protect the unborn? I know you think death is the alternative to a standard of living that you subjectivly think is unworthy, but I am happy you at least impliedly frame the issue about the economic (nazi) view of whether someone should live or die. May someone not have that power over you someday.

Praise this decision!!! Now there will be less abortion and many more little boys for our priests to abuse. The Church always is right and always knows best.

Aren't we all glad that our mothers didn't abort us?? If they had, we wouldn't be here to have this discussion.

Why do we need a scientist to determine whether or not the fetus is a human person? What else could the fetus possibly be? Just today my sister had a doctor's appointment in which they detected a heartbeat in her 8-week old unborn child. Only 8 weeks old!!

It is a cold, selfish society that kills its own children. Mother Teresa said that America is the poorest country in the world, because it lacks the greatest treasure - love.

Peter - your #56 is the best post on this Board, IMO, and says it all.

Posted by tictoc02026 June 29, 09 04:27 PM

OK, genius, here's some science. We generally consider death to occur when independent brain waves cease. Logically, then, life (religions would call it ensoulment) occurs when independent brain waves first occur. This happens around the end of the second trimester. Now, I'm presuming you know what a trimester is, in regards to human gestation, but if you don't, it's 3 months. So, independent brain waves occur at about 6 months into gestation (that's pregnancy, in case the term confuses you). Now, the beauty of Roe v. Wade is that it sees no state interest during the first trimester, increasing state interest during the second and serious interest after viability. Hence, the few late term abortions performed in the US generally involve serious life/health issues for the mother and/or the fetus.

Now, since you brought up weak-mindedness (like so many right wingers, you do tend to project your own failings onto the rest of us), why don't you demonstrate to the class the science that validates your point. Because objective reality doesn't support your rants. And since you brought up verbal bomb throwing, try to read your own posts and tell the class how those are anything but. Talk about pathetic. So, little Limbaugh wannabe, come back at us with facts, or refute the facts presented here that oppose your arguments. Refute them with facts, or expose yourself as one more pathetic Taliban-like zealot. Science. Not the word of your hierarchy.

Posted by Peter June 29, 09 08:51 PM

Peter, what makes you think we wouldn't have incarnated elsewhere? There is no reason to believe that we (our souls, or animating force) incarnate before the point at which independent brain waves occur, so our mothers couldn't have aborted us. We weren't there.

Why do we need a scientist? Because a cleric can't do the job. Like it or not, OB/GYN is not a religious sect. It's a medical/surgical specialty. And it's a woman's body - you would do well to keep you hands off of women's bodies without their express approval. It's been said that if we men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

As for this cold and selfish society that you reference, it is a cold and selfish society that kills born children in other lands for profit, that kills civilians in other lands for profit, that takes from the poor to give to the rich, that could care less that half of those in poverty in this country are kids. It is a cold and selfish institution that aids and abets the rape of thousands of kids because exposure of that abomination would tend to compromise its political power and it's claim to absolute moral authority.

Now, Mother Teresa was somewhat correct about the lack of love in this country. Such lack of love is frequently the product of, among other things, religious extremism. Face facts - religious fundamentalists and their right wing political allies seem to hate with a fury that is astounding to those of us who can't muster that level of violent rage. They demonize others ceaselessly, until one of theirs turns around and murders one of the demonized. Then, they wring their hands, shed their crocodile tears, and insist that their seething vitriol played no part in the terrorist acts committed by their fellow travelers. Too often, in this country, too many nominal Christians remind us of Gandhi's observation - "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Posted by tictoc02026 June 29, 09 05:03 PM

From the Concordat between the Holy See and the German Reich
July 20, 1933

Article 16
Before bishops take possession of their dioceses they are to take an oath of loyalty either to the Reich governor of the state (Land) concerned or to the President of the Reich respectively, according to the following formula:
"Before God and on the Holy Gospels I swear and promise, as becomes a bishop, loyalty to the German Reich and to the State (Land) of . . . I swear and promise to honour the legally constituted government and to cause the clergy of my diocese to honour it. With dutiful concern for the welfare and the interests of the German state, in the performance of the ecclesiastical office entrusted to me, I will endeavour to prevent everything injurious which might threaten it."

Care to offer something factual about the accuracy or meaning of this?

ontheleft,

So based on your above statement do you believe abortion is wrong once a woman reaches six months of pregnancy? Do you believe that the 60,000 late term abortions done by the late mr. Tiller where mainly done due to the health of the Mother? Do you become antichoice as you refer to pro lifers after 6 months if there is no threat to the life of the mother?

Peace and Blessings

Chuck

To you pro-life terrorists - let me ask you this, how much $$$ did you donate today to an orphanage? Did you help a homeless kid out today???

I have had a young lady living with me and my wife who would be homeless for the past two plus years. Our ministry includes as part of our service feeding the homeless and providing Christmas for a local shelter each year.

I keep requesting someone produce these mythical people who only care about the unborn. In addition 99.something% of pregnancies happen because TWO people make the decision to have sex. I would believe that 99.something percent of them no where babies come from. We all are called to help our fellow man but we are also called to have personal responsibility for our actions. Believe it or not humans unlike the animal kingdom can practice self control. I find it sad that some (most know it's a foolish position) try and say you can't be pro life if your not willing to take care of any unwanted pregnancy. They must be 0.something percentage that don't know where babies come from?

Peace and Blessings

ontheleft,

Oh and one last question please. I'm not questioning your belief but would you find looking at the remains of an aborted 3 month old unborn child (or whatever you would like to refer to this potential born human as) disturbing? If you aren't clear on what this would look like go on line and review what a s month developed in the womb child looks like.

Peace and Blessings

As an expecting father of an 8 week old unborn child (and yes I would concur that there is a heartbeat) I cannot fathom ending the pregnancy other than in cases of complications that would or could potentially prove fatal to my wife. I felt this way a couple of days after learning she was pregnant (the very beginning of the first trimester). Perhaps this life event has changed my views slightly. Having always been pro choice, it now seems counter to what I know to be common sense. We all make choices in life and one of the choices can be not to have sex. It's a shame that kids grow up today without good parental supervisions. Not being Catholic myself and have always considered myself pro choice, I can say I now lean towards pro life. People need to take some responsibility. This is not a video game, there are no do overs. This is life. And if you make the adult decision to have sex (unprotected), make the adult decision to bear the child. Plenty of parents out there that cannot have children of their own that would be happy to raise the child. This is an instant gratification society and that truly is a shame. I do think abortion has it's place in cases of rape, incest or harm to the mother (I'm assuming were talking about less than 1% of all abortions). Other than that I have yet to hear a good argument for drive thru abortions. It can be my choice to murder someone or rob a bank, but there are consequences. No one likes the idea of consequences. That's all I have to add to this post. Interesting to see the different arguments out there.

Great post Eric, thanks for sharing your experience and congratuations on your child !

OnTheLeft at #59 - You make some good points. Clearly, in the abortion debate, everyone seems to forget the irresponsible father of the child who often abandons the mother. Men who have intercourse must assume the responsibilities of their actions (as Eric said well in #64). Also, your quote from Gandhi is quite an indictment of Christians, and unfortunately is too often true.

Regarding your apparent definition of the soul ("animating force") - if the soul is the animating force, then doesn't it follow that the soul is there at conception? Otherwise, how else could the fetus grow without this animating force? Even if there are no independent brain waves that can be detected, how can this fetus grow without a soul? Isn't it already a separate living being, with its own developing heart, brain etc.?

"OK, genius, here's some science. We generally consider death to occur when independent brain waves cease. Logically, then, life (religions would call it ensoulment) occurs when independent brain waves first occur."

Alright, Mr. Left, here's some science. Only in the last few years has the medical community invented the notion that death occurs when independent brainwaves cease. They only came up with this "brain death" sham in order to justify more organ harvesting from live patients. Death, scientifically, occurs when the following things happen: cardiac death (heart stops), and pulminary death (breathing stops).

Dead means that the body is cold, not moving, and stiff. No electric shock will bring it back to life. If a person is truly dead, a ventillator won't work. A feeding tube won't work. Digestion won't work. If a "brain dead" person were dead, we wouldn't have cases of comatose, pregnant women going on to deliver healthy, normal babies. You can't have a baby if you're not alive.

It is foolish to say that, since life ends with brain death, that it must start with brain activity. This is NOT the definition of death (except to organ harvesters). Once a being has the required genetic material, combined at fertilization, it is now human, uniquely individual, and has the right to be given life.

We simply cannot change biology and do things like "decide" to be born for ourselves. We also cannot decide for ourselves that we want to be incubated in any other way that inside a woman's body. It simply can't change.

As someone already said earlier, the decision to risk having a child was made the moment the two individuals chose to have sex. Those two people must be held responsible for the consequenses of having sex. Babies come from sex. Period. It is not up to the rest of society to raise these babies because of two other people's poor decision. If they choose to place the child for adoption, they may do so, but abortion is simply murder.

Think for a minute about all the millions of babies that have been killed just since Roe vs. Wade. There went our replacement workforce. There went our replacement tax dollars. There went our Social Security and Medicare fund. We are now an aging population, and if it weren't for immigration, our country would have a declining population - just like many other countries are experienceing.

Get your own scientific facts straight before you start saying ignorant things like "death occurs when brain activity stops." If that were the case, how do you explain the cases where comatose people, who were declared "brain dead" recovered completely? You can't un-die. Obviously, their heart and lungs were still working.

On The Left,
You are clearly pro choice but more than that you seem to be very anti-Catholic. Most of your arguments are against the Church and namely former president Bush and his ill thought out invasion of Iraq. No disagreement from me (re: Bush that is). But Catholic and political ideology aside, what is your argument for abortion? I'm really curious to hear what you have to see after peeling back your initial arguments. Having always been pro choice myself I never had a good argument other than that it's a woman's body therefore a woman's right. I think that a woman has a right to her body and that right includes not having sex or making sure it's protected sex. Once you introduce another person into the equation, now you are not just talking about a woman's body and a woman's right but also the rights of the unborn child. Of course then the argument is when is a child viable, and to that I would argue from the moment of conception. Cells start splitting and growth occurs. Hormone levels rise and the female body prepares for the pregnancy. Really a wonderful thing that makes you think of a higher power even if you're not religious (which I am not). To stop that process for no good reason (i.e. in cases of rape, incest, health of the mother) seems to be a very selfish act. If you don't want the child don't have unprotected sex. It does not seem like a complicated proposition. I guarantee that the pregnant teen will think twice before sex if she is made to bear the child. But then again maybe not. We have a wonderful welfare system in this country (sarcasm intended).

Hi Proud2bCatholic, MikeyP,

ST: Where to Discuss this "Stuck in a Loop" Topic

As I read the most recent posts on this topic started by Michael, I keep seeing the discussion de-evolve into Abortion/anti-Christian vs. Life/Family/GOD.

It seems to me that Mike must have some older blog start that could be a resident place for all these back and forth "Stuck in a Loop" notes.

If this could occur two levels of discussion could occur, one (1) based on the specifics of the particular blog start, and then at least one other (2) on the over-arching topic. I mean "Stuck in a Loop" has to occur and can be useful yet it does detract. Someplace in my files I have an old Globe article about this topic and the top powers also finding it difficult to communicate.

Anyone have a suggested previous Blog Start?
I am not sure any of you would use this technique yet I would..

An Aside By: Proud2b "but would you find looking at the remains of an aborted 3 month old unborn child (or whatever you would like to refer to this potential born human as) disturbing?"

From my experience I have noticed repeatedly that the other side (Choice/Pro-Abortion) does not seem to care one bit for the dead fetus. They being showed this "object" makes them mad at you, not themselves and they consider you the sinner for hurting their feelings. I know this might seem odd to you, yet read the bible or history and you will see that these people with these values have existed forever and will continue to exist. They view this object similar to personal property. "Just a Bunch of Cells" "that my body produces" is one remembered comment. Also remember even Obama called unplanned pregnancy a mistake that could be solved.

Proud2b Keep Fighting,

OnTheLeft,

I admire your tenacity in holding your positions and taking on so many opponents, even though I disagree with many of your positions. You have several posts addressed to you (above) and I look forward to your response. Did you take the night off last night? I hope you will reply.

ontheleft - can you respond to these posts without mentioning:

a) Bush
b) the Iraq War
c) failed leadership in the Church or its criminal element (which everyone would acknowlege exists)?

After all, what is more corrupt than the government and politicians, yet you hold fast to America's ideals and values, don't you?

Now please, address the abortion points ON THE MERITS. You seem to have everyon'e attention here... make your case without a), b), or c) above, none of which have anything to do with abortion.

MANY_MrDave

Actually as I'm sure you know prayer si the most effective means of fight as only Jesus can change hearts. Of course education is huge also. I deal with teens with almost all my free time in a minstyr at my parish. Most go to public schools and the pro abortion bias is genuinely apparent there. We have had several teen girls swith their stand on abortion as they develop a prayer life and actually learn what the procedure actually is. one of the best lines I ever heard was from 15 year old Monika. . “Until recently I thought the baby just sort of disappeared”. I'll keep praying and speaking the truth then leave it up to God.

Posted by KJR July 1, 09 12:16 PM

KJR, I've responded many times to the issue of abortion, women's rights and reproductive rights and health, strictly on the merits of the arguments, citing scientific considerations and my unwavering support for women's rights. You may not like the responses, but they're there. Go bak and read them if you need to. Because, in fact, I've made those responses to your posts, among many others. You, on the other hand, never respond to any of the points you list above, so let me try to make it a bit clearer. You will continue to hear about Bush, the Iraq War, and your pedophile-enabling hierarchy for a set of simple reasons. You claim that you are far more "moral" than are those who do not agree with you. You attack the very faith of the majority of Catholics who do not agree with you. Your church's conservatives claim an ultimate moral authority, yet they fail the most basic test of morality. They allowed kids to be raped by the thousands. Anti-choicers like you claim to be pro-life, yet you support mass murderers like Bush, Cheney, and the criminal cabal that foisted the Iraq War on humanity. You cannot be pro-war and pro-life. I have asked you, since you maintain that all abortion is wrong, how you could support a political party that caused any number of Iraqi abortions when pregnant women were killed. So, are you saying that those abortions are acceptable? I have asked you, given your claim that you're pro-life, to justify the carnage in Iraq, carnage which you support. I'm still waiting for an answer. You see, KJR, all of these have to do with abortion. Simply put, you call it a moral issue, when, to the anti-choice movement, it's more of a political issue, stoked by an abject fear of women's equal rights to control their own lives without interference from the corrupt and murderous. If you want to call this a moral issue, your movement had damned well better be moral. Given its support of war and torture, given its blind obedience to its corrupt clerics, given its ancillary role in the bombings of clinics and the assassination of health care providers, the anti-choice movement hardly qualifies as moral. So your arguments hold no water. Your movement is not pro-life. You may not like it, but all of these points do indeed tie together.

Now, as for your attempt to lump all government officials and politicians as equally corrupt, well, I'm afraid that's utter nonsense. The Bush administration exhibited levels of corruption unseen in the history of the US government, and given the likes of Reagan, Nixon, Harding, and Grant, that's one hell of a lot of corruption. Yes, I hold fast to human ideals of individual self-determination, ideals that are still a work in progress here and elsewhere, an enormous amount of damage having been inflicted on those ideals during the Bush years. But your church's hierarchy holds itself up as morally infallible, KJR. It holds itself up as the "one true faith". These are its central tenets, its sine qua non. And, given its history over the past 17 centuries, those tenets do not hold up under even the slightest scrutiny. Again, it all ties in together.

Posted by Eric July 1, 09 08:50 AM

Actually, Eric, viability occurs at about 6 months or so, as do independent brain waves. A zygote is not viable - it can't live outside the womb on its own. As for good reasons, those are hardly limited to rape, incest, etc. The simple truth is that I'm pro-choice because, in fact, it is a woman's body. No one else's. The anti-choice movement has never shown itself to be really pro-life, so their hypocrisy lays their arguments to waste, and, given the church's stellar record on matters scientific (they did admit they erred in the Galileo matter - 360 years later), their claim that ensoulment occurs at conception is simply not believable. I think that Roe v Wade was decided quite wisely. That's reinforced every time I look at the seething hatred that comes from the anti-choice movement.

Posted by Kerri June 30, 09 11:17 PM

First off, Kerri, millions have kids have most definitely not been murdered since Roe, unless you're discussing possible death tolls from the vast number of wars in the past 36 years. Abortion is, simply, not murder. As for the science and your argument on brain waves in patients in persistent vegetative states, their brain waves have not gone flat. The absence of independent brain waves is, in fact, death. It is the brain stem that shuts down in PVS patients, necessitating life support. People choose to end life support because there is little or no hope of significant improvement, and even in those cases, it tends to be just to a minimally conscious state, then back. You are right in that dead is dead. But PVS is not dead, certainly not brain dead. It may be all but that, but it is not death. So, in fact, the emergence of independent brain waves is certainly a legitimate marker for ensoulment.

Now, you talk of the "decision to risk having a child". And this is always one more problem with the anti-choice movement. You seem to be of the opinion that people should be "punished", as it were, for having sex without the approval of you or your clergy. Now, for centuries, the church has said that sex is permissible, as long as one leaves open the possibility of breeding more members for the church. The reality is that it simply isn't that way for most people. So, the decision here is really about having sex. Now, it is more than appropriate to make certain that birth control is readily available, and that its use is encouraged through all manner of education. Because it's pretty simple - if you really want to see the number of abortions decline, there's only one solution. You have to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. And "just say no" isn't going to get that job done.

On The Left,
Thank you for the response. I think it is the most heated political issue out there for good reason.

So if you're saying the measurement of viability is whether a child can live outside the womb how come premature babies are given so much care? Many can not live outside the incubator yet killing them while there is murder. Also, I'm not Catholic so I could care less what the Church has to say about anything.

KJR,

I guess the answer to your question in #71 is NO!

Although he says he has he has never answered the below questions.

ontheleft,

I'm not questioning your belief but would you find looking at the remains of an aborted 3 month old unborn child (or whatever you would like to refer to this potential born human as) disturbing? If you aren't clear on what this would look like go on line and review what a s month developed in the womb child looks like.

He has also not answered when I asked him if since he believes after 6 months or so the baby does have brain waves and is viable outside the womb does he feel abortion is morally wrong at that point?

He can't answer this question because if he says he does think it's morally worng he lumps himself in with the group he has coined as anti choice. If he says it's not morally wrong then he is saying it doesn't matter to him when he believes a person has rights when he has actually stated many times he believes life is viable oustide at around six months. Of course which leads to another question he hasn't answered which is does he believe all of the 60,000 babies aborted by Mr Tiller where do to the potential health risk to the mother.

ontheleft,

Although I might not remember exactly here I believe based on multiple posts KJR and others have answered your questions. The problem is you REFUSE to acknowledge and.or allow people to have their own beliefs but try and tell them what they believe.

The war in Iraq. As you know the Catholic position is sometimes war is just. In the case of the Iraq war most of the major players (see current and most recent Pope) of the Catholic Hierachy have not and do not support the war. I'm not sure what KJR's stand is. Personally, I wcan honestly say I'm not sure. If Bush lied and didn't really believe their where WMD's then I do not respect him in the least.

Voting for Bush. Another thing you refuse to acknowledge is the lessor of two evil voting. For intelligent people voting requires reviewing all positions and then picking a candidate. Voting for a candidiate does NOT mean you agree with all their positions. Say two candidates mirror each other in every way accept their stand on War and Abortion. You refuse to acknowledge (it's OK for you to disagree) that someone could possible believe abortion is as serious or more serious offense then war. This is where you who accuse others of forcing their beliefs on people do exactly that. My stand and I believe KJR's is we believe abortion to be a more serious moral issue. You might believe we are totally off base which is fine but don't tell us we love war and everything about Bush because we feel this way.

Frankly if you really believe (I believe them to be mythical) that the majority of people against abortion don't really believe in their hearts it's a moral issue and not a political issue and don't care about the child once they are born then I genuinely feel sad for you.

Every Catholic that tries their best to take their Confirmation vows seriously that posts here has stated numerous times that any Priest, Bishop, laity, that abused children and/or where part of the coverup should be held accountable to the full extent of the law and will be judged by Jesus someday.

Since I'm sure you won't answer the questions I have posed above how about this? You ask one question and I will answer. Then I will ask you one question and you will answer. You can start even if it's one you've already asked. My theory is I will answer the question without turning the answer into a question or criticism of what you believe? Based on what I've read from you over thses past few months my guess is you can not or wont do the same.

Peace and Blessings

Beautifully stated, proudtobe...

The amount of bandwidth ontheleft uses on his rants is staggering. He cannot discuss abortion on the merits, because, as my wife my always says, most liberal positions are totally illogical and cannot survive a scrub against facts and reason.

The term "intrinsic evil" is a non-negotiable term. What is, or what is not a "just war" is subject to debate. The corniest argument he makes is that somehow support for a war sanitizes abortion .... it is bizzarre. I wonder what he would post if this blog appeared in 1999?

Many dissenting Catholics (including priests) like to toss abortion in to all the other social issues. The Church clearly does not teach this, but it gives them cover.

ontheleft still has not answered Eric's post, regarding viability without tubes, monitors, respirators and anything else. To extend ontheleft's logic, these preemies could be left to die because they certainly are not viable outside the womb. Unborn babies have their own blood type, DNA, et al, so this "woman's body" stuff of course is absurd. The "choice" is made to engage in sex knowing the consequences. If the left were honest, they would agree to restrict abortion in 99.5% of the time - and to be honest... though I think it should be all of the time, I would take that deal right now.....

Posted by proud2bcatholic July 2, 09 11:20 AM
Posted by KJR July 2, 09 01:20 PM

Where to start with the nonsense of the last 3 posts from the both of you. Actually, in response to Eric's questions (refreshingly lacking in nonsense, by any means), if a baby is born prematurely, it is born. End of pregnancy. As for the two of you, as I've repeatedly stated, if you want to discuss morality, we'll discuss morality. Your support of a murderous regime and its actions is part of that discussion. Your support of a child rape enabling hierarchy is also part of that discussion. If you have a problem with that, it's too damn bad. Deal with it. And, KJR, "intrinsic evil" is non-negotiable. Your war in Iraq is an intrinsic evil. Torture is an intrinsic evil. Again, I ask you, either of you - justify this war. Justify torture. Hell, even if could care less about the living who were killed, justify the abortions caused by this war. And, guys, it's you who live in a world divorced from objective reality. It is you who are wrong time and again on what you present as fact. KJR, your wife's statement is untter nonsense, but likely typical projection coming from the right.

The idea that you have the right to control women's bodies is arrogant beyond measure, and again exposes your fear of women exercising control over their own lives. And, KJR, you made two other interesting comments. One would indicate that you view sex as a matter to be punished. The other states that you believe that women should be forced to die for you dark ages religious beliefs. If the rest of the anti-choice right were honest, they would admit that, as you just did, when you indicated that you believe that no woman should be able to control her reproductive life. So, KJR, again - abortions caused by your war in Iraq. Please justify those. Because, the truth is simple - it's not abortion that gets to you. It's choice. My side is honest, KJR. Yours should give honesty a try once in a while.

As for "dissenting Catholics", I will state again that it is you, based on the general sense of American Catholics (and dictatorship is not part of Jesus' message, so you can stop the "not a democracy" nonsense), who are far out of mainstream. Real Catholics actually embrace equality, social justice, and the teachings of one Jesus of Nazareth. Faux Catholics embrace a corrupt hierarchy that has, as its principal raison d'etre, the acquisition of power. Your bishops, and the others frothing at the mouth, the ones who spewed their hatred toward this president and Notre Dame, towards gays, towards those advancing the cause of freedom and self-determination - faux Catholics, every one of you. You live lives driven by fear and loathing. And you take the name of one of history's great men and sully that name by acting as the Sadducees did during his time. It was people like you and your hierarchy who called for his death then, and were he here today you would most likely do the same.

ontheleft.

So then can we play the question answer game. You have a lot in your most recent post. Please just ask me one question which I will answer. Then you cna give me one follow up question. Then allow me to ask you one question and you can allow me one follow up. I know it sounds corny but I believe we could both better understand what our positions are. I know your confident in your opinion and basis for them as am I so this shouldn't be a problem. It's also apparent we both have time to write in this blog. If I am unwilling to answer EVERY one of your questions to the best of my ability then you have every right to question my beliefs. All I would ask is we answer the question without posing a question to the other or lashing out at any of the person doing the questioning beliefs. Are you brave/confident enough to play? You go first. Of course it's a long weekend for many but I should be able to check in during the weeknd.

I sincerely look forward to hearing your true answers/opinions and giving mine.

Happy Independence Day. I'm sure we both can agree we love America!

Peace and Blessings

On The Left,
End the crusade against KJR for just one moment and frame your response to me. Keep in mind I am anti George Bush, anti Iraq war and have no vested interest in the Church or any of it's teachings. I'm for abortions in limited cases (less than 1%, health of mother, rape etc..). I'm for education and contraception. I'm not for (or rather no longer for) making abortion as easy as ordering the #1 meal at McDonald's. Try to frame your argument to me excluding the points we AGREE upon. Did I happen to mention I'm a registered Democrat. I await your response.

Posted by proud2bcatholic July 3, 09 10:38 AM

If you voted for George Bush or John McCain, please justify your war in Iraq. Since so many on your side assail what you call "moral relativism", please do not use the "lesser of two evils" defense for your votes for the perpetrators of that war.

Posted by Eric July 3, 09 11:07 AM

There is no viability at conception or anywhere close to conception. Viability includes the ability to survive premature birth, even given current technology, which puts it at around 6 months or so. The same point at which independent brain waves occur, and, it would seem likely, ensoulment. It is also likely that ensoulment has occurred by the time of birth, and the matter of pregnancy is now moot. Abortion is not as easy as ordering at McDonald's, but it should be no more difficult than any other medical decision of that level of complexity. Yes, it's more complex than getting a prescription for a sinus infection, since there is a procedure involved. But it is an OB/GYN procedure. It is the woman's body, it's her life, and she need not be relegated to the role of breeder for males who, among other things, fear independent women. We all have the fundamental human right of privacy. That includes women, not just those of us who are male.

I find it interesting that, even though a dangerous procedure at the time, the Catholic Church allowed abortion until 1869, up to the point of "quickening" which they defined as 40 days for male fetuses and 80 days for female fetuses (?). Any abortions performed after 40 days, but before 80 days were presumed to be female. The actual ban, as in making abortion a sin was not codified by the Church until 1910. Does anyone else see a bit of hypocrisy involved in this entire discussion? You will not find any references to the above information in Catholic archives, but a study published by the Quakers does cover it. The Catholic Church purged the information from their records, big surprise in that.

David Long - your scholarship is weak and you took the bait.

Wendell Watters, a Canadian psychiatrist, makes the unsupported claim that prior to 1869 and except for three years during the reign of Sixtus V (1588-1591), "The Church had officially accepted the theory of delayed animation for 500 years."40 This, of course, is completely untrue. The Church had never at any time "officially" accepted the theory of delayed animation. It did, however, mitigate punishment if the abortion was of an unanimated fetus. But it never taught that there was such a thing as an unanimated fetus; it gave the benefit of the doubt to the penitent that this might be the case in an early abortion. The only official Church teaching on the subject of animation is that of Pope Innocent XI which condemned the position that ensoulment took place at birth.41

Whether the fetus ever was unanimated, when it might have been animated, and how such a diagnosis might be made were all speculative questions that were wholly extrinsic to the fundamental teaching that abortion was wrong at anytime. In fact, there never existed an empirical method by which a judgment could be made that the fetus is indeed "not animate."

On the basis of this misunderstanding, Watters then concludes that the elimination of the distinction between the animated and unanimated fetus in 1869 "was a pivotal one in the history of abortion." Prior to 1869, according to Watters, "Abortion before ensoulment was tolerated by the Catholic Church."42 Watters also fails to recognize the difference between opposing abortion because it is homicide and opposing it because it is homicide by intent. He illogically assumes that if the Church, at certain times and in certain circumstances, regarded abortion as less than homicide it probably "tolerated" or even "sanctioned" abortion. This is roughly equivalent to arguing that it must be all right to kill a privately owned racehorse because such an act does not constitute homicide. At any rate, Watters insists that the real reason the Church opposed abortion was not moral or religious but political."43

Watters' book, promoted as one destined to become the "definitive book about abortion," has the appearance of scholarship. This makes it all the more dangerous because uncritical reviewers repeat as Gospel the distortions Watters claims to be facts. Thus, one reviewer can blithely announce in a woman's magazine, concerning Watters' treatment of Church history.

From: http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=3362&CFID=9572099&CFTOKEN=18952171

Also, the Didache, (writing of the apostles) specifically condemned abortion from the 1st century.

The Didache
"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).

The Letter of Barnabas

"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).

The Apocalypse of Peter

"And near that place I saw another strait place . . . and there sat women. . . . And over against them many children who were born to them out of due time sat crying. And there came forth from them rays of fire and smote the women in the eyes. And these were the accursed who conceived and caused abortion" (The Apocalypse of Peter 25 [A.D. 137]).

Athenagoras

"What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers?
. . . [W]hen we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God’s care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it" (A Plea for the Christians 35 [A.D. 177]).

Tertullian

"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).

"Among surgeons’ tools there is a certain instrument, which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs [of the child] within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hook, wherewith the entire fetus is extracted by a violent delivery.

"There is also [another instrument in the shape of] a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: They give it, from its infanticide function, the name of embruosphaktes, [meaning] "the slayer of the infant," which of course was alive. . . .

"[The doctors who performed abortions] all knew well enough that a living being had been conceived, and [they] pitied this most luckless infant state, which had first to be put to death, to escape being tortured alive" (The Soul 25 [A.D. 210]).

"Now we allow that life begins with conception because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does" (ibid., 27).

"The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion [Ex. 21:22–24]" (ibid., 37).

Minucius Felix

"There are some [pagan] women who, by drinking medical preparations, extinguish the source of the future man in their very bowels and thus commit a parricide before they bring forth. And these things assuredly come down from the teaching of your [false] gods. . . . To us [Christians] it is not lawful either to see or hear of homicide" (Octavius 30 [A.D. 226]).

Hippolytus

"Women who were reputed to be believers began to take drugs to render themselves sterile, and to bind themselves tightly so as to expel what was being conceived, since they would not, on account of relatives and excess wealth, want to have a child by a slave or by any insignificant person. See, then, into what great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by teaching adultery and murder at the same time!" (Refutation of All Heresies [A.D. 228]).

Council of Ancyra

"Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees" (canon 21 [A.D. 314]).

Basil the Great

"Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years’ penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not" (First Canonical Letter, canon 2 [A.D. 374]).

"He that kills another with a sword, or hurls an axe at his own wife and kills her, is guilty of willful murder; not he who throws a stone at a dog, and unintentionally kills a man, or who corrects one with a rod, or scourge, in order to reform him, or who kills a man in his own defense, when he only designed to hurt him. But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it dies upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion; and so are they who kill on the highway, and rapparees" (ibid., canon 8).

John Chrysostom

"Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit?—where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? For even the harlot you do not let continue a mere harlot, but make her a murderess also. You see how drunkenness leads to prostitution, prostitution to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather to a something even worse than murder. For I have no name to give it, since it does not take off the thing born, but prevents its being born. Why then do thou abuse the gift of God, and fight with his laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the chamber of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter? For with a view to drawing more money by being agreeable and an object of longing to her lovers, even this she is not backward to do, so heaping upon thy head a great pile of fire. For even if the daring deed be hers, yet the causing of it is thine" (Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

Jerome

"I cannot bring myself to speak of the many virgins who daily fall and are lost to the bosom of the Church, their mother. . . . Some go so far as to take potions, that they may insure barrenness, and thus murder human beings almost before their conception. Some, when they find themselves with child through their sin, use drugs to procure abortion, and when, as often happens, they die with their offspring, they enter the lower world laden with the guilt not only of adultery against Christ but also of suicide and child murder" (Letters 22:13 [A.D. 396]).

The Apostolic Constitutions

"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . [I]f it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400])

www.catholic.com

There are more, but this post is big enough....

OntheLeft,
I commend you for leaving out Bush, Iraq and the failings of the Catholic leadership in your response. I know it must have been difficult. My main (non religious) argument about abortion is the seeming lack of accountability and responsibility of people adult enough to have unprotected sex, but not adult enough to deal with the consequences (i.e. bearing the child). We can agree to disagree on abortion.

I do have one more question. Why do you post pro choice on a religious blog? Do you just like to argue for arguments sake or do you seek to convert a pro life Catholic crowd to your view point? This would be like selling a gun to a pacifist. Or do you just like to point out the hypocrisy of religion in general (of which I agree)? Seems like a waste of time to me, but then again here I am responding. Happy 4th.

KJR - "took the bait" ? Interesting, using a term that alludes to being fooled and hooked by someone trying to change your will and reel you in. I find that the mountain of writings that an entrenched institution that had a virtual monopoly over learning and scholarship for centuries (until the invention of the printing press), could dredge up justification for any position from their voluminous (many hidden and classified as secret) and much edited historical documents, yet has never been able to find the proof necessary to prove that their god/gods exist or have ever existed. I shall reserve judgement on the soundness of your reasoning until such proof is forthcoming.

David- I just gave you the proof. You don't want to accept and and took the political position that is historically unsupportable. Your response to that is that these cites are all manufactured... what else would you expect me to provide, eyewitnesses?

I have always contended that if a god exists, that the religion that is the true manifestation of that god should be able to produce it and prove they are the one true religion. In as much as no religion has EVER been able to do that task, we should rethink giving such institutions an across the board tax free ride ( which the rest of us have to make up - in violation of the Establishment Clause of The Constitution) and rethink handing our children over for indoctrination in religion based educational programs. Personally, I've had a deep suspicion that because the hundreds of millions of prayers offered up for this god to stop Hitler before he killed 50 million people seem to have all been for naught, that god may just not exist.

David - you raise a great and long contemplated fundamental question: If God is so loving, why does he permit evil to exist? This blog is not the place, but there are many resources that address this question, but the thought is centered around his giving the gift of free will to mankind - which of course, results in consequences both good and evil. Probably the most illustrious depiction of the nature of God and the idea of free will, and redemption, are depicted by Jesus in the Story of the Prodigal Son. Read it - it is remarkable.

proudtobe, gaudete - any references you've come across to give David on how Christianity views this very important issue?

David Long,
A lot (all?) of religion has to do with faith. If you have none, KJR can not give it to you. You are clearly an atheist and no one begrudges you that. I myself identify with a non catholic religion even though I'm non practicing. I would not tell my more religious family members that their faith is not logical since Hitler was able to run roughshod thru Europe. Don't take it out on the people who post here on this religious blog. Maybe you can find a receptive audience on an atheist blog. As for the tax breaks, write your local congressman. Good luck.

Ontheleft,

If you voted for George Bush or John McCain, please justify your war in Iraq. Since so many on your side assail what you call "moral relativism", please do not use the "lesser of two evils" defense for your votes for the perpetrators of that war.

Posted by OnTheLeft July 4, 09 01:54 AM

Cool, I glad you asked a question and I look forward to asking mine. But when asking a question you can't tell me how I can answer.

I voted for George Bush for two major reasons. Sorry but they both have to do with the lessor of two evils. You don't have to believe me but that is the truth. By you saying I can't mention that keeps me from answering your question honestly and I would believe would keep most of those who vote from answering your question honestly. First because I looked at all the issues particularly those which I felt where of most importance to me. As you know I feel abortion to be an intrinsic evil. I also felt he did not lie about believing there where WMD's. If he did then I totally disrespect him. If he did deceive the public he should be accountable and will be by God. I also like Bush's stand on embryonic stem cell research (not using my tax dollars to fund what I believe to be intrinsically evil). Basically weighing all issues putting more weight on some that others I chose Bush. For McCain and Obama it was different as the war was already in place so again I researched all the positions of both putting heavier wieght on certain issues and voted the lesor of two evils. I did discuss with several people including my parish Priest about voting for the lesor of two evils. I take voting seriously and do much research before shoosing a candidate. Some stated they would vote for only the candidate that was the closest to their beliefs. Of course my thoughts at this point the only possible outcome in our presidential elections is a winner from one of the two major parties. Most felt both of thes positions where defendable positions. Through prayer I determined voting for McCain over Obama to try and keep the most pro abortion President out of the white house along with weighing all the other issues was my reasoning for voting this lessor of two evils approach. I believe war is a terribly unpleasing to God and honestly I am not sure whether we where the ealst bit justifed going in there. Alll the death and injury is awful. I also believe abortion 99.9% (I'll give you the case where the mother is definetely going to die and the baby definetely won't survive) is an evil act.

I'm guessing that you'll understand that telling me I can't tell you the true reasons (when you wrote don't use the lessor of two evils approach) for why I voted for who I did is unreasonable.

Feel free to ask a foolow up and then I'll ask my first question.

Peace and Blessings

Proud2bcatholic,
I would suggest writing your posts in Microsoft word and running a spelling/grammar check. Then copy that over to the blog. You lose some credibility with your numerous spelling errors.

Also, engaging in conversation with ontheleft may be a wasteful pursuit. I highly doubt you will get this person to concede to any of your points as he is hell-bent on trashing the Catholic religion. I am not even Catholic and I find myself defending it!

Eric,

I don't disagree with using spelling/grammar check or your observations about ontheleft. I can't help it though as I love the big lug.

Posted by Eric July 5, 09 12:51 AM

Eric, I first posted here in response to some rather massive hypocrisy on some issue or other. I post pro-choice because I am pro-choice, and that position is hardly inconsistent with spirituality (not to be confused with the institution of religion). In fact, not all religions agree on the point of ensoulment. As for what you call my "trashing of the Catholic religion", have I submitted facts that were erroneous? I was baptized, confirmed and raised Catholic. I left long ago for a variety of reasons. I know many Catholics who, quite unlike so many of the zealots, actually take the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth seriously. You know, that social justice, love your neighbor, milk of human kindness stuff. I am rather fed up with the zealots who would seek to impose their religious beliefs on public policy, then complain that they're being persecuted when the rest of us are unwilling to live according to their dictates. So they whine that we're anti-Cathoilc when we challenge their claims of moral authority and moral superiority. I mention Bush and the Iraq war because of the fundamental immorality of both, and the fact that both were widely supported by the zealots. Moral issues. A worthy matter for a religious blog, wouldn't you say?

Posted by proud2bcatholic July 6, 09 10:46 AM

Voting for the lesser of two evils is an act of moral relativism. Presumably, if you are a conservative Catholic, you would subscribe to moral absolutism. There was sufficient knowledge in 2004 that there were no WMD, that Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 9/11, that Bush had authorized torture, a truly intrinsic evil, that the carnage was the result of an oil and land grab, that Bush had lied. Four years later, McCain not only stated his desire to remain in Iraq for 100 years, but also his desire for a new war in Iran. As one who follows a hierarchy that has long decried moral relativism, how do you square the lesser of two evils approach with opposition to moral relativism?

Ontheleft,
Points taken. I agree there is a lot of hypocricy in religion. Keep on keeping on as I enjoy reading your posts. My disagreement over unlimited (legal) abortions is again a point of social irresponsibility and avoidance of consequences. If you have unprotected sex (an adult decision), deal with the adult consequences (bear the child). A simple argument to be sure, but enabling poor decisions (as well as funding the resolution with State taxpayer money) does not seem right to me.

OntheLeft,

Again I discussed with my Priest and others with wisdom about my responsibility as a Catholic to vote and also took it to prayer. I do believe wholeheartedly on the Catholic teaching on moral relativism. As you know I believe abortion is intrinsically evil and war is not. Through my prayer and wisdom of those I respect I felt it was OK for me to vote for a candidate whom I did not totally agree with. As you know the church does not consider war an intrinsic evil. That being said our current Pope and past Pope both where against the war. Of course they weren't ina position to vote in the election so I can't say who either of them would have voted for. I believe there is a strong possibilty they would have done what you feel I should have done based on my beliefs which is not vote for either of the two party candidates. I feel strongly also however that they would not condemn me or even feel I was going against God's will in voting using the lesser of two evil approach. God can read my heart and even if he disagrees he know I am not commiting serious sin against him because my intent is not to offend him. Although I'm not disagreeing with your stand against the war. I don't believe all of the reasons Bush did what he did may ever come out. Of course I don't feel you can really relate to the difficulty of my voting decision becuase you don't believe abortion to be wrong or against God's will. I think if at least in your mind you could say Ok I will allow him to believe abortion is murder you might be able to understand a little better why I voted the way I did. Would I vote the same way again today, probably. Is there a chance that might not be pleasing to God, yes. Again it goes back to God knowing my heart and my intent and I don't feel He would keep me from paradise for this decision. More time in purgatory, I guess only time will tell.

God Bless my friend

ontheleft.

Ok here is my first question.

You have said you believe an unborn child (or whatever you like to refer to it as) is viable outside of the womb, has brain waves, and a soul. Lets' say six months. Do you therefore believe if there is no threat to the life/health of the mother after this point that an abortion at this point or later in the pregnancy is morally wrong?

Peace and Blessings

ontheleft:

"I am rather fed up with the zealots who would seek to impose their religious beliefs on public policy,"

Eric - its hard to argue with someone who thinks murdering even a viable fetus in the womb has the moral equivalency of removing a wart from under an armpit.
He is the number one cheerleader of the most depraved pro-death president in history, a president who is left of Chavez (according to Chavez himself), one whose mission is to have the government control everything we have and do, strip freedom from speech, control the media *check"!) and turn the healthcare system in the US into Canada's (its great if you don't get sick)...

ontheleft did not like what the has officially stated in Her doctrine regarding faith and morals - it cramps his style, so, he does what most dissenting Catholics do - they leave, trash the Church, and find something that is comfy for them. It is all about them, no matter what you hear in the rhetoric... The can NEVER separate the message from the (sometimes less than perfect) messenger, which is like saying that the soul of the United States and her principals are bad because most politicians are corrupt. Well, the incestous nature of politicians is corrupt, but that does not diminish the principles of the United States.

The good news is that Obamanation, Pelosi, and Reed's days are numbers. The country is sobering up.

The other good news is that redemption is always available, and with the faithful like proudtobecatholic praying for him, there is always hope.

When a post is about Abortion, it becomes not only a religious issue, but a political issue, in that the religious position is being touted as the position that should apply to all. This includes the religious and heathens like myself, who do not consider a fetus to be a Human from the point of conception. What I want to know, is what is it that makes a zygote at the point of formation a Human being, that would merit that interpretation being forced on women who do not share that opinion? If it is because a divine spark (soul if you will) is infused into this one-celled entity at this time, then the rationale for the imposition of the so called "Right to Life position, will fly directly in the face of the restrictions against such an imposition as guarenteed by the Establishment Clause of The Constitution.

David,

I'm not sure exactly what your point is? As a Catholic I do believe an eternal soul is present at conception. Scientifically I know that a persons gender, hair color, eye color, etc are determined at conception. Of course as I'm sure you know most abortions do not occur for a couple months after conception. If you look at an ultrasound of a ten week old unborn child it is most certainly a human. I'm not sure if saying having an opinion forced is a fair statement. I mean they now know where babies come from and part of having sex is being accountable for what the potential outcome is, a baby. Of course crazy me I believe sex is a beautiful act created by God for a married man and woman. I believe we are different from the rest of the the animal kingdom and can use self control and actually wait until marriage.

Peace and Blessings

David, are there any moral implications from ripping the unborn puppies from your dogs belly just for kicks? Would it matter how "developed" they are? The dog would be your property wouldn't it? There is no soul there - yet, the thought of this is sickening.

I am sure there are laws preventing such behavior. It would be wrong to abort animal fetuses for any reason because it is morally depraved. The sickness of society has "carved out" (no pun intended) an exception for humans.

In most states, of a woman spontanously aborts during an assault, TWO homocides are charged. It is only murder unless the mother consents (ie, an exception to the murder rule). If the mother doesn't consent to the death of the fetus, it is murder (ie, a recognition by law of another human life). Abortion is an exception to the murder rule. At least let's be honest about what it is. One does not have to get to a religious position to accept that.

proud2becatholic:

"Of course crazy me I believe sex is a beautiful act created by God for a married man and woman. "

Careful, proud2be, a statement like that is likely to get you fired, slandered, vilified, and hated from some on this Board. Only Obama can say that he believes a marriage is between a man and a woman and not be excoriated for it. It is his privilege as a demi-god. Didn't you see the set at the Democratic National Convention?

I am well acquainted with all the emotional tools that are used to mute the point that some women do not want to carry a fetus to term, for a variety of reasons that should not be held hostage to the narrow beliefs of one or more various religions. There is no one holding a gun (literally or figuratively) to the head of a woman to force her to have an abortion in contravention to her deeply held beliefs, nor should there be someone holding that same gun to the head of a woman to make her breed against her will.

As to knowing where babies come from, if you are suggesting that sex only occur when a couple wants a child, I think the nuns must have whacked you one too many times in grade school. Sex is an important part of any committed relationship unless you want your partners prostate to kill him young through non-use. It is an affirmation of the bond between two people that has much importance outside of procreation. Your church has been involved in a breeding contest with other religions for centuries. In an effort to put more Catholic feet on the ground, your religion has come up with a recommended position that furthers that cause. You are taught not to have sex until you are married, which causes people to marry young. Once married they are forbidden to use effective birth control (rhythm & blues doesn't count), which results in frequent pregnancy. What the Church is trying to do is say "Get married young and have lots of children" I think it is time for religion to rethink policies like that in a world of finite resources where 40,000 a day already die of starvation.

That last sentence should have said "40,000 children a day die of starvation."

David - does the fetus have any interest or rights at all in this debate? Why are you dragging religion into it? My recent posts are "religion neutral".

Is there a moral difference between abortion and removing a wart?

Your comment about "birth control" and the Church is ignorant of what it is, how effective it is, and how safe it is - all lacking in "artificial birth control. You ought to educate yourself about the topic before you criticize it.

By the way - thanks for not mentioning Bush or the Iraq war in this discussion.

The fetus does not experience person-hood. No one can argue that the awareness of self is conferred to the fetus once it is slapped on the butt and starts sucking air on its own and that viability should be a concern in when abortion is allowable but, as an unaware entity with no sense of self, it doesn't have interest in anything. I'm aware of the religious position, but just don't think that that position should be imposed on those who do not subscribe to it, nor should the coercive power of the state be used to illegally impose it.

Dragging religion into the discussion is hardly avoidable in that it is religion that is the driving force behind taking the option of abortion away from women. As to birth control, you are going to be hard pressed to defend not allowing it in a world where there are just too many of us already. Over 6 & 1/2 billion of us are peeing in the collective pool we call Earth. When I was born, there were only two billion and change and in 1850 it is estimated that the population reached one billion. It is estimated that at the time of the supposed god/Human hybrid's birth (your Jesus) that there were only 250 million Humans alive on the planet. With finite resources reaching the breaking point, with arable land disappearing at 2% a year, with the huge carbon in storage in the frozen Tundra about to be released causing a cascade event that will perhaps cause the demise of the entire Human race, some religions have the gall to continue policies that will only make things worse. It is time for one of these infallible conduits to god to reveal that god has new orders that we should use our heads and no longer try to "fruitful" ourselves to death.

Lastly, why would I drag Iraq and George Bush into a discussion about abortion?

David - for those who have been following these Boards, your response to my thanks to you for not bringing up Bush and Iraq made many people laugh. (There is a poster who I am sure will respond who finds it impossible to discuss abortion rationally without bringing the Iraq War, into it, as though somehow George Bush's decision to go to war sanitizes the abortion debate. Stick around, you will know who I mean soon.)

You may have misunderstood my use of the word "interest". I did not mean interest in the sense of "I am interested in the Red Sox spanking the Yankees", I meant "human rights" interest.

I appreciate your comments, but you present a position, if extended logically, presents many problems:

1) Should a person in a coma or of other unawareness lose his/her right to live? Is that the test?
2) Does abortion have the moral equivalency or removing a wart, or does the fetus have any "human rights" interest? If so, when?

Fetuses have beating hearts, brain waves, unique DNA, blood type. The life started at conception, not at birth. Birth is a stage of life. Abortion stops the heart, brain waves and terminates that life. There is no dispute about that.

Also, I think you are much smarter than imposing the rhetoric of demeaning women as breeding machines.

You seem like a bright person, and I would challenge you to read Humanae Vitae, and see if the spiral decay of society since its release has not come true. Artificial Birth Control is the most demeaning creation toward women in the history of mankind. Before you scoff, read the encyclical and see if it isn't truthful to its core. Yes, it is a religious document - but again, see if the predictions are not spot on.

You highlight the core issue. If you refuse to recognize a fetus as having human rights, it is no different than any other problem part to be excised because of its uselessness. How tragic for the life that is ended.... 1,000,000 per year in the US.

The difference is not that I refuse to accept (your opinion) that the fetus is a Human being, entitled to all the rights we extend to those who are living and have been born, which should cover your concerns about exterminating the comatose or aged, but in the fact that it is the opinion that a fetus does not become a Human being until it achieves self-awareness. This opinion is held by a very large segment of the population that finds the central core of the religious argument, the ensoulment at conception, to be nothing but an attempt by religion to elevate man to a higher plane over the rest of zoology that evolution has already demonstrated we are intimately linked to.

We are animals, just more highly evolved. We are the first species on the planet to evolve to the point where we could ask the question "Why?" and not having the answer, we immediately began a superstitious process to explain everything around us that eventually devolved into the earliest religious institutions and later into the controlling power centric dogmatic institutions they have become today. If we were truly superior beings (relative to the rest of zoology), we would have also developed the ability to utter these words, "I don't know.....YET!" rather than have to give meaning to our lives by tying them to made-up deities and institutionalized fairy-tales.

As to you suggested reading, I am liberal by nature (Humanist if you will) and have read everything Ayn Rand ever excreted, as well as most of the central core scribblings of the John Birch Society, so as to understand the Right-wing mentality and lack of compassion exhibited by people who subscribe to such rubbish. I have also read the central core beliefs of the major religions, (especially those which require an end to the world to fulfil their "prophesies"). I fully understand where religion is coming from, what their stated goals are and their underlying motivations which are generally just as venal as any other power structure man has devised. If anything, the liberal Humanist approach more exemplifies the purported teachings of your Jesus figure, than any religion currently claiming to be the arbiter of ultimate truth.

What differs your and my approach is that your side insists that all of Humanity, at the least, allows the dictates of your religious institutions to dominate the nebulous area you call morality. Morality is a religious concept that imparts a rigidity of behavior that is dependant on some higher power holding the axe of eternal retribution over your head to enforce compliance. Humanists prefer Ethics, which are fluid enough to be modified to encompass changes in the reality we face. World population rises to the point where it threatens our very survival and morality (as determined by your religion) dictates no effective way to slow it down or reverse it outside of the abortions of fully actualized humans that would inevitably occur on the battlefields of resource wars, or by denying the strongest urges that allowed us to survive as a species in the first place as the only way to limit births. Ethics, on the other hand, considers war, while sometimes unavoidable, to be something to be avoided by dealing with our problems from a rational perspective. Sex is not evil, but something we have evolved enough to mitigate through processes your religion's morality has forbidden (real birth control, and yes, as a fail-safe backup, abortion). Dogma that denies the exigencies of the realities of the human condition either have to be modified (in a timely manner to guarantee effectiveness), or done away with altogether as an archaic relic of the past that no longer has any applicable value.

But David, you still have not answer the simple question I posed regarding when "human rights" attaches, or in your terms, "personhood". Is it when the baby's butt is slapped, or is it sometime earlier than that?

Atheistic perspective as yours however, fails to explain several things:

1. The random creation of life in the universe. Are you familiar with Sir Roger Penrose? He is recognized as one of the world's leading mathemeticians/physists and has opined the the chance of the universe spontaneously producing life is 1 in 1 to the 10123rd power of 10. Your athiestic premise certainly does not square with this recognized genius. He is not of any particular religious tradition.

2. The whole concept of entropy undermines your entire argument against intelligent design. Is entropy a false theory?

What is most troubling about your post is that you devalue human life to the point that it is expendable for economic reasons. Europe is contracepting itself into extinction. You cite traditional views as "rubbish", because of lack of compassion. It is the traditional view, simple as it may be, that fights and advocates for the most vulnerable of society - the unborn child. You simply dismiss this life as an expendable piece of tissue. Who lacks compassion?

Artificial birth control objectifies women - sex machines for the whim of men.

Is there an ethical difference between abortion and removing a wart? If so, when and how so?

Posted by David Long July 7, 09 07:05 PM

Although I was probably slapped by a Nun and/or humliated for the short time I attended Catholic School if any damage has been done it has been through my own lifestyle choices. Thanks be to God He has healed me of my addictions. I do not by any means feel the only purpose of sex is procreation. As John Paul 2 taught in theology of the body I believe the union of husband and wife is the closest human experience to the mystery of the love between the 3 persons (trinity) that make up the one true God.

I have seen some brief articles from some countries about sex being necessary for one's health but I didn't put much weight in them. I do feel the majority of humans are called to the vocation of marriage which includes sex. That being said I am close to several people who don't have sex and they are healthy and frankly joyful and content men.

You ridicule the NFP (Natural Family Planning) but if used properly it is 99% effective. It's is much more involved then just taking your tempature and I feel when it fails it's mainly due to them misunderstanding how to properly use it.

I am 100% on board with the Catholic Church's stand on birth control. Pope Paul 6 back in the 1960's said that birth control use would lead to increased abortion, out of wedlock births, divorce, extra marital affairs, single parent homes, and increased number of STD's and numbers of those effected. Sex was never intended to be a leisure activity but a beautiful experience between husband and wife. No form of birth control will stop any of what the Pope stated. I'm sure you know what's been going on over the past ten years with the friends with benefits and hooking up culture. The majority of STD's are skin to skin based not fluid based and there are many more then there where prior to common birth control use. The way see it is even if someone is an Atheist they would see that Science is sending a clear message about the consequences of sex as a leisure activity.

I have been doing volunteer youth minstry for almost ten years now. I arguably attend the most Orthodox Roman Catholic parish in the State. I know many teens and young adults who plan on waiting until marriage. None of them are rushing into marriage to have sex. Many people in our culture tend to create mythical people that actually don't exist. Many of what I hear on this board are people talking about my community and they are far off on almost everything.

As far as population. I feel there is plenty of food and space for not only the current inhabitants but also all the children that have been aborted. Selfish people for political and wealth reasons are the major reason we have so many starving people. You can find arguments on both sides of the population issue. You may not agree but at least be open to researching both sides. In addition outside of Muslims Europeans aren't even covering their death rate with births and here in the US we are just barely covering. The ideal poulation is a pyramid with young at the bottom to care for the elderly at the top. We are in the process of this being reversed so not only will there be less of our elderly being cared for but this is also a factor in our social security funding.

Peace and Blessings my friend

ontheleft,

Hey you didn't quit the you ask me a question then I ask you one game did you? I'm still waiting for your answer to my first question.

Ok here is my first question.

You have said you believe an unborn child (or whatever you like to refer to it as) is viable outside of the womb, has brain waves, and a soul. Lets' say six months. Do you therefore believe if there is no threat to the life/health of the mother after this point that an abortion at this point or later in the pregnancy is morally wrong?

Peace and Blessings

Posted by proud2bcatholic July 7, 09 10:44

I think he did quit...proud2b... that is how ontheleft works... attack, make outrageous and unsupportable statements, then hide, hoping the damage is done.

David Long is certainly an exception to that style. David shows great temperament and respectful prose when arguing his case. Unlike Mr. "I Hate Bush" and therefore abortion is a sacrament, Mr. Long contributes to the debate constructively. No personal attacks from Mr. Long, he writes very well (though of course there is disagreement with this premises and evidence), but he thinks through his responses, which is appreciated very much.

I'm just thankful to be allowed to be heard. So often in Blogs like these, those with opinions that do not conform to accepted dogma are summarily dismissed, effectively silencing them. If someone had started to scream "baby-killer" at me, I would have strung them along for a bit before defending myself , if not in kind, at least in temperament, but with a level of decorum. If you catch me in political blogs where the doctrinaire of the Right attack like crazed pit-bulls, my patience is remarkably shorter and more cryptic.

proud2bcatholic - I don't believe that "soul" exists at all and I don't believe I'm going to any cosmic eternal Disneyland when I die either, because I will be dead. The major hook that religion uses, outside of the pat answers to questions we have yet to discover because we haven't uncovered them yet (hence my previous, "I don't know.......YET!") is the innate fear of death we all share. I fear it because it means an end to all existence on a very personal level, and if religious people were so sure of paradise waiting for them, I would think that banks of diving boards on tall buildings would be cranking 24 hours a day, with those thinking it would be a sin to jump, might take being struck and dispatched by one of the divers a chance occurrence god would not notice. It is denied, but I think the major strength of religion is the promise (hook) of cheating death, which only they offer.

When it comes to the population question, I have to go with the numbers. A massive scientific study conducted by the United Nations concluded that for the population of Earth to sustain the current levels at a reasonable standard of living, we would need three more Earths worth of resources, or that we must reduce the world population to 2 billion, hopefully through attrition. The ever expanding pie myth that mandates more young to take care of more old people cannot be sustained beyond the 1950s, which means we are already out over the abyss. There are many points of view as to where we are headed, but it is undeniable that the trend is sharply upward, especially in the areas with the lowest educational levels and the highest practicing of the more doctrinaire religions. The average Muslim woman has six kids, average. That number alone guarantees a tripling of their numbers, not counting those who start to breed before their parents stop. To support the ever increasing numbers, we are sucking carbon out of the ground, that has been stored there for millions of years, and dumping it into the atmosphere. With the rise of this CO2, the tundra is melting, releasing more stored carbon and threatening to push us to the tip over point, where the oceans warm enough (a few degrees will do it) until deep ocean methyl hydrates melt letting methane gas bubble to the surface. That will signal the end, unless we grow up and modify our institutions to effectively deal with the problems.

Your post belies a total misunderstanding of the seriousness of the situation that is a direct result of programming by moribund religious teaching, that is always a dollar short and a day late. We have a choice and it is both easy and hard. Institutions that cannot bend to the exigencies of change that threaten our existence must either restructured or gotten rid of altogether. The choice is simple, but the hard part is making it work, as people are so used to their comfortable little crutches.

Lastly, (I'm getting tired) birth control is such an issue with your church because sex is, out side of narrow parameters, made out to be evil. There are diseases which require close contact to be spread and there is no closer contact than sex, but I would bet that a lot more sickness is spread by women washing their child's face with a bit of her own spit. High school sport is a vector for many diseases, especially during wrestling, but no one is making that into the boogeyman, because it lacks one element that sex has, pleasure (if you do it right). Pleasure has always been frowned on by the Church and great pains have been taken over the centuries to impart a sense of guilt when one experiences this outside of the spiritual orgasm one is supposed to have within ritual. We need to decriminalize sex. It is natural and so important that waiting to find out if you are sexually compatible with someone until after marriage, can only be looked at at a case of buying a pig in a poke., especially within the confines of a religion that offers no way to correct the inevitable mistakes that would occur by following doctrine.

I'm out of steam at the moment and will try to address the rest of your questions tomorrow, as well as those posed by KJR.

David Long,

I don't fear death in the least. And although I feel upon death I would eventually end up in eternal paradise I most certainly will not commit sucide or put myself in a position to die. I live for Christ and will leave that up to Him. Also I spend almost all my free time in a genuinely active youth ministry program and will let God use me as an instrument to try and bring others to HIm as long as He wants. I feel sincerely blessed that God even allows me to work in this truly mircaulous ministry.

I will ignore your insulting me by stating I am basically being brainwashed (programming) by the teachings of Jesus and His Church just as I ignored you saying I obviously by my reasoning, must have some sort of brain damage based on your prior post comment about the Nuns whacking me to hard on the head. I'm a bit dissapointed as you state how you are gald your opinions aren't dismissed but then insult me for my different views.

For many years I felt as you did. I reached a point where I decided to give God a fair shake. I opened my heart and mind and you know knocked and seeked, My conversion has been gradual and steady. I have a daily prayer time, I attend Mass and receive the Sacraments regularly, I spend my time working in a wonderful minstry for a great parish and truly now know whay joy and contentment are. I am amazed at how although challenging and sometimes frustrating how incredibly rewarding spending my free time serving God continues to be.

I respectfully disagree with your position on world population. Refer to my last post.

You also have no understanding or the Church's position on sex. Like many others you determine what the Church teaches without researching what the actual teachings are. For instance you eluding to a the Church teaching spiritual orgasm and no pleasure should be derived from physcial orgasm is 100% wrong. As a matter of fact John Paul 2 in His theology of the Body teaching states that orgasm beiween a husband and wife is the closest feeling a human can get that mirrrors the incredible joy of heaven. When Jesus returns all will be united with their bodies in a glorified state. To believe the body isn't a major part of the Catholic Church and that it's all about spirituality again is a misconcepton. I'm not sure where you get your information about the Catholic Church teachings on sex but might I recommend getting it from the Church?

If you don't see that STD's are becoming a huge health issue then I'd have to respectfully say you need to do a little more research. To compare it to a Mom washing her kids face and sports I find a bit silly but I respect your opinion. I believe we are better then the animals and that sex between man and woman is much more then a lesiure activity. If sex is a game and something I must have (no self control) then is it really a wonderful physical, spiritual, and emotional act between a man and his wife? STD's are an epidemic not wrestling or face washing. At least in my humble opinion.

Peace and Blessings

proud2bcatholic - I'm sorry you are taking the stone-wall adversarial approach to this discussion. I am very used to being on the receiving end of such situations where the person on the other end believes they have a monopoly on truth based of what they were spoon-fed as children, rather than actually examining their beliefs against a template that would encourage doubt and in the end a stronger rationale for supporting their final understandings.

I was once overheard by a superior, discussing in private with a fellow worker, the incident where Ms. S. O'Connor ripped up the Pope's picture on SNL. I defended her actions as an expression of her anger over the chauvinistic treatment of women within the Church. A few minutes later the superior, in a wild-eyed, veins pulsing at the temples screaming rant, laid into me about daring to say anything critical about HER Pope, Her Church and threatened to fire me if I EVER did anything like that again, which I immediately did. She fired me on the spot and the eventual legal settlement that resulted financed my graduate work. There is a danger in being so rigid in one's beliefs that one becomes nothing in their own mind without them. There is a much larger world out there than the cloistered existence that fanatic religious zealots construct for themselves and that world, as well as theirs should always be open to examination. You take offence when none was intended and the claws come out far to quickly which always seems to happen when we are arrogant enough to think everything we believe is ordained, infallible, and true just because we believe it. As I have stated above in my effort to show where I am coming from in my search for truth, there is much that "I don't know...... YET!" and unlike those who have it all wrapped up in a neat doctrinal package, I will always keep searching.

As to your first sentence about not fearing death, that is the whole point of subscribing to a rationale that makes death go away. You fear, so you can con yourself into a mindset that overcomes that by adopting the notion that you will somehow cheat the inevitability and finality of the grave. You haven't overcome your fear, you have just covered it in a sweet smelling lie to yourself, that you have chosen to believe.

David,

I guess only time will tell. Being someone who spent the first and long part of his adulthood without knowing Jesus personally and now knowing Him I understand to some degree where you are coming from. Although I never really believed that death here on earth was the end, I didn't really think about it all. I'm sure it's no surprise that you think I believe ina lie while I feel you have been sold a bill of lies from the greatest liar of them all, Satan. When you say I haven't overcome my fear I'm not really sure what you mean. Do you mean I am afraid and I'm just lying to you and myself? Do you believe I feel fear of death? Do you believe I'm insane and just don't know I'm afraid? You remind me a little of a previous poster who always felt he knew more about what others felt and believed then they did themselves. Sort of like your obvious misunderstanding of the Catholic teaching on Sex which I was kind enough to give you the Church's true position in my last post. I wasn't really offended but telling someone they must have been hit upside the head to many times or that they are programmed (brainwashed) is interesting from someone who says they don't appreciate when their views aren't listened to and they are called names. I am not easily personally offended but I am bothered when people make up mythical teachings of my Church.

I don't believe anything is true because I believe it by the way, I believe it's true because I believe the Church is divenely inspired by the Holy Spirit and because I pray early and often for wisdom and understanding.

I always find it interesting that so many people spend more time beating up on the Catholic faith then they do trying to follow their own beliefs.

I love you man!

I don't beat up on any one church to the exclusion of others and am always amazed when I make a generalized statement that is not complementary to the institution of religion that so may times it comes back at me as being anti whatever religion the listener happens to be. One of my closest friends is a committed and active Atheist who just happens to be a former Catholic priest, and he is the only former Catholic I have ever met who has made the (as he calls it) "The leap to rationality". I asked him why there seems to be such a strong bond of people to your Church that doesn't hold among Protestants, who are much more prone to jump their denominational ship and embrace another denomination for reasons as flimsy as their former pastor had a facial tic that bothered them. He said that it was the way that the Catholic church grabbed the children at a young age and by the time they were six, they were hooked for life. I found that to be sad, as my parents were CE (Christmas Easter) Christians, who only dragged us to church on those occasions, which left me a lot of time to ask questions that were not answered by someone sitting in a box through a little window. My doubts went looking for their own answers, not those of ancestors who lived long ago who thought the world was flat and disease was caused by demons and then passed down to me by institutions that seemed arcane. In a way I envy people who have it all laid out for them in even sometimes not so easy to swallow bits (if my Catholic friends are any indication), but then I pity those who do not know the joy of discovery and the anticipation of discovering unknown worlds and concepts you will never see.

As to Satan telling me lies, I will have to take your word on that because he is one of your deities that I cannot even begin to comprehend, considering my sceptical attitude about the existence of gods in general. Your Church's teachings on sex are bizarre for someone who has never felt guilt about such relationships. I was in love with a Catholic woman once, who was so inhibited that she would not allow herself to see her own naked body, let alone me. We lived together and didn't become intimate until weeks after she moved in and then only in total darkness. I always got the feeling that she thought that god would not see her commit the "sin" if the dirty deed was done in the dark. That relationship did not last and she later married a doctor, whom she probably felt more at ease with sexually.

Your not believing something for the sake of believing it rationale is fairly transparent, as it presumes believing something that forces you to believe something, and that sounds like the same as what I asserted in the first place, with one extra step. That you can do it with absolutely no proof totally goes beyond my understanding. I don't think you would ever have a chance to convince me that something irrational could possibly be something I could grasp. I do enjoy these exchanges though and would hate to scare you away. Keep typing.

David,

I to enjoy posting and as you can tell I have the time at least during the week when I go on this website throughout the day. At this point it's probably only you and I looking at this blog which is fine also. No chance of being scared away but I did get frustrated with ontheleft who didn’t really appear to listen to my answers or feel I had the right to believe differently from him. He agreed to do I answer his question he answer my question scenario. He asked I answered. He did a follow up. I answered. I asked and he suddenly disappeared. I am not surprised as the question I posed to him was one he couldn’t answer without contradicting some of his previous statements. This doesn’t surprise me as obviously I am biased to certain opinions but what I’ve noticed is those who believe more closely in line with I answer all questions posed to them, while those of differing view points tend to ignore answering. They either lash out or ask a question in return without answering the original question.

Interestingly enough the majority of the strong 100% following Catholics in my community are exactly opposite of what your former Priest friend stated. They are all either converts or Cradle Catholics who had left the Church myself included who was gone for twenty years. What brought them either to the Church or back to practicing was all about each of them questioning their faith? We delved deeply into why the Church teaches what She does and not what the world and those unknowledgeable about the Church believe She teaches. One of my favorite quotes which I will paraphrase which I have found to be incredibly true is “There aren’t 100 people who hate the Catholic Church but there are thousands who hate what they perceive the Church to be.” Then of course we took it to prayer, committed to Mass and the Sacraments and tried our best to follow Jesus and the teachings of the Catholic Church. I don’t doubt that there are people like your friend refers to and even the woman who you dated but that was the fault of humans not the Church. One of the major problems which need to be laid squarely on the Bishops and other leaders of the Church is starting about 30 or 40 years ago they have done an awful job leading the flock and representing the Truth of Jesus and the Church. Fortunately Jesus said the Church will never fall and like always we will bounce back. Like I hear often at youth retreats I attend we don’t need any more mediocre Priests. I believe wholeheartedly that the young men in our seminaries overall are on board with the Truth of Jesus and the Church. I’d be curious about what your Catholic friends feel about what I’ve just written. Obviously I don’t know them but as I’m sure you know most Catholics don’t practice their faith and even those that don’t aren’t even clear on many of the basic tenets of the faith. There are many, many Catholics and Christians in name only.

Your statement,
I pity those who do not know the joy of discovery and the anticipation of discovering unknown worlds and concepts you will never see.

I find genuinely interesting. Much of what I believe has to do with discovering what is although not totally unknown, impossible for a human to entirely grasp. One of the major teachings of Christianity is we are not made for this world but for Heaven. Through prayer and the Sacraments we can grow closer to Christ and really discover much more then those whom don’t knock and seek.

As far as your comment about someone answering questions through a little window form a box. First I’m not mad but you stating that means one of two things. Either you’re mocking the Sacrament of Reconciliation or you just don’t understand it. If it’s the latter allow me to explain. The point of the Sacrament is to receive forgiveness for sins and to receive the Grace (strength) through Christ to defeat this sinful behavior. We believe the Priest just as he is when he changes the bread into Jesus body to be In Persona Christi (in the person of Christ). Basically the belief is we are directly being forgiven and the Grace in this Sacrament from Jesus himself. Having this wonderful and sadly underused Sacrament is usually what I mention when someone asks my favorite part of being Catholic.

As far as forced beliefs I’m not sure what you’re getting at? The Catholic Church is all about free will. The Church lays out what it believes to be the Truth but it should always be made clear it’s up to the individual to follow. My reason for following is I have a deep prayer and Sacramental life. Sort of like Jesus himself. If he made us love him the love wouldn’t mean anything. He wants us to love Him through our own free will.

Oh and I’m asking you this last because I want to make sure you answer because as I eluded to before I have found many who differ in these rooms won’t answer or back up what they say.

When you wrote

As to your first sentence about not fearing death, that is the whole point of subscribing to a rationale that makes death go away. You fear, so you can con yourself into a mindset that overcomes that by adopting the notion that you will somehow cheat the inevitability and finality of the grave. You haven't overcome your fear, you have just covered it in a sweet smelling lie to yourself, that you have chosen to believe

You say “you fear”. Does this mean you believe I really fear death but I’m just not willing to tell you? In other words I’m lying? Do you believe I’m insane or some how brainwashed and therefore fear but don’t feel the fear? Do you believe an emotionally/mentally healthy person could lie to themselves and not realize it?

Peace and Blessings and have a wonderful weekend. Don’t do anything I USED to wouldn’t do.

proud2becatholic - I in no way implied that you are a liar, and am sorry if that impression came across. I think fear of death is common to all Humans that have lived long enough to see death around them, some of us directly when we were called upon, even fraudulently like in Vietnam, by our country to cause it and while in the terror of a fire-fight, coming face to face with our own personal fear. Your "non-fear" of death, if you will, has been caused by your acceptance of a set of circumstanses that you have come to believe it true, despite there never having been the tiniest bit of proof that an afterlife exists, which may statistically make it not true (sometimes construed as a lie). I know that you have the "proof of the cross" that is enough for you, but you must realize that for people who have difficulty with god concepts in general, the notion of a god/Human hybrid is even more impossible an idea to grasp, especially without proof.

Now, I don't mean to be disrespectful of your rituals, but when a church invests so much in the "education" of children in their rituals, it is to be expected that many who stray will return to the early teachings that were so easily absorbed while young. The young mind is evolved to absorb information and that is why so many children are having learning disabilities because the ideal time for them to receive critical information passed by unused. You returned to the point in your life that was impressed on your eager absorption of the rituals of your youth, as many do. In regard to the Confessional, we on the outside of religion, see it as a form of control. You have doubts and questions about your "faith", where are you encouraged to take these "flaws" within yourself, but to the little room, with the little window, where they can be addressed and "corrected" by the Church. It may be comforting, and seemingly essential, but it has its function in maintaining loyalty and fealty in a way the rationalist would call dishonest because it stifles the one powerful tenet of free-thought, doubt. It is from doubt that truth arises in our minds, not in the dogma of the past or the "truths" of unseen, unknowable and unsubstantiatable gods.

I don't know how there can be reconciliation between the rigidly religious positions on your side of the abortion issue and the more tolerant view on the side of those who don't subscribe to when a fetus attains person-hood, but I can be sure that to this side, it will not be agreeable to place that point where your side desires it to be, without smacking directly into the limitations of the Establishment Clause of The Constitution. To us, we recognize your right to act upon your beliefs by not ever having abortions, which seems fair to addressing the concerns of those who hold such beliefs without abrogating the right of a woman to make the difficult choice she may have to make for herself on the other side of the issue. What we have to face is the question of whether the coercive power of the state can be used to enforce religious doctrine on the totality of society in the face of our founding document's prohibition of such an act. If we are going to come to a final accord on this question, then one side or the other is going to have to be disappointed and it may just be the one that would force its will on the women of the other side at the point of a figurative gun. I hope that you can understand our argument a bit better and that in the end the rights of all living and born Humans can be respected, as long as they don't trample the rights of those on the other side of the issue.

David,

You appear to be a fine man. To bad you’re going to burn for all eternity. Just kidding my friend as I would never be naïve or prideful enough to say I know how Jesus will judge. I can also understand your point of view which you’ve made clear. As far as God and the finality of death here on earth we are pretty much on opposite ends of the spectrum. I do appreciate the manner in which you respect others opinions, especially which must seem totally wacky to you. I do believe however that there is a greater chance (although it might be slim) of you becoming a believer then me becoming a non believer.

I can also logically see your point with respect to what children are taught and how they may stray away and then come back. Of course I look at it much more as a seed of faith being planted. This frankly is what we try in do in our ministry for teens. Although it is genuinely rewarding and some fruits are immediate many more fruits of this ministry will occur in the future. Like I was for the first twenty years of my adult life you can’t truly even imagine what it’s like because you probably haven’t really even tried getting to know God. I am 100% convinced that anyone who with an open heart and mind persistently asks God to show them He is real that they would end up not only Christian but eventually 100% Catholic. A man who joined our prayer group recently told his we refer to as witness story. He basically said He was ready to be a full blown atheist when he decided to read and research on the general subject does God exists. After he felt convinced there was a God he researched all the major religions. He ended up believing Christianity was the Truth and the eventually that the Catholic Church contained the fullness of the Truth. Although this story isn’t typical many who I know to be the most Orthodox Catholics are former Protestants who where searching for the Truth. I’m not sure how familiar you are with the Bible but John chapter 6 makes it clear that the Eucharist truly is His body, blood, soul, and divinity. Although some people get knocked on their butts by the Holy Spirit most need to at least open their hearts and minds a little. Of course Jesus also makes it clear that most are on the wide path and not the straight and narrow.

I’ll give you two reasons I no there is a God. One is I drove drunk (real drunk) for distances of 20 miles or more over 1,000 times in my life. Statistically I see no way I possibly wouldn’t have hurt myself or ended up in jail. I don’t drink anymore and have been forgiven by God and I am totally convinced if God didn’t know I would convert and spend a good portion of my time serving Him, I would be dead or in prison. Another reason is I know am friends with some Nuns who joined our parish about five years ago. They have taken a vow of poverty. They own nothing, sleep in sleeping bags on the floor, do not use electricity, own two habits each, and beg for food. Oh and they don’t have sex. They don’t really need to beg as the parishioners are great about providing for them. In the beginning I was a bit leery of them. It literally took sitting down and having one meal with them to realize they are not insane and they are the most consistently joyful people I have ever known. When Anna Nicole Smith died I thought hmmm, how many times she woke up in the morning with joy in her heart compared to these Nuns. I know you will probably say there is some sort of scientific explanation but I can tell you for sure every one of them would get a clean emotional/mental bill of health by any type of Doctor. Again just as you can only know God if you make an effort to know Him, you can only see that what I say is true by spending time with them. No matter where you’re at in your faith/belief system everyone who meets them comes away pleasantly surprised.

As far as abortion goes I would at least hope those who disagree would understand that we truly in our hearts believe every person has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness from then time they are conceived. I would also believe any one with an open mind would understand that when most (significantly more then half) are done after two months. At two months everything about the unborn human looks exactly like us. We know what an abortion procedure entails and know that the results of an abortion are human limbs, heads, and torso’s tossed in a medical waste bucket with waste such as liposuction procedure waste. If people can’t understand how this ever being done is nauseating and evil then they are just blocking the actual procedure out. Like 15 year old Monika said recently. “Before today I thought the baby just disappeared.” The lukewarm about the procedure is what galls me the most. I feel strongly that anyone who believes it’s a woman’s right to have this procedure done should at least go on line and watch the actual procedure. Of course abortion providers don’t want that. I guarantee that if every adult was forced to watch an abortion the amount of pro lifers to pre aborts would no longer be a 50/50 or so split.
One question before I leave for the weekend. I’m going to guess you believe a historical figure named Jesus walked the earth. I will pose a question to you. There where three possibilities that he was either Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. In other words he was either who He said he was, God. Or He was a liar or He was crazy?

God (or if it makes you feel better big bang theory) Bless you!

proud2bcatholic - At the time of your Jesus, there were a plethora of supposed saviors that were competing for the job, much like Sun Myung Moon is doing today. That one of them would fill the demand for one and that a mythos could be created to support the one who filled that role arose in the face of the despair of the Jewish people at the hands of the Romans, is not surprising. If one looks at the misinformation that has been piled on various recent historical figures, like Columbus, who is touted as a great explorer of great wisdom, was actually a brutal man looking for wealth who ended up being sent back to Spain in chains for treating the subjects he governed little better than the native population he worked to death on his estates. We can also look at some of our sacred founding fathers with a little care to find they were not the pillars of virtue we have been led to believe. Sam Adams was, in fact, a tax collector for the British government who had been dipping into collected funds and became an instant patriot at a very convenient time. These are people from our fairly recent past who have gained a measure of glory that far outshines their considerable accomplishments, so that Jesus could become the symbol he became from a well spring of a small group of followers with an agenda, that they spread once he had achieved martyrdom, that needed little more motivation to become devout followers than the thousands of Moonie Cultists currently trying to take over one of our national political parties. In answer to your question, considering the unlikelihood I have for the existence of god figures, I would have to discount your first choice, and say that he may have been a little bit of both of the other two, who gained most of his fame in the minds of his followers after his death, who may or may not have also been a bit of both too, only better marketers. Have a nice weekend.

David - I am glad you brought up the other saviors.... which leads to this question:

HOW do you account for the fact that all of these other "saviors' " movement died with them -escpecially when the idea of a "glorified" resurrected body was really not something the Jews expected or contemplated. Christians have an answer for that - what is the explanation on why Chrisianity survived and thrived in the first century, to martyrdom - if Jesus was merely a "Johnny come lately"??

KJR - As is with most things that happened in the backwater areas of civilization two thousand years ago that have been subject to manipulation, redefinition, reinterpretation, and as history has shown can happen, outright invention to achieve desired goals, "I don't know....YET". Until proof of the assertions of institutions that have a vested interest in seeing that their interpretation prevails in support of accumulated myth and superstition, I will remain sceptical and leery of the beliefs of people who act with certitude based of such a flimsy foundation. It is important to always remember that history is always written by the victor, be it a military victory, or the victory of ideas that were, in many cases in Europe, imposed on populations at the whim of their rulers and changed just as easily as political fortunes of the time changed. There is much to be questioned about the monopoly of information that resided in the hands of a powerful church for centuries, where it could be shaped to fit their idea of acceptable doctrine.

Well, from an argument perspective, since Christianity is the here and now, the burden is on you to prove otherwise, is it not? Nero was murdering Christians, that was a historical fact, so we know that much, don't we? Are the epistles of Paul contrived? You should read them, because they are pretty detailed, and seems hard to me to think he made all that stuff up... it is voluminous.

KJR - All the various writings of the major religious traditions are both voluminous and detailed, yet they are not held in the same regard by by those who subscribe to other voluminous and detailed accounts of what happened in the early periods of that religion's formation. I'm sure that you have, as a child, or even as an adult, played the game where a sentence is whispered in the ear of one person sitting in a circle and then passed around the circle in the same manner until the sentence comes back to the starting point. The message that results is far different than the one that started. This happens in a very short space of time among people who share common language and expectations that what they hear can be related in a coherent manner, but it always comes back different, sometimes to the point of being nothing but a pile of disjointed words. I think that if you consider that the early Christians were at the time the supposed Christ died, were in fact a tiny group of highly motivated individuals with a mission and that a period of time elapsed between the death event and the first laying down of a written chronicle of events that had occurred. There was first a verbal tradition, much like the early Jewish tradition that turned stories told around the campfire into the absolute word of a god that routinely showed his love for man by killing many of them in fits of ego driven revenge for the crime of not worshipping that god in the proscribed manner.

The New Testament is an extension of the Old Testament, but with a much shorter lag time between events that occurred and their being recorded in writings contrived by a group of zealous believers and with a new friendlier interpretation of a less vengeful god figure, that still had the influence of distortion that happens when ideas are passed on from a biased source to second hand chroniclers and then ensconced within an organization that set about to build a power structure to further the cause of this new religion. To those of us who view the history of Christianity, we see a pattern of manipulation, distortion, and in many cases, sanctioned murder to enforce a doctrine that hardly makes one believe that manipulation of the written history hasn't also been highly corrupted over time. The best analogy I can think of would be to say that someone setting out to make sausage, shoves his ingredients in one end of the grinder and then passes on his business to someone else who puts the grinder out in the sun for a few days and then draws the sausage out the other end filling the casings and then sells it as a fresh and sweet product. What has evolved over time has filled Man's need for answers (incorrectly) and given him a rationale for believing his life has more meaning than that of a bug that squashes against the windshield of our cars, but is it the truth. From the standpoint of the rationalist, it falls far short.

You still have not addressed the Penrose theory nor the Penrose number... in which this world recognized genius has claim your theory about lack of God has a 1 in 10 to the 10123rd power chance of being true.

KJR - I could produce any number of "geniuses" who could provide a different outcome to any statistics yours could come up with, but I will grant that if one stretches the numbers out to the 10123rd power, that the possibility of there being a god may fall within the possibility of not being absurd, but not enough to be statistically significant to rule out the fact that in the entire existence of Humanity, there has not been one tiny shred of absolute proof that a god or gods exist, or has ever existed. I shall remain sceptical.

Posted by proud2bcatholic July 7, 09 10:44 AM

I have stated repeatedly that I believe that Roe v. Wade was wisely written. Your side has manufactured an issue of late term abortion by refusing to take the mother's life and health into consideration when trying to enact laws. They do this for strictly political reasons, as has been more than apparent during the last campaign. They know that those who actually value the lives and health of women will not vote with them sacrifice those women on the altar of religious orthodoxy.

Posted by KJR July 8, 09 01:12 PM

Man, I go away for a week, come back, and you're still whining. You are pretty funny, I have to say. KJR, you should embrace your support of people like Bush and Cheney. Defend them for once. Don't whine that I throw their murderous policies in your face, but defend those policies.

Posted by KJR July 12, 09 01:47 AM

Hmmm, should I reprise a set of comments made by you and gaudete, wondering if my conscience keeps me up until the early hours, KJR? Is your conscience bothering you, given the time of your post? Or, like me, do you find those hours to be times of (relative) peace and calm?

On a more serious matter, simply because it's been around, that doesn't make Christian dogma any standard of objective truth. In that case, you have to consider other belief systems that have endured far longer than Christianity. Christianity also benefited from some luck, politically speaking - it was made the state religion of the empire (perhaps the worst thing that could have happened to it, by the way). But the truth is that contentions are made within the context of religion that are quite easily contestable - the things you call "mythology" or "legend" in other systems. It is hardly incumbent upon David to prove a negative. You should attempt to prove, or at least amply demonstrate your own point. Now, the odds ratio is certainly interesting, but hardly proof of your contention, nor is it refutation of David's.

OnTheLeft - Granted, the Republican Party has been playing to the more doctrinally challenged segments of any religion they think will give them support, but the Catholic Church has a strong tradition of humanitarianism that is the reason they have historically been supportive of the goals of the Democratic Party, despite the fact that the party hasn't participated in blatant pandering like the manipulative and in the end, non-delivering on their promises, Republicans. They don't seem to have a problem using people to get their vote and leaving them hanging out there knowing The Constitution prohibits, on religious grounds, the type of action they claim to support .

David Long,
You writing is very interesting. I'm not religious myself but find that it can play a very positive role namely in bringing together family and as a nice thing for children to participate in. As for the people that really believe in these old fables, well I would say that they are looking for structure and meaning in their life. For that I can't find fault. It's when they (believers) argue to non-believers that their ideas and opinions of an unverifiable event are the truth with no margin of error (voluminous material aside). There is always a margin of error especially in hand me down history (good analogy with the telephone game). I guess we’ll all find out the truth someday or maybe not. What were we before we were born? Does anyone have any recollection of himself or herself prior to conception? My thought is that we just go away and cease to be both physically (obviously) and spiritually. David, you face an unwinnable argument against KJR, however you pose very thoughtful ideas that cannot be explained in any logical, rationional (non faith based) way. As for the genius with the 10 to the 1023 power therom, what exactly does that prove? I run some numbers therefore I’m able to conclude on the theory of life or existence of a higher being. Maybe if I too were a genius I would understand the connection…but alas.

Kudos and thank you for contribution to these posts.

Eric - Any belief system can produce benefits to the individual within a society, as well some of the most heinous circumstances and crimes that have ever been perpetrated against our fellow Humans. During times of great turmoil, say like The Plague that swept Europe during the 14th century, the hopelessness of the masses caused a great movement in the direction of the population toward their church. The Pope at the time (possibly Gregory X, if memory serves me right, and it may not) deemed that The Plague was caused by demons and that it was spread by his servants, witches. In as much as witches usually operated through a medium, usually a cat, he ordered all cats killed, which the masses obeyed with great relish. No cats meant more rats to carry the fleas that passed the disease like a wildfire throughout Europe killing 30 million people, as if it was a steam-roller. Perhaps the people got some solace from their beliefs as it spread through their neighborhoods and ultimately through their families, but I think it was hardly worth it.

The world today could handle the plague that swept Europe at that time, but there are other things waiting in the dark to spring out at us (Ebola perhaps, or a mutation of it, or something else) and with the world barely able to handle normal at the moment, I find that the urge to lay down and accept the will of a make believe deity may just cause the same types of problems today that faced the "faithful" so many centuries ago. I do not think it is a positive attribute for Humanity to live in a fantasy world, when the real world may need our undivided attention in order for us to survive. I would rather we had science telling us to kill the rats, rather than religion telling us again to kill the cats.

ontheleft,

That didn't answer my question however. Let's try it again.

You have said you believe an unborn child (or whatever you like to refer to it as) is at some point viable outside of the womb, has brain waves, and a soul. Lets' say six months. Do you therefore believe if there is no threat to the life/health of the mother after this point that an abortion at this point or later in the pregnancy is morally wrong.

I believe your afraid to answer yes or no even though it is clearly a yes or no question. Of course expanding on your answer is welcome of course.

If you say yes then you become one of your so called antichoicers. You believe in choice up until a certain time of the pregnancy.

If you say no then your whole argument about when brain waves occur and a soul is present becomes mute.

Of course I might be wrong but won't know until you answer the question which you most certainly did not do.

Love ya man