Supporting abortion = automatic ex communication

[Miss Shelby]

The way to address the abortion problem would be to answer the question: "Would you support a law that would require one human being to give up their life or part of their life for another?" I am not talking about moral authority, because we all know what we should do morally, but would you support legal authority whereby the State forces some of its citizens to give up there lives in favor of another?

I have never seen a more off-base comparison in my life.

These children either have the right to live or they don't, it really IS that simple.

And before those who support outlandish comparisions such as the one quoted above run off into a tangent of 'things just aren't that black and white' Yes, in regards to the legality of abortion, it is. It's just that those who purport that things can't be black and white refuse to see that one can hold the position of being against legalized abortion, while at the same time reach out to those women potentially at risk and try to help them.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

There are sins that can't be forgiven by the priest acting in the place of Christ?

The Apostolic authority comes from The Holy Father, our Pope, who delegates it to his Bishops, who in turn delegate it to the priests. Abortion, I believe, is one area where the Bishops have not delegated that authority and have reserved it for themselves to review on a case by case basis. I guess it would depend on the Diocese and what the Bishop has told his priests. I am only going on my experience in the Diocese of Richmond.

 

[Davidnic]

There are sins that can't be forgiven by the priest acting in the place of Christ?

Kind of sort of. In danger of death any priest can forgive them. All mortal sin is a self excommunication. Excommunication is not a punishment per se, but a note of the severity of the act and a call to come home. Many bishops have given the priest under them the authority to lift the excommunication incurred by abortion in this age where it is common.

The reason it is reserved is to make sure the behavior is corrected and help is given to the sinner in fixing their life and restoring them to the sacraments and communion with the church. It is done so they do not just walk away, forgiven but still suffering or confused and fall back inot the same behavior. It is important to note that to bring about the excommunication Abortion must meet the standards for any mortal sin:

1. Grave matter (always meets this)
2. Sufficent reflection
3. Full consent of the will

It is still sinful, but a person forced into an abortion or in a non-culpable mental state is not excommunicated. There are many cases where young girls are forced or manipulated into abortion. It is up to the priest in confession to judge the conditions and circumstances and give what advice and take what steps are necessary.

Since that can be handled better by the local priest with abortion in this day and age, many bishops (not all) have given that authority to the priests. Really, it is the authority to restore the communion with the Church and make sure the confusion and problems that led to the sin are gone. A priest once explained it to me that it was not so much that the priest could not forgive the sin, but it was up to the bishop (or someone he chooses, for their pastoral ability and understanding of the human heart) to effect the restoration of communion with the Church and tend to the spiritual needs that come from such a devastating situation.

It is also a function of:

"If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."
John 20:23

But the reason it is reserved is for a full restoration of communion, not as punishment.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I have never seen a more off-base comparison in my life.

These children either have the right to live or they don't, it really IS that simple.

And before those who support outlandish comparisions such as the one quoted above run off into a tangent of 'things just aren't that black and white' Yes, in regards to the legality of abortion, it is. It's just that those who purport that things can't be black and white refuse to see that one can hold the position of being against legalized abortion, while at the same time reach out to those women potentially at risk and try to help them.

Once again, miscontruing the argument. Get the facts straight, please

I did not say that you can't be against abortion and want to help women at the same time. I am against abortion, but I question what the force of law would do in this situation. It won't stop abortion, and it has not worked for over 33 yrs. What does work, is education and outreach, and when necessary, church moral authority. It is not the position of the State to enforce moral authority when it involves self sacrifice; that is church authority. You still have not answered the question.

"Would you support a law that would require some of the citizens of the State to sacrifice their lives for the lives of others?" We all know morally what we should do, but I am asking if you would add the threat of imprisonment or execution.

The states moral authority is limited to situations where citizens take the lives or property of others, but no where does it require self sacrifice. Even the military is all volunteer, and even in times of draft there was a provision for concientious objection.

 

[Miss Shelby]

Once again, miscontruing the argument. Get the facts straight, please

I did not say that you can't be against abortion and want to help women at the same time. I am against abortion, but I question what the force of law would do in this situation. It won't stop abortion, and it has not worked for over 33 yrs. What does work, is education and outreach, and when necessary, church moral authority. It is not the position of the State to enforce moral authority when it involves self sacrifice; that is church authority. You still have not answered the question.

"Would you support a law that would require some of the citizens of the State to sacrifice their lives for the lives of others?" We all know morally what we should do, but I am asking if you would add the threat of imprisonment or execution.

The states moral authority is limited to situations where citizens take the lives or property of others, but no where does it require self sacrifice. Even the military is all volunteer, and even in times of draft there was a provision for concientious objection.

My sincere apologies if I misrepresnted your opinion.

I am having a hard time grasping your train of thought.

You believe abortion is wrong and that children have the right to live? But you don't believe that our laws should protect that right? Should our laws protect that right for you and me?

Abortion has been legal for the last 33 years, that's probably one of the reasons why 'force of law' hasn't stopped it or reduced it. And I am sure it goes without saying that I agree with you about education and outreach.

Anyways, I don't believe this is about legislating morality. I believe this is clearly cut and dry. Fetuses are human, the must vulnerable of humans, therefore they deserve protection under our laws, just like you and me.

I am not answering the question because I believe to entertain it would be silly. It's not comparable in the least to abortion. To ask me to give serious consideration to that question insults my intelligence. I'm sorry, I don't mean that in a rude way, but I can't think of another honest way to put it.

 

[Debi1967]

You are misconstruing the argument. I agree with you that abortions is grossly immoral, but to compare it to a nazi death camp, like the current pro-life arguments that I have seen, is missing the point. When you miss the point, you may gain friends with those that agree with you, but you will do very little to convince those that don't, and you even antagonize them further, all the while the abortions go on.

I think this is comparing apples and oranges. Also, I also see worldwide today where men seem to think like Hitler and actually look up to the man still. Saddam Hussien who was just on trial for such same autracities to his own people and has been accused of being in league with Osama Bin Laden when he set up the attacks on us, also believed much like Hitler. So what I see is that as long as there are men wanting power there will always be men willing to do anything to get it.

The way to address the abortion problem would be to answer the question: "Would you support a law that would require one human being to give up their life or part of their life for another?" I am not talking about moral authority, because we all know what we should do morally, but would you support legal authority whereby the State forces some of its citizens to give up there lives in favor of another?

Would I support a law that would require one human being to give up their life for another, especially a mother for her child, because that is what we are talking about here? Yes I would. Would I support a LAW that is based on morality? Yes of course I would. The very country we live in was based on ethics and morals when it became a country and how we have come so far away from that I do not know. What you are talking about and afraid of is the taking away of freedom. Freedoms to whom you or the unborn? I place as much worth on an unborn child as I do on someone that I can visibly see and hear.

The reason I do this is because of Biblical Laws which tell me that everyone is made in the image of God. Even the unborn are. Just because I cannot yet see them does not mean they are not as worthy as me at having life.

So I ask you in return, when is it that we forget about our morality in favor for that of the Man's Law instead? As I am remembering it I thought our morality is one of the things that makes us uniquely human, IT is one of the things that makes us God's children. If we start placing the Laws of the country above the Laws and Morality of God then where are we? Maybe then I think we have lost focus of whom comes first at all times, and that is God.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

I know that there are some who like to confuse the issue of abortion and use double speak to make excuses for those who support the continual legalization of the abomination of abortion.

However, praise God, the Church proclaims the Truth loudly and without confusion. Here is what the Church and her spiritual leaders have to say about the issue of abortion.

The Foundational Issue is Right to Life.



I'll let the spiritual giants do the speaking.

But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.


And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? (Mother Teresa, National Prayer Breakfast 1994)







The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. (Pope John Paul II, Christifideles Laici 38)







It is only if human life is respected from conception to death that the ethics of peace is also possible and credible; it is only then that non-violence can express itself in every direction; only then that we truly welcome creation, and only then that we can arrive at true justice. (Pope Benedict XVI to Swiss Bishops November 2006)







Catechism of the Catholic Church


2273The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."


"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."







Posted by Brian Murphy at 12:55 PM 0 comments Links to this post

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

Perhaps we should all read this excellent Encyclical once again.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j...f_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

And not allow the Father of Lies to continue to deceive us and make us use excuses for the abomination of the legalization of the murder of the most innocent among us.

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

I am against abortion, but I question what the force of law would do in this situation. It won't stop abortion, and it has not worked for over 33 yrs.

Of course it won't rid our society of abortion completely, however to say that it won't significantly reduce abortion is just dishonest.

What does work, is education and outreach, and when necessary, church moral authority.

Of course that is needed as well.

It is not the position of the State to enforce moral authority when it involves self sacrifice; that is church authority. You still have not answered the question.

Says who?

"Would you support a law that would require some of the citizens of the State to sacrifice their lives for the lives of others?" We all know morally what we should do, but I am asking if you would add the threat of imprisonment or execution.

In regards to the mothers, I do think we would need to have a honest debate about how to deal with mothers who kill their children, I think some sort of justice needs to be dealt, probably not jail, but something.

However, for the abortionists, I say life in prison.

 

[Skripper]

Jerome,

May I ask you something? Why are you even attempting to make the above comparison? I mean, realistically speaking, the point (I think) you are making is not even in the same universe as the real issue here. Because the "question" you are putting to Michelle, and therefore the comparison seemingly being attempted to be drawn, is that they are similar scenarios . . . when they are actually worlds apart. What I mean is, (and please, do correct me if I'm wrong), but it appears that you are at least implying that it's . . . I don't know . . . almost commonplace (almost as commonplace as abortion itself?) that the decision is between the life of the mother or the life of the baby. When, in reality, that's seldom the case, relatively speaking, when compared to all abortions. Because, by far, most abortions are done for reasons other than because continued pregnancy would take the life of the mother. So, I'm sorry, I guess I just don't understand why folks always troop this argument out anytime this topic comes up. To take what is, possibly, the rarest of situations and present it as though it is somehow the norm or something. It simply baffles me.

 

[SolomonVII]

Here's a question that I have been wondering about: Why does the Catholic Church automatically excommunicate someone who aborts an unborn baby, but doesn't automatically excommunicate someone who murders a child or an adult? Why do you get excommunicated for abortion but not murder? (although abortion is murder).

The gravity of the situation is that 50 to 60 million babies have been murdered by aborition in America alone since the 1970's.
This is no longer the numbers belonging to the crime of murder. These numbers are akin to what is the greatest genocide of the century.

and in canda at least, prime ministers who call themselves Catholic have been in the forefront on this global assault against the unborn child, and the procreative family that exists to nurture that child.

 

[Debi1967]

The gravity of the situation is that 50 to 60 million babies have been murdered by aborition in America alone since the 1970's.
This is no longer the numbers belonging to the crime of murder. These numbers are akin to what is the greatest genocide of the century.

and in canda at least, prime ministers who call themselves Catholic have been in the forefront on this global assault against the unborn child, and the procreative family that exists to nurture that child.

Men do things that sometimes are not for the greater good of mankind, and therefore God, but instead the greater good of themselves. When this happens we can be reminded of the Pharisees.

They sought to bring Glory unto themselves all the time saying it was in the name of God and defaming Him.

You might think that through the Passion of Christ we would learn from what was done and why, wouldn't you? However til this day it seems that little has changed, and men even within the Church do not reflect on the Passion enough or the warnings of Christ to the Pharisees.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Jerome,

May I ask you something? Why are you even attempting to make the above comparison? I mean, realistically speaking, the point (I think) you are making is not even in the same universe as the real issue here. Because the "question" you are putting to Michelle, and therefore the comparison seemingly being attempted to be drawn, is that they are similar scenarios . . . when they are actually worlds apart. What I mean is, (and please, do correct me if I'm wrong), but it appears that you are at least implying that it's . . . I don't know . . . almost commonplace (almost as commonplace as abortion itself?) that the decision is between the life of the mother or the life of the baby. When, in reality, that's seldom the case, relatively speaking, when compared to all abortions. Because, by far, most abortions are done for reasons other than because continued pregnancy would take the life of the mother. So, I'm sorry, I guess I just don't understand why folks always troop this argument out anytime this topic comes up. To take what is, possibly, the rarest of situations and present it as though it is somehow the norm or something. It simply baffles me.

Dave, it is the current argument that is being used in medical ethics circles. I am not saying that I completely agree with it, but you have also misconstrued what I was saying. I was not talking about cases where the mother's life is threatened, but that is not as rare as you think. I was talking about, where is their a law that requires us to give a part of our body to another human being? We are morally obligated to help our fellow human beings, and no greater love is when someone lays down their life for another, but should they be legally obligated? That is the current argument being used; should all women be required to donate the use of their body for nine months under penalty of law? Morally yes. Legally, at this, point, no. How would you form a law that would enforce this morality? That is what is currently being debated, and the answer is not as easy as you think.

Those of us who oppose abortion should do well to consider the example of Cain, in John Paul II's encyclical presented by ProCommunion Factor:

And yet God, who is always merciful even when he punishes, "put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him" (Gen 4:15). He thus gave him a distinctive sign, not to condemn him to the hatred of others, but to protect and defend him from those wishing to kill him, even out of a desire to avenge Abel's death. Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this. And it is pre- cisely here that the paradoxical mystery of the merciful justice of God is shown forth. As Saint Ambrose writes: "Once the crime is admitted at the very inception of this sinful act of parricide, then the divine law of God's mercy should be immediately extended. If punishment is forthwith inflicted on the accused, then men in the exercise of justice would in no way observe patience and moderation, but would straightaway condemn the defendant to punishment. ... God drove Cain out of his presence and sent him into exile far away from his native land, so that he passed from a life of human kindness to one which was more akin to the rude existence of a wild beast. God, who preferred the correction rather than the death of a sinner, did not desire that a homicide be punished by the exaction of another act of homicide".13

If we want to win the culture war, we have to learn to counter the actual arguments that are being used by the opposition. It is too easy to play the game of demonization, association with Hitler, Nazi Holocaust, etc etc. It might make us feel good, but it does nothing to change the culture, and it even solidifys the opposition.

The blood of infants cries out against the abortionists and women that have killed. We want to exact justice on them, but God has put the mark of Cain on them. Hold back your sword, leave them alone. Offer mercy and overcome evil with good.
John Paul II told us to change the culture. That takes a whole lot more work than just passing laws. We have to win hearts and minds or else the effort would be for nothing.

 

[Fantine]

And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? (Mother Teresa, National Prayer Breakfast 1994)

I think that if pro-life politicians and pro-life supporters took the words of Mother Teresa to heart, they would be able to speak with the moral clarity that would turn the world around to their point of view.

I will alter her words to prove my point:

If we accept that we can go to war with other countries for nebulous reasons, resulting in 650,000 civilian deaths and about 3,000 American deaths; if we accept the death penalty; if we think that building fences on the Mexican border while simultaneously shifting jobs overseas and putting Americans out of work is social justice, etc., etc. , how can we tell other people not to have abortions?

The problem with so many pro-life politicans (whom I truly believe are pro-birth politicians, not pro-life politicians, is that listening to their other opinions makes my skin crawl. They are interested in the rich getting richer, period, but since they don't have enough rich people to guarantee them a majority they throw some crumbs to the Religious Right so that they will hold their noses and vote for them despite the wrongness of so much of what they stand for.

Show me a real pro-life politician, and I will gladly vote for him. As a matter of fact, I did vote for the better of two pro-life politicians for Congress this November. Unfortunately, he lost, but he made a very creditable showing against an incumbent in a strong Republican area.

So many pro-life politicians can't speak with Mother Teresa's moral clarity because most of their positions are immoral.

 

[Skripper]

Dave, it is the current argument that is being used in medical ethics circles. I am not saying that I completely agree with it, but you have also misconstrued what I was saying. I was not talking about cases where the mother's life is threatened, but that is not as rare as you think. I was talking about, where is their a law that requires us to give a part of our body to another human being? We are morally obligated to help our fellow human beings, and no greater love is when someone lays down their life for another, but should they be legally obligated? That is the current argument being used; should all women be required to donate the use of their body for nine months under penalty of law? Morally yes. Legally, at this, point, no. How would you form a law that would enforce this morality? That is what is currently being debated, and the answer is not as easy as you think.

Those of us who oppose abortion should do well to consider the example of Cain, in John Paul II's encyclical presented by ProCommunion Factor:




If we want to win the culture war, we have to learn to counter the actual arguments that are being used by the opposition. It is too easy to play the game of demonization, association with Hitler, Nazi Holocaust, etc etc. It might make us feel good, but it does nothing to change the culture, and it even solidifys the opposition.

The blood of infants cries out against the abortionists and women that have killed. We want to exact justice on them, but God has put the mark of Cain on them. Hold back your sword, leave them alone. Offer mercy and overcome evil with good.
John Paul II told us to change the culture. That takes a whole lot more work than just passing laws. We have to win hearts and minds or else the effort would be for nothing.

Fair enough. Though I do think that abortions that are performed because continuing the pregnancy would kill the mother are extremely rare, when compared to all abortions (i.e., those that are done for reasons other than because preganancy would kill the mother). Anyway, I'm still not sure it's a valid comparison, if I understand what you’re trying to say (and I’m pretty sure I do, but I could be wrong).

I mean, are you suggesting that a law requiring one to sacrifice one's own life for another (as you seemed to be suggesting in an earlier post to Michelle), or to give to another person part of one's own body (I'm a little confused here . . . do you mean like being forced to "donate" a lung or something?) is the moral (or in this case legal) equivalent of not killing another human being (as is the case with abortion)? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here.

If I've misstated your point, my apologies and please help me more clearly understand it. One the other hand, if I have correctly understood the point, don’t you think there’s a pretty considerable difference between being bound by law to do something (in this case, help, in whatever sense . . . body parts, sacrifice, etc) as opposed to not doing something (in this case actively killing, or participating in the killing of another human being, albeit a pre-born one)?

Isn’t there a pretty big difference between being bound (by law) to “do” something as opposed to “not do” something? I’m pretty sure I understand your position but, again, my apologies if I am misconstruing it.

Regarding the suggestion that a woman is, in essence, being forced to donate her body for nine months . . . that would be a fair analogy/comparison . . . if she were forced to carry the baby of another couple and, I suppose, the argument could be made in the case of rape. But other than that, I don’t think it’s a valid comparison, IMO.

 

[PetertheRock]

As Father Corapi said anyone who compares abortion to the war and to the death penalty doesn't have all their marbles. We can debate the just war situation, the death penalty doesn't kill INNOCENT people. Abortion is ALWAYS gravely intrinsinctly (sp?) evil all the time.

 

[Fantine]

I don't know anything about Fr. Corapi except what I just read on Wikipedia.

What I do know is that Jesus condemned hypocrites.

And pro-life politicians who can feel compassion for fetuses while ignoring the cries of the widows, orphans, crippled and maimed in places like Iraq and Darfur....

or the victims of economic and social injustice here in the US, both citizens and undocumented immigrants......

and those on death row, some of whom have IQ's of 60 and who have most certainly been framed or poorly represented......and some of whom will later be proven innocent, as has happened in the past....

are hypocrites, plain and simple.

We listen to them. We get a lightbulb moment. We say, "Hmmm.....these politicians only care about fetuses because they can't complain, don't make any noise, and don't cost them any money. But when they're born, well, they'll be shown the gate with all the rest of the people these politicans show the gate."

I have said it 100 times, and I will say it another 100 if that's what it takes.

This is how to end abortion in this country:

Pro-lifers, stop being hypocrites. Show as much care for the born as you do the unborn. Hearts will be touched, minds will be changed.

Pro-lifers, stop being hypocrites. Show as much care for the born as you do the unborn. Hearts will be touched, minds will be changed.

Pro-lifers, stop being hypocrites. Show as much care for the born as you do the unborn. Hearts will be touched, minds will be changed.

 

[Skripper]

Good point. But it presupposes that "pro-lifers" simply ignore all those other things which, of course, isn't necessarily the case. Moreover, there are actually laws in place, laws in the form of compulsory tax laws, to help fund the needs of at least some of those mentioned above. Though more can always be done. In any event, it's not really "hypocritical" to speak out in defense of the unborn, even if it is lamentable to not simultaneously help others in need as well.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Fair enough. Though I do think that abortions that are performed because continuing the pregnancy would kill the mother are extremely rare, when compared to all abortions (i.e., those that are done for reasons other than because preganancy would kill the mother). Anyway, I'm still not sure it's a valid comparison, if I understand what you’re trying to say (and I’m pretty sure I do, but I could be wrong).

I mean, are you suggesting that a law requiring one to sacrifice one's own life for another (as you seemed to be suggesting in an earlier post to Michelle), or to give to another person part of one's own body (I'm a little confused here . . . do you mean like being forced to "donate" a lung or something?) is the moral (or in this case legal) equivalent of not killing another human being (as is the case with abortion)? I'm just trying to understand your reasoning here.

If I've misstated your point, my apologies and please help me more clearly understand it. One the other hand, if I have correctly understood the point, don’t you think there’s a pretty considerable difference between being bound by law to do something (in this case, help, in whatever sense . . . body parts, sacrifice, etc) as opposed to not doing something (in this case actively killing, or participating in the killing of another human being, albeit a pre-born one)?

Isn’t there a pretty big difference between being bound (by law) to “do” something as opposed to “not do” something? I’m pretty sure I understand your position but, again, my apologies if I am misconstruing it.

Regarding the suggestion that a woman is, in essence, being forced to donate her body for nine months . . . that would be a fair analogy/comparison . . . if she were forced to carry the baby of another couple and, I suppose, the argument could be made in the case of rape. But other than that, I don’t think it’s a valid comparison, IMO.

Dave you are misconstruing, but I see your misunderstanding. You seem to be under the impression that you need to convince ME that abortion is wrong or that the arguments are weak. That is not the case. I am merely presenting the current arguments and trying to see how they are dealt with. So far I have not seen a convincing counter argument the would stand in this political climate.
Pro-choice woman have successfully argued in court that it is their body, and the State does not have the right to force them to use it in any way that they do not wish. How are you going to construe a law that forces a woman to carry a baby, and not violate the rights of the individual? Does government have the right to compel individuals to share their bodies, or do you just want to limit it to women?

 

[Skripper]

Dave you are misconstruing, but I see your misunderstanding. You seem to be under the impression that you need to convince ME that abortion is wrong or that the arguments are weak. That is not the case. I am merely presenting the current arguments and trying to see how they are dealt with. So far I have not seen a convincing counter argument the would stand in this political climate.
Pro-choice woman have successfully argued in court that it is their body, and the State does not have the right to force them to use it in any way that they do not wish. How are you going to construe a law that forces a woman to carry a baby, and not violate the rights of the individual? Does government have the right to compel individuals to share their bodies, or do you just want to limit it to women?

Jerome,

A few things here. First, I consider you a friend, so please take this in the friendly spirit in which it is offered. While you may not intend it this way (and I’m pretty sure you don’t actually and consciously intend it this way), but please consider what I’m about to say. When someone keeps implying that the only reason others are disagreeing with them is because they just don’t “get it” or don’t “understand” (or “misconstrue”) . . . it’s a little condescending. I don’t pretend to speak for others, but I have a degree from the University of Michigan . . . and I graduated with honors. Not that that means much (I certainly don’t agree with their politics!), but I have to think I have at least average intelligence. Because regardless of my disagreements with the politics of my alma mater, they are not in the habit of handing out degrees that are not earned, academically speaking. So I’m not exactly a dummy.

Anyway, back to what I was saying. It’s kind of like saying, or at least implying, that everyone else is just a little too slow on the uptake to really comprehend what is being said. And if they could only grasp what you’re saying, (i.e., if they were only a tad bit brighter) then they would agree with you.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that a lot of clarification is sometimes needed in written conversation. And I’d definitely be the first to admit that I may not be the sharpest tool in the shed. But none of that means that we all just don’t “get it” or are “misconstruing” everything all the time . . . you know? It’s perfectly plausible that intelligent people will disagree with us . . . even when they “understand.” So we can’t simply presume that everyone other than one’s self simply doesn’t “get it.” People disagree . . . even people who possess average (and even above average) intelligence . . . honest. Even when they “get it” . . . and it can be a little condescending to keep implying that the only reason someone disagrees with us is because they don’t (or can’t) grasp what we are saying, or that they misconstrue.

Now, having said that, you have stated earlier what could and would be construed, by just about anyone, as comparing laws against abortion (if such laws were to be re-implemented) with sacrificing one’s own life for that of another (i.e., it’s an “either/or” situation . . . either the mother lives or the baby lives). I pointed out that that’s rarely the case and that it is not really a valid comparison, since that’s simply not the case in most abortions.

You then took it a step further (of course, after suggesting that I was misconstruing) and suggested/implied that any laws against legal abortion (on demand, for any reason, I presume) equated with a woman being forced to donate her body for nine months. I disagreed with that and gave a brief explanation as to why (though I could go in depth in my argument).

I also recognize that you are pro-life and that you are not arguing “in favor” of abortion . . .per say . . . though it could be construed that way by some. (Perhaps you are “misconstruing” what I am saying?)

I am merely presenting the current arguments and trying to see how they are dealt with. So far I have not seen a convincing counter argument the would stand in this political climate.

Understood. But in fairness to me, I don’t think I’ve actually tried to make or present a “political argument.” Nor am I inclined to, since this isn’t a political forum (this is the Catholic forum, after all). If you feel that I have (presented or intended to present a political argument), then again, perhaps you have misconstrued?

Pro-choice woman have successfully argued in court that it is their body, and the State does not have the right to force them to use it in any way that they do not wish. How are you going to construe a law that forces a woman to carry a baby, and not violate the rights of the individual?

Ah, now we get to the crux of it. My answer? I haven’t a clue. But then, you are now (and I guess you always have been?) presenting what amounts to a political argument (which I have not, as yet, engaged in . . . at least not intentionally . . . though I know how lines can be blurred in this respect).

Does government have the right to compel individuals to share their bodies, or do you just want to limit it to women?

Good question. Shall we discuss/debate my view on this . . . and yours (whatever each may be)? But if we do, will you allow the possibility that, if and when we disagree (which is a real possibility) . . . that it will not always simply be because I “misconstrue”??? Allowing, of course, for the possibility that at times I may indeed miscontrue . . . but that that simply is not always the reason we may, at times, disagree??