And There You Have It. We All Are Paying For The "morning After&#3

[Veridicus]

It is quite difficult to be both firm in your convictions in Catholic teaching and at the same time charitable to positions which are quite anathema to Catholic sentiments. Jim is correct that it is important to temper our language at times to keep the conversation going. And Nihil is correct in that this tempering can never be at the expense or dilution of authentic Catholic teaching. It is our firm purpose to convince everyone that abortion is murder, but sometimes we have to avoid throwing the term 'murderer' out because it is more important to keep the conversation going than to prove out point this instant and walk away.

In many ways it is similar to the ongoing ecumenical efforts of the Church in the last 50yrs. We have to remain firm and authentically Catholic, but at the same time we need to less frequently through out our anathemas because anathematization utterly ends discussion. It is of course a failure on the other end not to see truth for truth...but it is our job to use all measures of charity to bring the opposite party past their own bias and misconceptions to a place where they can legitimately see the veracity and consistency of our own position and so adopt it.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='09 February 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1265745754' post='2054240']
No the problem is that any chance of dialog is impossible with the rhetoric of the extreme positions shutting down all conversations on issues.

Its not a matter of rigidly holding to Church teaching and patting yourself on the back for being a good Catholic, but a matter of bringing the Church's teaching to the table in a manor that others will hear.

However, when you have extremist using derogatory insulting labels, and belittling the other's point of view, walls are thrown up and the message remains in the perspective ideological camps.

The result is that nothing changes and abortions continue go on.



Jim
[/quote]
There is nothing at all "extreme" about being against murdering babies.

Now what you're doing is interesting here. You're making the assumption that because I'm belittling and lambasting your position, I do the same in all circumstances. This does not follow. Your position is especially contemptible because you profess to be Catholic, yet refuse to be bound by the beliefs of the Catholic Church. In other words, you should know better. Contrary to what you may want to believe, I'm actually intelligent enough to tailor my responses to suit my situation. Sometimes harsh words are entirely called for. I've mentioned specific situations in the past on Phatmass, especially one that I think may have actually changed the mind of a young woman who was pro abortion. It was through harsh, jarring language and visual shock.
There is no one right way to fight abortion; there are a lot of right ways. There are also wrong ways. One wrong way includes justifying or minimizing abortion in specific circumstances, as you are doing on this thread.
There is a world of difference between "bringing the Church's teaching to the table in a manor [[i]sic[/i]] that others will hear" and compromising core beliefs, which you seem particularly quick to do. I refuse to compromise in a way that undermines the sanctity of life.

[Lil Red]

+JMJ+
i dunno why this is still in open mic

[XIX]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='09 February 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1265744399' post='2054225']

[/quote]

[kamiller42]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='09 February 2010 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1265741702' post='2054190']
No, not necessarily if done for medical reasons to save the life of the mother.
[/quote]
What if not for medical reasons? What would the punishment be?

I am very happy you take a stand on late term abortions even if with a caveat, but keep in mind that late term abortions are legal and yet you have no problem rightly taking a legal stand against it. Take the same stand with the other stages of human development and be not afraid.

[quote]I know of cases where a severely deformed fetus which had no chance of making it through a full term pregnancy, nor surviving outside of the womb had to be delivered through induced labor. The dying fetus would've been a threat to the mother's health. Now Catholic teaching is that they could not do anything that would kill the fetus, regardless. But at this point, I think it was best left up to the medical experts and mother. Neither should be convicted of a crime in such a case.[/quote]
Cases where the life of the mother is directly and adversely affected by the unborn are extremely rare. Even the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute would admit so. That scenario is the exception to the rule. Our rules should are not defined by the exceptions. Laws exist to enforce moral law. It is the ultimate goal, not to satisfy "most of the nation" and their senses.

[quote]Because with a late term abortion people overall have no doubt about the reality of a baby, unlike previable stages, especially before implantation. [/quote]
Your sensitivities to people of other faiths and no faith seems to be missing. You have no problem showing the "tolerance for the views of others" card when you disagree with prohibiting early term abortions, but it is absent when you agree with late term abortions. The fact is right and wrong is not based on people's sensitivities or majority opinion. Decide what is right and make a stand for it. Many seemingly impossible injustices have been tackled in the past, but they were conquered. Be not afraid.

[quote]We don't agree with this, but we're left with either forcing our beliefs onto others or trying to educate them. The rhetoric used by the pro-life extremist have driven many away from even listening. Same is true for the extremist of the pro-abortion side.

When most people are not appalled over late term abortions, then the nation has lost all of its moral compass. However, I don't see our nation becoming so callous that this will happen, at least I pray it doesn't.
[/quote]
"Murder of the innocent is evil" and "People have a right to life" are not extreme ideas. It's right there in the Declaration of Independence!

When most people are unable to see the truth ("What is truth?") and discern right from wrong and rationalize their errant ways, then a nation has lost its moral compass.

[quote]It was a little different here. In WWII Germany, the people became fearful of their own government, and fearful of doing anything to get themselves imprisoned. Its easy for us to sit back in our comfortable chairs and say, I would've spoken out against it, but, until you live in the situation, you really don't know how you will react.[/quote]
Fear is a motivator for people to make poor choices, even rationalize evil actions. It's a shame. Can you think of any modern issues where fear clouds the conscience?

[quote]You don't have to. I read the Pope's messages along with Mother Terese and various Bishops. I don't just read those on the liberal side of the spectrum.

BTW, did you actually read Father Kavenaugh's article?
[/quote]
The point of my statement was pointing out a double standard: Quoting Catholic religious about abortion is shoving Catholicism onto the public except when it supports your opinion.

Yes, I read it. I am a pro-life extremist. How terrible. I'll survive. I will enjoy his next article: "How name calling and labeling are ruining the chances of finding common ground on the abortion issue."

[Varg]

Does it bother you that your government spends your taxes on weapons? Weapons that are a LOT more expensive and a lot more deadly than contraception. I'm sure Jainists don't like their taxes being spent on killing machines.

Edited February 10, 2010 by Varg

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' date='10 February 2010 - 12:57 PM' timestamp='1265828255' post='2054784']
Does it bother you that your government spends your taxes on weapons? Weapons that are a LOT more expensive and a lot more deadly than contraception. I'm sure Jainists don't like their taxes being spent on killing machines.
[/quote]
It's possible, in theory, for a weapon to be used for moral means.

[Varg]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='10 February 2010 - 02:10 PM' timestamp='1265829049' post='2054793']
It's possible, in theory, for a weapon to be used for moral means.
[/quote]
How about nukes?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Varg' date='10 February 2010 - 01:36 PM' timestamp='1265830605' post='2054801']
How about nukes?
[/quote]
I'm not a fan.
Relevant?

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='09 February 2010 - 03:02 PM' timestamp='1265745754' post='2054240']
No the problem is that any chance of dialog is impossible with the rhetoric of the extreme positions shutting down all conversations on issues.

Its not a matter of rigidly holding to Church teaching and patting yourself on the back for being a good Catholic, but a matter of bringing the Church's teaching to the table in a manor that others will hear.

However, when you have extremist using derogatory insulting labels, and belittling the other's point of view, walls are thrown up and the message remains in the perspective ideological camps.

The result is that nothing changes and abortions continue go on.



Jim
[/quote]
However, contempt is okay when used on the spiritually "unevolved", and its opposite, crowing about one's evolution, is perfectly okay.

I'm still trying to figure out how not accepting murder is an "extreme" position.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Winchester

[Socrates]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1265398061' post='2051660']

This is what we believe, but its not what many members of other main stream religions believe.
Jews and Muslims believe that a fetus is not a person until ensoulment takes place, and this they
believe happens until viability, or after 20 weeks.

So how does a secular government legislate while not forcing a particular religious belief onto them?


Jim
[/quote]
Actually, different schools of Judaism and Islam disagree on the morality of abortion; there are some adamantly pro-life Orthodox Jews.

But, quite frankly, it doesn't matter to me what the Jews, Muslims, atheists, Wiccans, or Scientologists think. The issue is what is objectively true and right. Objectively speaking, an unborn baby is a living human being.
That's not religious dogma, but scientific fact.

The issue is not some arcane dogma of "ensoulment," but whether it should be legal to take the life of an innocent human being.

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='05 February 2010 - 04:04 PM' timestamp='1265403853' post='2051697']
Sorry, but that doesn't state when the soul enters the human body.

God creates the soul, not the parents, and God does so, at His will, whenever that may happen.

As I pointed out, we know that after conception, twining may occur. So, did God create two souls in one zygote or, did God create the souls after they became individual embryos?

No one knows and there are plenty who don't believe it is a person requiring protection, especially in the case of rape or medical necessity.

That's not what we as Catholics believe, and we have to understand that we have a secular government, which represents all the people, not just Catholics.

Jim
[/quote]
I'm sure you could find plenty of people out there who have no qualms about the murder of certain fully-grown persons.
Should we revoke all murder laws in order that our government represent all those people as well?

A government which uses tax dollars to fund baby-killing certainly doesn't represent [i]me[/i]!

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='08 February 2010 - 01:04 PM' timestamp='1265652257' post='2053414']
The difference between abortion and other immoral acts, is that abortion isn't accepted as an immoral act by the majority of society, especially in the early stages.[/quote]
A recent poll showed that a majority of Americans consider themselves pro-life.
But what's your point? That we can only stand up for what is right legally when everyone else already agrees with us?

What you're advocating here is nothing but spineless moral cowardice.

And abortion was illegal in most states prior to Roe v. Wade. It's not like we're dealing with something unprecedented and unheard of in America.
Laws against abortion or prohibiting its funding hardly constitute instituting a Catholic theocracy.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Socrates

[Winchester]

I'd also like to see the Catholic moral teaching requiring laws to represent the personal beliefs of all citizens.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' date='13 February 2010 - 09:25 AM' timestamp='1266071146' post='2056426']
I'd also like to see the Catholic moral teaching requiring laws to represent the personal beliefs of all citizens.
[/quote]
Which, of course, is impossible anyway, as the personal beliefs of different citizens are often in conflict with one another (eg. pro-lifers vs. those who demand government funding of abortion).

But, I suppose, it's only the personal beliefs of "pro-choicers" and other spiritually-evolved citizens that deserve representation by the law, not those of backwards, spiritually-unevolved pro-life Catholics.

I'm sure that's to be found somewhere in the [i]Holy Magisterium According to Ted Kennedy[/i].

[thessalonian]

Why wasn't the emergency back when the damage to the soul was being done by 2 people consumed by lust for eachother? You know there was something right about those days when heresy was considered akin to killing the soul and therefore to be punished severly. Point being that killing the soul was akin to killing the body of those whom the heretic infected. Now we kill the body of the innocent and leave the souls of the damned to rot, even adding to their misery by heaping sin upon sin.