Supporting abortion = automatic ex communication

[holyorders]

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.

Perhaps we could do better in acknowleding all life a little better. Afterall it is the heart of the Gospels.

More compassion and agape is needed everywhere in the world. But that kind of thing cannot be successful without volunteers who seek to love as Christ loves. That kind of thing can never be put into politics or government. The only thing politics and government can do is make it compulsory by law or mandate and that would totally defeat the purpose of living the Gospels.


Political mindedness is worthless to the walk of Christ. Politics are a very flawed human-invention that blows around by secular leaders and citizens. It was a democratic vote that chose Barabbas over Jesus.

People really do need to go and spend their time quelling the problems of people- the born and the unborn.

 

[Miss Shelby]

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.

For someone who has continually, in this thread, accused others of misconstruing things, you've done enough of it yourself.

No one has said that just passing laws is going to end abortion. In fact, the opposite is being said.

But, as I said earlier, pro-choice people seem to want to ignore that and blame pro-life people for not wanting to get involved. Such the same strawman Fantine has seen to construct in this.

You can't get around it. If you believe that a fetus is a human, then that human should be constitutionally protected by the same laws that protect all humans, in this country. Period.

 

[Davidnic]

Alexander Hamilton said:

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power." -Alexander Hamilton

How are you going to construe a law that forces a woman to carry a baby, and not violate the rights of the individual?

Sacred rights. And when selfish inclination uses a civil liberty for personal benefit at the expense of the sacred rights of another that removes it from protection by the government.

So any of the "rights" that protect abortion are not rights, I understand you are speaking with how a court views it and the political climate. But these are the rights our government is built on, Sacred rights.

So what are the Sacred rights? How are we to define them? A good starting point would be that they are those things intrinsic to the human condition by virtue of being made in the image of God. Foremost is the right to life and dignity befitting a human being. By this definition what is protected:

The right to life

To food

To clothing

To worship our creator properly without harming another person

Shelter

Maintain our health


There are others, such as the right to choose your own spouse or vocation. Use the corporal works of mercy as a guide. These are rights. If a liberty takes those away from another, it is the realm of government to fix it. (I thought about this in another thread about rights and such)

And foremost is the right to life. It is the sacred gift that once given by God is not ours to take away. It is a right that the founders spoke of and should be understood by the judges.

But if we say that we can not use religion as a basis for definition or laws then what we are left with are civil liberties that overtake Sacred rights because no one wants to see them as just that: Sacred rights.

And with that said I agree with Miss Shelby:

If you believe that a fetus is a human, then that human should be constitutionally protected by the same laws that protect all humans, in this country. Period.

The change of heart necessary is that people start to value all life as having dignity created in the image of God. But we need to have laws protecting the unborn while we work on that. Those laws must come first because children are dying now. and I do know that my argument is theocratic and would not fly in a court of law.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Davidnic and MissShelby have brought up good points.

Sacred rights and laws that protect all humans in this country.

The question is to define rights, and determine whose rights are most important and how are they enforced. What do we do if the rights of two individuals are in a conflict of interest?


The OP made this a political thread by talkng about politics and voting in light of Catholic moral teaching. I thought that we were having a political discussion.

 

[Skripper]

Hmm ... I guess I didn't make any good points, then.

That's fine. While I've got some vices, excessive ego isn't one of them.

 

[PetertheRock]

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.

Sort of like all the children, babies, and women and men that were tortured, raped, and brutally murdered by Saddam and his henchmen?

 

[Vedant]

Davidnic and MissShelby have brought up good points.

Sacred rights and laws that protect all humans in this country.

The question is to define rights, and determine whose rights are most important and how are they enforced. What do we do if the rights of two individuals are in a conflict of interest?


The OP made this a political thread by talkng about politics and voting in light of Catholic moral teaching. I thought that we were having a political discussion.

----------

I'm not Catholic, but I disagree that Catholics can be pro-choice in the legal sense and pro-life in the moral sense. Can anyone help expound on this?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm

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


[SIZE=-1]"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."79 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]"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."80[/SIZE]

----------

I'm just pressing you further expound on this difference between moral law and state law.

 

[Debi1967]

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.

And this will continue to be a stumbling block for everyone.

A person does not become a person when they are physically born unto this world, but they are already a person at conception. Just as we do not need to actually see God to know that God exists we do not need to see the unborn person to know that he/she exists and has the same rights as an already born child.

We have so many problems and one of them is dispelling the notion that a baby is not real until you can actually hold that baby in your arms. When at the moment of conception it was yours. And more importantly it was a creation of God.

To Jerome:
Part of changing a culture Jerome is also changing the laws that govern it. We live in a power driven and divide and conquer type of culture. We also live in a religious and educated culture.

We argue this argument all the time and to what avail? Because truthfully how many are willing to put themselves out there in the forefront of the fight? We all have our opinions that much is true but how many are willing to do what it takes to make the changes necessary to the culture we live in?

See because that is what it takes a commitment to say "Hey look no more and we want it changed" and then follow through. We have to be ready for the fight, and this subject in the minds of many has been changing only not to our advantage because there are so many on the opposite side fighting to keep it the way it is.

Especially women that want to keep saying do not take away my freedoms.

It has been noted in this thread that the exception to the rule, rape, incest, ect, are rare indeed and that the Church does take into account those things. I am going to add to the mix this, that even in some of those situations the answer is not always abortion, but perhaps to have the child adopted by parents that will love the child.

There are so many people out there wanting a child and yet cannot have one of their own. But then we get into another ball of wax.

Freedom is a very tangible thing, today it can be here tomorrow it can all be gone. It is something that we take for granted in this country. But there is one person who yet has been afforded any freedoms in this country, because even the smallest child outside of the womb has rights, and that is the unborn person/child.

So here I have you talking about people that already have rights and Laws that govern them in this secular government and others talking about we should stay with the born and focus on them, and how much respect do you think this shows to that person that is in the womb? Are they so easily discarded? And simply because we cannot yet see them, feel them or hear them?

I don't know Jerome but what I do know is that I do not see anyone truly miscontruing you either, I see them disagreeing with you and your position and there is a difference there as well.

Love in Christ
Debi

 

[Miss Shelby]

Davidnic and MissShelby have brought up good points.

Sacred rights and laws that protect all humans in this country.

The question is to define rights, and determine whose rights are most important and how are they enforced. What do we do if the rights of two individuals are in a conflict of interest?


The OP made this a political thread by talkng about politics and voting in light of Catholic moral teaching. I thought that we were having a political discussion.

That would involve finding out why women believe abortion to be an option worth considering, why they don't believe it to be wrong, and also it includes helping to offer alternatives. That's an awful lot of work which is cut out for what sadly seems to be only a few people. (I strongly believe most people feel there is either nothing wrong with abortion or that it's not their place to judge whether it is wrong for someone else)--Like you said, it means changing a mindset which has been formed by a deadly culture. It's not gonna be easy. We can pray, we can strive to live virtuious lives and pass that on to our kids, and we can offer our time and compassion. It will take a long time and a lot of work.

I see no need to differentiate between whose rights are more important than anothers. That should go without saying, all right to life should be equally protected under the law.

 

[plmarquette]

It was mentioned by some bishops prior to the last 2 elections , & directed at some of the candidates who were saying they were catholic , but supported abortion ...

The church stated , that as they were in a leadership postion , and implying what is written that all authority is of God ( political and secular ) , that to take a prochoice stance is to invalidate your church affiliation ... for you violate the tenants of the faith , and the Law upon which the faith is based , and the words of He who gave the Law & His son to us , the governed ..

 

[Vedant]

That would involve finding out why women believe abortion to be an option worth considering, why they don't believe it to be wrong, and also it includes helping to offer alternatives. That's an awful lot of work which is cut out for what sadly seems to be only a few people. (I strongly believe most people feel there is either nothing wrong with abortion or that it's not their place to judge whether it is wrong for someone else)--Like you said, it means changing a mindset which has been formed by a deadly culture. It's not gonna be easy. We can pray, we can strive to live virtuious lives and pass that on to our kids, and we can offer our time and compassion. It will take a long time and a lot of work.

I see no need to differentiate between whose rights are more important than anothers. That should go without saying, all right to life should be equally protected under the law.

I have a question Miss Shelby. If you had a hindu faith icon, what would your comment implicate? As a Christian, what would Hindu values implicate on your life?

 

[Debi1967]

I have a question Miss Shelby. If you had a hindu faith icon, what would your comment implicate? As a Christian, what would Hindu values implicate on your life?

Vedant,
I do not think that morality of God's Law is dictated by our icons do you? We are not talking about Hindus here.... We are talking about the Rights of of an individual to live and thrive and that is a right that should be given to all mankind. I see no real purpose in this question other than to further confuse the issue.

Debi

 

[Fantine]

You don't believe that people who support government social programs in nations where there are 300 million people, and 1.3 million abortions a year, care about the outcomes?

Case in point: The flooding in New Orleans. In Jesus' day, the flood in New Orleans wouldn't have caused any concern to the Galileans. They wouldn't know about it! People would just die! And it would be no skin off the Galileans' backs!

And, basically, that's what happened. And the world was a much worse place for it. Plagues, wars, pestilence, disease would just come and go. There were no sophisticated methods of communications or delivery, so people would just die, by the millions, unnoticed, unmourned, uncared for.

And so now we know about it. We know about those 650,000 Iraqi civilians. We know about the people in Darfur. Tsunami victims.

And these problems are just too complex and widespread for individual Christians to deal with on a case by case basis without significant backup from government programs.

I am not saying that Christians shouldn't try, or that individual charity is unimportant.

But it's completely, totally, and absolutely inadequate. And, in my view, anyone who says, "We should disband government programs and let individual charities take up the slack" is condeming billions of people to poverty, illiteracy, disease, and death.

 

[Vedant]

Vedant,
I do not think that morality of God's Law is dictated by our icons do you? We are not talking about Hindus here.... We are talking about the Rights of of an individual to live and thrive and that is a right that should be given to all mankind. I see no real purpose in this question other than to further confuse the issue.

Debi

You see no real purpose in this question other than to further confuse the issue.

I disagree with you.

I'm not trying to confuse the issue, but *trying* to illustrate how others could perceive the way Miss Shelby supports the right to life. A hindu also supports the right to life, but to only support human life is as much a double standard to a hindu as only supporting the life of born humans is to a Catholic. Within the Catholic church there is the Catholic position on abortion, but within other people's systems there are other positions. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Debi1967]

You see no real purpose in this question other than to further confuse the issue.

I disagree with you.

I'm not trying to confuse the issue, but *trying* to illustrate how others could perceive the way Miss Shelby supports the right to life. A hindu also supports the right to life, but to only support human life is as much a double standard to a hindu as only supporting the life of born humans is to a Catholic. Within the Catholic church there is the Catholic position on abortion, but within other people's systems there are other positions. That's all I'm saying.

True however we are not talking about their positions are we? We are however, talking about the Catholic position in the Catholic forum.

And as I said I do not believe it to be the Catholic position at all, I believe it to be God's Law period, so her icon should have nothing to do with this issue.

 

[Debi1967]

You don't believe that people who support government social programs in nations where there are 300 million people, and 1.3 million abortions a year, care about the outcomes?

Case in point: The flooding in New Orleans. In Jesus' day, the flood in New Orleans wouldn't have caused any concern to the Galileans. They wouldn't know about it! People would just die! And it would be no skin off the Galileans' backs!

And, basically, that's what happened. And the world was a much worse place for it. Plagues, wars, pestilence, disease would just come and go. There were no sophisticated methods of communications or delivery, so people would just die, by the millions, unnoticed, unmourned, uncared for.

And so now we know about it. We know about those 650,000 Iraqi civilians. We know about the people in Darfur. Tsunami victims.

And these problems are just too complex and widespread for individual Christians to deal with on a case by case basis without significant backup from government programs.

I am not saying that Christians shouldn't try, or that individual charity is unimportant.

But it's completely, totally, and absolutely inadequate. And, in my view, anyone who says, "We should disband government programs and let individual charities take up the slack" is condeming billions of people to poverty, illiteracy, disease, and death.

The problem lies in the fact that because we have evolved we do know, and therefore canot turn a blind eye to it either.

Our responsibility lies in the knowledge we have at the time. If you did not have the knowledge or could not do anything to help then that is different but when you have the knowledge and can do something to help and do nothing then you are morally culpable for such behaviour even in the sight of God.

 

[Miss Shelby]

I have a question Miss Shelby. If you had a hindu faith icon, what would your comment implicate? As a Christian, what would Hindu values implicate on your life?

Here is the way that I see it:

1. Strictly speaking, meaning in the USA, the constitution protects the right to live. That is to say, I have the right to live without fear of someone forcibly taking that life from me, and then going unpunished for that.

If fetuses are human, they fall under that category. As it stands now, they are not protected under the law, hence the consitition is not being applied consistenty. We should just chuck that right to live for everyone and make murder legal, since we've seen fit to take it away from the unborn.

If someone is living in the US, makes no dif if they're hindhu or Christian or what have you.

As to my moral stand on this, I will express this as a matter of opinion in trying to help end the horror of abortion, if those of other moral belief systems disagree, I am not imposing anything on them.

I am not trying to impose my own moral beliefs on the way that it should be applied legally. I am just asking that the constitution be applied fairly, to everyone.

Hope that helps you understand where I am coming from, if not, can't help you. Every time someone posts in this thread I see lines getting blurred that shouldn't be.

Michelle

 

[Vedant]

Here is the way that I see it:

1. Strictly speaking, meaning in the USA, the constitution protects the right to live. That is to say, I have the right to live without fear of someone forcibly taking that life from me, and then going unpunished for that.

If fetuses are human, they fall under that category. As it stands now, they are not protected under the law, hence the consitition is not being applied consistenty. We should just chuck that right to live for everyone and make murder legal, since we've seen fit to take it away from the unborn.

If someone is living in the US, makes no dif if they're hindhu or Christian or what have you.

As to my moral stand on this, I will express this as a matter of opinion in trying to help end the horror of abortion, if those of other moral belief systems disagree, I am not imposing anything on them.

I am not trying to impose my own moral beliefs on the way that it should be applied legally. I am just asking that the constitution be applied fairly, to everyone.

Hope that helps you understand where I am coming from, if not, can't help you. Every time someone posts in this thread I see lines getting blurred that shouldn't be.

Michelle

Thank you Michelle.

I'm not really trying to blur lines, but more hypothesizing how others could view your belief. If the constitution was written to protect life, which is more vague than protections for human life, and hindus for whatever reason became a majority in this country, hindu values against killing animals could be set in place. That's not the hindus enforcing their values on anything, but merely that the protection to life be applied fairly to all life. From the Catholic perspective, would that be viewed as equality or an imposition of values?

Anyway, the way our taxes, census, death rates, insurance, and even driving laws are setup has never considered a fetus a full human. I think the constitution is being applied the way it has been since the founding of the United States.

Also, I know this is a very emotional issue, so please take everything I've said so far objectively, if you can. Please. Abortion is a failure of many things, and I don't believe it would be a part of an ideal world in any form.

 

[Vedant]

True however we are not talking about their positions are we? We are however, talking about the Catholic position in the Catholic forum.

And as I said I do not believe it to be the Catholic position at all, I believe it to be God's Law period, so her icon should have nothing to do with this issue.

I'm not debating the Catholic position. I fully know what your catechism says about abortion, and I'd be out of place to challenge your beliefs in any way here. However, I'm trying to explain how others can view certain actions that are a result of the Catholic faith, for example, in laws and government.

God's Law is proclaimed by the Catholic church if you are a Catholic, however that's not the only system of law, otherwise nobody would be arguing about the legality of abortion. I said faith icon implying what someone from another faith might perceive things.

Instead of debating my posts as irrelevant or nonsensical, I'd rather prefer if you responded to something I wrote.

 

[Da_Funkey_Gibbon]

If that is true then the constitution needs to be applied differently, in the early days of the USA Negros were not considered to be full human beings after all.

And to be blunt, the hindu definition of life/human life is incorrect.

To use the above example, just because a group of people believed that Negros were not full human beings, it does not make it so, and if a group of people decided that roses were human beings too, it would not make it so.

And I have no problems with enforcing the Catholic definition of human life onto others.