|
|
Post by kathleenelsie on Feb 4, 2009 22:56:45 GMT -5
Can you still call yourself Pro-Life if you believe in abortion for rape, incest or for the health of the woman and if you believe in embryonic stem cell research? As a Catholic I do not think so. Other Faith communities will tell you that there need to be exceptions.  And if you vote for a Presidential Candidate that believes in this, then are you culpable of his sinful stance even if you don't believe in it? When as the Holy See said that if both hold some pro-choice stand the decision is to weigh the people running for office and deside which will do the least harm. In this case there is no sin in voting for the one that will protect the most life.IMHO no one that voted for BHO can say they are pro-life. The man stated he was not, had previously proven he was not (see the voting record on partial birth murder). Those that voted for BHO will have to stand before God the same as those that did not. I sure would not want to say to God that I needed the tax break or I always vote for the Democrat Party no matter what. I will beg forgiveness that I was not able to stop BHO in his march of death. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 4, 2009 23:01:54 GMT -5
Not one of those references cited in that article cite an actual church document. Did you notice that? Here's what the Catechism of The Catholic Church says about destroying an innocent fetus... Again, there are ways to save the mother while sparing the child. There is no excuse ever to kill an innocent life. That article you posted attached the concept of self defense to an unborn baby comparing it to an aggresive attacker on the mother forcing the mother to murder the baby in self defense. There is never a situation where an innocent child can be murdered. CCC 2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: 'Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.' (61) The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.Now, the quotes cited in your reference are attaching CCC's passages to a belief that no one knew about back when the CCC (Catechism) was written. They didn't cite one Church teaching on the matter of tubal pregnancy. Here are the sources they themselves cited (note, not one Vatican document or official teaching on the matter): [1] Much of the statistical information in this Faith Fact was gathered from the CDC
[2] National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services (Washington, DC: NCCB, 1994), 28
[3] Ibid., 47.
[4] Cf. William E. May, Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000), 182-83.
[5] T. Lincoln Bouscaren, Ethics of Ectopic Operations (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1933).
[6] Ibid., 160-61.Cepha the CCC paragraph that you chose is pretty vaig(sp?) and does not even mention tubal pregnancy. Now the site i gave you, had catholics biships priests saying it was ok to take the baby since it would die anyhow. So stop trying to argue it.  |
|
|
|
Post by kathleenelsie on Feb 4, 2009 23:08:07 GMT -5
When did i say i was for killing babies in certain cases? Source please for the abortion in tubal pregnancy to be forbidden As long as the intent was to remove a diseased or malfunctioning body part (eg the tube in your case malfunctioned and allowed the baby to form in the wrong place) and the intent was not to end the life of the baby (in your case it was not the intent) then the situation was medical and not optional. I had to have my uterus removed because of cancer. We wanted more children but it was not to be. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 4, 2009 23:13:49 GMT -5
That is understandable, sorry to hear that. I have a 2 yr old and plan to have one more when the time is right. After having a child of your own, it has to be really hard to think that abortion is ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 1:21:37 GMT -5
Not one of those references cited in that article cite an actual church document. Did you notice that? Here's what the Catechism of The Catholic Church says about destroying an innocent fetus... Again, there are ways to save the mother while sparing the child. There is no excuse ever to kill an innocent life. That article you posted attached the concept of self defense to an unborn baby comparing it to an aggresive attacker on the mother forcing the mother to murder the baby in self defense. There is never a situation where an innocent child can be murdered. CCC 2261 Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: 'Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.' (61) The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.Now, the quotes cited in your reference are attaching CCC's passages to a belief that no one knew about back when the CCC (Catechism) was written. They didn't cite one Church teaching on the matter of tubal pregnancy. Here are the sources they themselves cited (note, not one Vatican document or official teaching on the matter): [1] Much of the statistical information in this Faith Fact was gathered from the CDC
[2] National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Ethical and Religious Directives for Health Care Services (Washington, DC: NCCB, 1994), 28
[3] Ibid., 47.
[4] Cf. William E. May, Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life (Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 2000), 182-83.
[5] T. Lincoln Bouscaren, Ethics of Ectopic Operations (Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press, 1933).
[6] Ibid., 160-61.Cepha the CCC paragraph that you chose is pretty vaig(sp?) and does not even mention tubal pregnancy. Now the site i gave you, had catholics biships priests saying it was ok to take the baby since it would die anyhow. So stop trying to argue it. You call "this" vague? "The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule and to the holiness of the Creator."  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 1:25:08 GMT -5
Can you still call yourself Pro-Life if you believe in abortion for rape, incest or for the health of the woman and if you believe in embryonic stem cell research? As a Catholic I do not think so. Other Faith communities will tell you that there need to be exceptions. And if you vote for a Presidential Candidate that believes in this, then are you culpable of his sinful stance even if you don't believe in it? When as the Holy See said that if both hold some pro-choice stand the decision is to weigh the people running for office and deside which will do the least harm. In this case there is no sin in voting for the one that will protect the most life.IMHO no one that voted for BHO can say they are pro-life. The man stated he was not, had previously proven he was not (see the voting record on partial birth murder). Those that voted for BHO will have to stand before God the same as those that did not. I sure would not want to say to God that I needed the tax break or I always vote for the Democrat Party no matter what. I will beg forgiveness that I was not able to stop BHO in his march of death. So, you're saying that the Church is "wrong" when it said that Catholics can vote for Pro-Choice Candidates provided that that isn't the reason their voting for him? Yes? No? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 5, 2009 1:28:03 GMT -5
I think the church believes that it is ok, but they overwhelmingly disagree and do nnot support Obama. The church understands that not all politicians will be pro life, therefore leaving us to vote for the better person, but Obama not only is pro choice, but is actively pro choice, i mean doing everything in his power to make it readily available for like 13yr olds. That is just crazy!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 5, 2009 1:29:27 GMT -5
And i meant vague by the paragraph not stating anything about tubal pregnancys, or any other malfunctions of a fetus.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 1:50:12 GMT -5
Cepha, Is there a difference between someone who tells a white lie, and someone who is a habitual liar and con-man? Is there a difference between a young man who has sex with his 17 1/2 yr old girlfriend and a man who creates child porn? etc etc etc... I can come up with a million of these scenarios. In the end, telling a white lie to avoid taking responsibility for one's actions is always wrong, and having sex with a minor is always illegal... but I think we should be able to agree that lifelong con-men and child porn creators are just that much much worse! If you want to make the case that McCain is pro-choice because he was lax on rape and incest... fine... call it whatever you want. The thing is, you are still missing the point. If McCain had ran against someone who was against abortion in ANY situation, then I would respect your decision to choose that person, but since he ran against a candidate who is aggressively trying to usher in more abortions, make them easier, make them free, etc.... you just come across as a man grasping for straws in an attempt to defend their vote. In the end, it doesn't matter if McCain can be technically classified as pro-choice by the strictest sense of the term. What matters is his presidency would have sought to reduce, albeit through modest measures, to reduce abortions, and prevent an increase in abortion rights and practices. Obama's presidency, on the other hand, promises to uphold at all costs the women's right to abortions on demand. Big difference there. Wow. With logic like that, how could I respond to you. Fact is, when McCain is Pro-Choice, you refer to it as "laxed". And despite all that text spent, you didn't answer the topic question, did you? Matter of fact, has any Anti-Obamian actually responded to the topic question here? Or are they going to continue to avoid it and try to talk about everything else? Question: How many bills did McCain sponsor to eliminate abortion in his 30 years as a politician? And...it doesn't matter how many liberties there are as far as abortion goes...Obama isn't getting women pregnant then telling them to have abortions. Their doing that on their own. Let's focus our attacks on the actual crime of abortion because no matter how much it's facilitated, it wouldn't exist if people didn't do it. I haven't heard any Anti-Obamian fault the actual people who have and who peform abortions...women and their doctors. Who do you think God is going to hold responsible for an abortion? A politician that makes it legal? A politician that upholds the laws he's hired to uphold? Or the woman who makes the "choice" to murder her unborn child and the doctor who actually physically murders the child? With logic like yours, it's no wonder we can't stop abortion. Your focus is on the law instead of the abortionists. Again, abortion is completely legal. There is not "little bit abortion" and then Obama is going to run it up. Come on now...that's the whole "the devil made me do it defense". Read my signature...it speaks volumes. When you stand before God, He's not going to ask you (not you personally, but generally) why did you listen to Obama. He's going to judge you on your actions and having an abortion without repentance is unforgivable. But don't think for a minute that the "it's legal" defense is what's going to sway God into letting a woman and doctor off the hook. Anyway, like Jesus said on such matters..."mind your own business" (Matthew 7). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 2:22:10 GMT -5
Yes. Yes I did. And no, I'm not guilty of his sins. Each man is acountable for his own sins. (Unless someone changed The Holy Bible since I last read it) Did you vote for McCain who wants to protect a woman's right to kill children? Would tha make you guilty of his sins, because there are many? And, would it be ok if he didn't want to use tax funds to do it? Nope I did not vote for McCain, and I definitely vote for that baby murdering Obama. Good man! I respect that! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 2:32:47 GMT -5
Yes. Yes I did. And no, I'm not guilty of his sins. Each man is acountable for his own sins. (Unless someone changed The Holy Bible since I last read it) Did you vote for McCain who wants to protect a woman's right to kill children? Would tha make you guilty of his sins, because there are many? And, would it be ok if he didn't want to use tax funds to do it? Nope I did not vote for McCain, and I definitely vote for that baby murdering Obama. By the way, you never provided any evidence of Obama slaying a child. No pictures, no record of conviction...what gives? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 3:21:36 GMT -5
And i meant vague by the paragraph not stating anything about tubal pregnancys, or any other malfunctions of a fetus. It doesn't have to...it clearly states that premeditatively murdering innocent lives is wrong. End of subject. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 3:23:51 GMT -5
I think the church believes that it is ok, but they overwhelmingly disagree and do nnot support Obama. The church understands that not all politicians will be pro life, therefore leaving us to vote for the better person, but Obama not only is pro choice, but is actively pro choice, i mean doing everything in his power to make it readily available for like 13yr olds. That is just crazy!!! No, the Church does "not" overwhelmingly disagree with Obama. They only disagree with him on 1 issue...his stance as a Pro-Choice candidate, but they agree with him on everything else. Ok, find something else they disagree with him on then if it's sooo much... (remember, birth control, fetal stem cell research, etc...that all falls under "Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice") |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 3:25:53 GMT -5
IMHO no one that voted for BHO can say they are pro-life. By the way, The Catholic Church disagrees with you. What are you? A Protestant? |
|
|
|
Post by kathleenelsie on Feb 5, 2009 16:13:45 GMT -5
IMHO no one that voted for BHO can say they are pro-life. By the way, The Catholic Church disagrees with you. What are you? A Protestant? Holy Mother Church says I am not allowed to say if someone is Catholic or not. Or saved or not as I can not see inside their soul. That is for God ONLY. But, if my personal opinion is is based on someone having voted for a pro-abortion person and my opinion is that they are not pro-life that opinion is not condemmed by the Church. For it is by the fruits that you know them. We are then in charity to show them by words, works and love the error of their ways. |
|
|
|
Post by capitalista on Feb 5, 2009 18:29:52 GMT -5
Wow. With logic like that, how could I respond to you. Not my finest hour, but since you are incapable of contrasting two different positions, I am running out of ways to illustrate the concept to you. And by the way I DID answer the question. I basically gave it to you that you can "call" a person (like McCain) "pro-choice" by the strictest definition of the word, but there is no reason to leave that little thing called perspective out of the mix. Now it appears you have come up with a *new* question, so I will answer that one as well: Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007) Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008) Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007) Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007) Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006) Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005) Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003) Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000) Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999) Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998) Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003) Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004) Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006) Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008) .....taken from a link I already sent you before (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm). I even kept the embryonic stem cell items in there, lest you accuse me of being deceptive, but I think when the entire record is looked at within context, it speaks well for itself... a lot better than Obama's record. There is not "little bit abortion" and then Obama is going to run it up. Come on now...that's the whole "the devil made me do it defense" Actually, the reason it is legal is because of vocal pro-choice proponents like Obama. Generations upon generations of young women are growing up in a culture that not only considers abortion legal... but is actually trying to make the case that it's a *right*. This agenda is responsible for increasing the number of women having abortions. If your signature is supposed to be saying something about being black and white and not compromising on any level, then you yourself do not follow it. If you did, you would not have voted for McCain OR Obama... but withheld your vote entirely, or voted for a third party pro-lifer. Get off your high horse: Don't pretend that our perspective and pragmatism makes us hypocrites but yours doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 21:04:20 GMT -5
Wow. With logic like that, how could I respond to you. Not my finest hour, but since you are incapable of contrasting two different positions, I am running out of ways to illustrate the concept to you. And by the way I DID answer the question. I basically gave it to you that you can "call" a person (like McCain) "pro-choice" by the strictest definition of the word, but there is no reason to leave that little thing called perspective out of the mix. Now it appears you have come up with a *new* question, so I will answer that one as well: Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007) Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008) Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007) Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007) Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006) Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005) Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004) Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003) Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000) Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999) Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998) Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003) Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004) Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006) Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008) .....taken from a link I already sent you before (http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm). I even kept the embryonic stem cell items in there, lest you accuse me of being deceptive, but I think when the entire record is looked at within context, it speaks well for itself... a lot better than Obama's record. There is not "little bit abortion" and then Obama is going to run it up. Come on now...that's the whole "the devil made me do it defense" Actually, the reason it is legal is because of vocal pro-choice proponents like Obama. Generations upon generations of young women are growing up in a culture that not only considers abortion legal... but is actually trying to make the case that it's a *right*. This agenda is responsible for increasing the number of women having abortions. If your signature is supposed to be saying something about being black and white and not compromising on any level, then you yourself do not follow it. If you did, you would not have voted for McCain OR Obama... but withheld your vote entirely, or voted for a third party pro-lifer. Get off your high horse: Don't pretend that our perspective and pragmatism makes us hypocrites but yours doesn't. So you use a site the proves that McCain believes in abortion to prove that he's Pro-Choice? And for anyone to criticize me for voting for Obama because he's Pro-Choice to believe that they didn't vote for a Pro-Choice when they voted for McCain is deluding themselves. If you hold them to the same standards that you hold me, then everybody who voted for John McCain is culpable for his Pro-Baby Killing stances. There is no voting Pro-Life if the Candidate you vote for beleives in abortion. At least, not to reasonable persons. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 21:05:42 GMT -5
Kathleene...way to go on the vote! ;D  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 5, 2009 22:16:32 GMT -5
If your signature is supposed to be saying something about being black and white and not compromising on any level, then you yourself do not follow it. If you did, you would not have voted for McCain OR Obama... but withheld your vote entirely, or voted for a third party pro-lifer. Get off your high horse: Don't pretend that our perspective and pragmatism makes us hypocrites but yours doesn't. You are the reason we need a Magisterium...  Thank God for His Church to protect us from concepts like yours. Read The Church document on voting... www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by capitalista on Feb 6, 2009 17:11:05 GMT -5
Cepha,
I am realizing a few things here.
1) You have no sense of perspective. If you did, then it would be clear to you that 11 (arguably 12) of the 14 items I listed show McCain strongly backing the pro-life agenda. I'd like you to show me a list of Obama.... or of ANY democrat that has a more pro-life record than that. If all we did was vote for Democrats... the pro-life movement would fail at every possible turn!
2) You do yourself a disservice by trying to defend Obama's stance on abortion, by bringing up McCain's stance on abortion. The only thing you prove is that when given the chance between the lesser of two evils, you actually choose the greater evil.
3) In some ways, it is pointless for me to debate this issue with you, because I don't think either of us is a one-issue voter, and we obviously stand on completely different sides of the fence when it comes to overall political ideologies. Oh well.... to each their own I suppose.
|
|
