Abortion In The Usa

[JimR-OCDS]

I see the conversation has changed from whether abortion should be kept legal, to being about me.


Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 12:22 PM' timestamp='1279732970' post='2145951']
That's right, some times, abortion is not murder.

An indirect abortion is not murder and is even considered licit by the Catholic Church.


Jim
[/quote]
You're weaseling. Is the direct and intentional destruction of an unborn child always murder?

I don't believe that "indirect abortion" is a term that has ever been used by the Church, unless we're dealing with coerced abortions or accidental miscarriage.

[JimR-OCDS]

KnightofChrist

[i]That's the point, your logic would allow the murdering of Blacks and Jews if our society allowed it. Your logic would allow it but you would not, you are in conflict with your own logic.
[/i]

It has nothing to do with what I would allow or not, but what is allowed by law here in the USA.

Why don't you stick to my original question? If you were a member of congress and wanted to write a law making abortion
illegal, what penalty would you place on women how obtain them and the doctors who perform them?


[i]Funny that you should speak of the commandment of Love, or love at all. Your logic shows no love at all for the unborn. If it does it is a false love. Again there are some that do not believe murder is wrong, your logic would not allow us to make the respect 'our doctrines' against murder[/i].

Did I say I was in favor of abortion? Did I say I believe abortions are moral ? Did I say I reject the Catholic teachings on abortion?

No, I didn't did, so how you came up with this statement is beyond me.

[i]An illegitimate, and irrelevant point. Right is right if no one is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong.[/i]


But the point is about writing a law, not what is moral. You keep thinking that I'm somehow believe abortion as being moral.

Let me help you, I do not.

But what does my belief have to do with making a law that is enforceable and a law you can get enough people to agree on which will be passed in our system of government ?


[i]You'd be hard pressed to find a KKK member that believed Blacks had the right to exist. Does this mean that in parts of our nation where KKK members maybe a majority that blacks do not have the right to exist? Your logic would tell us no they do not.
[/i]
How does the KKK have any meaning in this discusion?

I'm talking about law in our government, not what the KKK views are.

Jim

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 01:25 PM' timestamp='1279733135' post='2145955']
I see the conversation has changed from whether abortion should be kept legal, to being about me.


Jim
[/quote]

You are not being attacked at all, your argument, and your logic is what is being attacked.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 01:34 PM' timestamp='1279733670' post='2145961']
KnightofChrist

[i]That's the point, your logic would allow the murdering of Blacks and Jews if our society allowed it. Your logic would allow it but you would not, you are in conflict with your own logic.
[/i]

It has nothing to do with what I would allow or not, but what is allowed by law here in the USA.

Why don't you stick to my original question? If you were a member of congress and wanted to write a law making abortion
illegal, what penalty would you place on women how obtain them and the doctors who perform them?


[i]Funny that you should speak of the commandment of Love, or love at all. Your logic shows no love at all for the unborn. If it does it is a false love. Again there are some that do not believe murder is wrong, your logic would not allow us to make the respect 'our doctrines' against murder[/i].

Did I say I was in favor of abortion? Did I say I believe abortions are moral ? Did I say I reject the Catholic teachings on abortion?

No, I didn't did, so how you came up with this statement is beyond me.

[i]An illegitimate, and irrelevant point. Right is right if no one is right, and wrong is wrong if everybody is wrong.[/i]


But the point is about writing a law, not what is moral. You keep thinking that I'm somehow believe abortion as being moral.

Let me help you, I do not.

But what does my belief have to do with making a law that is enforceable and a law you can get enough people to agree on which will be passed in our system of government ?


[i]You'd be hard pressed to find a KKK member that believed Blacks had the right to exist. Does this mean that in parts of our nation where KKK members maybe a majority that blacks do not have the right to exist? Your logic would tell us no they do not.
[/i]
How does the KKK have any meaning in this discusion?

I'm talking about law in our government, not what the KKK views are.

Jim
[/quote]

Again you would not allow blacks to be murdered legally, but your logic would, the same logic that allows the murder of the unborn. Why do you fail to see that reality?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 12:34 PM' timestamp='1279733670' post='2145961']
Did I say I reject the Catholic teachings on abortion?
No, I didn't did, so how you came up with this statement is beyond me.
[/quote]
You do (and have in previous threads) rejected certain Catholic teachings on abortion. Also you have appeared to advocate a backwards understanding of law versus morality.

[JimR-OCDS]

'Nihil Obstat

[i]You're weaseling. Is the direct and intentional destruction of an unborn child always murder?

[/i]Its voluntary manslaughter, but if you want to use the term murder, yes it is.

[i]I don't believe that "indirect abortion" is a term that has ever been used by the Church, unless we're dealing with coerced abortions or accidental miscarriage.

[/i]

Actually the term indirect abortion, was used quite often in Catholic publications, over the story of the abortion case at a Catholic Hospital in Pheonix AZ.

Here's the story;

[url="http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12348"]http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12348[/url]


Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 July 2010 - 02:38 PM' timestamp='1279733894' post='2145964']
You do (and have in previous threads) rejected certain Catholic teachings on abortion. Also you have appeared to advocate a backwards understanding of law versus morality.
[/quote]



OK, let me be very clear, I DO NOT reject Catholic teachings on abortion, just the style of rhetoric on the issue.

Jim

Edited July 21, 2010 by JimR-OCDS

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 12:49 PM' timestamp='1279734547' post='2145971']
Its voluntary manslaughter, but if you want to use the term murder, yes it is.
Actually the term indirect abortion, was used quite often in Catholic publications, over the story of the abortion case at a Catholic Hospital in Pheonix AZ.
Here's the story;
[url="http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12348"]http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=12348[/url]
[/quote]
I'm not going to read the link. If there's something relevant in there, you can summarize it for the sake of debate.
Just in case there's confusion, America magazine has no Magisterial authority, just like the Kennedy family.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1279734616' post='2145973']
OK, let me be very clear, I DO NOT reject Catholic teachings on abortion, just the style of rhetoric on the issue.

Jim
[/quote]
This is not what your previous and at this point still not retracted comments indicate.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' date='21 July 2010 - 02:37 PM' timestamp='1279733848' post='2145963']
Again you would not allow blacks to be murdered legally, but your logic would, the same logic that allows the murder of the unborn. Why do you fail to see that reality?
[/quote]


How would my logic allow blacks to be murdered?

Is there some one asking for such a law to be written?

I don't allow abortion, our government does. I vote for pro-life candidates, but in 40 years, its made little difference.

You can't make abortion illegal, unless you can write it into a law and a law must specify the penalties for those who violate it.

So answer the question, how would write into law the penalties for those who obtain or perform abortions?

Would you jail young women who obtained an abortion? Would you use the same penalty on doctors as those
for murders?



Jim

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='21 July 2010 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1279735143' post='2145979']
How would my logic allow blacks to be murdered?

Is there some one asking for such a law to be written?

I don't allow abortion, our government does. I vote for pro-life candidates, but in 40 years, its made little difference.

You can't make abortion illegal, unless you can write it into a law and a law must specify the penalties for those who violate it.

So answer the question, how would write into law the penalties for those who obtain or perform abortions?

Would you jail young women who obtained an abortion? Would you use the same penalty on doctors as those
for murders?



Jim
[/quote]

All need be done is for our government or any government to 'allow' blacks or any other group of people to be murdered and your logic would support that. So you cannot be against what the South did during the time of slavery or lynching since it was perfectly legal and supported by the society. Nor can you be against what the Nazi's did to the jews because your logic supports what they did.

Edited July 21, 2010 by KnightofChrist

[Socrates]

This nonsense from Jim looks like a complete rehash from last winter:
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=102573&view=&hl=&fromsearch=1

That tripe was already solidly refuted there, and he's bringing nothing new to the table now.

Jim, we get your point. You're saying that until you think everyone agrees with us on the abortion issue, no one should lift a finger to stand up for for the unborn in the legal or political sphere. We've got to sit around and wait for all the politicians in Washington to agree with us, and until then do nothing.

Just like those in the civil rights movement should have sat around and did nothing so long as Jim Crow laws and segregation were firmly entrenched in the laws and accepted by a majority of people. . .

In the meantime, we'll use this as an excuse to keep voting for blatantly pro-abortion politicians, on the grounds that we'll never be able to do anything about abortion anyway. Then, when the pro-abort pols we voted for are elected in to office, we'll use that to justify refusing to stand up for the pro-life cause.
And thus the cycle endlessly continues . . .

This defeatism is all so self-fulfilling, isn't it?
Sorry, but if you vote for such politicians, you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

All these meandering excuses and red herrings offered here are nothing but weak and transparent apologetics for voting pro-abortion. Just the same old flimsy "personally-opposed-but" politician Nancy Pelosi nancy boy doublespeak.

Our Holy Father, thank God, sees things differently, and says that Christians have the duty to stand up politically for the lives of the unborn.
[quote]In this light, the Pope said that the main area of the Church's intervention in the public sphere "is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person.” “…She is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable."

Here, he listed a number of principles for which Catholics must continue to fight. Namely, these are: "[b]Protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death[/b]; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family, as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage, and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role; and the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.”

While he admitted that "These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith,” he stressed that “they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.”

The Pope explained that “The Church's action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, irrespective of any religious affiliation they may have."[/quote]
[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholics_must_be_engaged_in_political_debate_says_pope/"][b]Catholics must be engaged in political debate, says Pope[/b][/url]

Give it up, Jimbo, you're wasting your time.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='21 July 2010 - 02:51 PM' timestamp='1279734674' post='2145974']
I'm not going to read the link. If there's something relevant in there, you can summarize it for the sake of debate.
Just in case there's confusion, America magazine has no Magisterial authority, just like the Kennedy family.
[/quote]


The article describes the Church's teaching on indirect abortions, which the case in AZ was thought to be by the
nun who was excummicated.

The article then describes the difference between a direct abortion, which is never licit, and an indirect abortion which is.

The story caused much discusion around the net and in Catholic publications, because many people were upset that the media had published the story on how the Bishop had excummicated the nun for saving the life of the mother.

The article I linked gave the full story along with Church teaching, rather than what the secular media wrote about it.


Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

Socrates

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholics_must_be_engaged_in_political_debate_says_pope/"][b]Catholics must be engaged in political debate, says Pope[/b][/url]


When did I say we should be engaged in the political debate? Of course we should, but in order to be engaged, you're going to have to know something about writing laws and getting them passed.

You also need to engage in the debate with respect and avoid inflammatory divisive rhetoric,
which the Pope has also called for.

[i]Give it up, Jimbo, you're wasting your time.[/i]


Agreed. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif[/img]


Jim

Edited July 21, 2010 by JimR-OCDS