HB 1441 father's rights

[little2add]

6 hours ago, Anomaly said:

he couldn't care less and doesn't want the hassle

that's harsh, unfeeling, cruel, demeaning, delusional, mean, unchristian and dishonest.  

thing to say 

[Anomaly]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

that's harsh, unfeeling, cruel, demeaning, delusional, mean, unchristian and dishonest.  

thing to say 

Get a grip.  Did I say all grandparents?  And as far as being unchristian, of course it is.  I'm not a Christian and am much nicer and more thoughtful than most of them. 

 It isn't a given that other people would not counsel the woman to have an abortion.   They don't want the scandal, they know the mom doesn't have the wherewithal to raise the kid and they themselves are poor and can't afford it, etc.  

People don't give or allow others or tell others to have abortion because they hate babies.  It's because it's a burden to be responsible for a child and it's easier to to flush out a "cyst" that isn't a person and has no rights under the law.  

The Catholic Church is against abortion not because of the procedure, but because it kills a person.   When the state of science and theology was such that Thomas Aquanis didn't think the zygote was"ensouled", it was okay to have an abortion.   Science, theology and philosophy has gone beyond that.  You can't argue a solely theological point to establish a law to operate in a secular legal system.  

Edited March 5, 2017 by Anomaly

[little2add]

11 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

The Catholic Church is against abortion not because of the procedure, but because it kills a person.

kind of is, my dear

 

[Ice_nine]

16 hours ago, Anomaly said:

The Catholic Church is against abortion not because of the procedure, but because it kills a person.   When the state of science and theology was such that Thomas Aquanis didn't think the zygote was"ensouled", it was okay to have an abortion.  

I don't think this is entirely true. Aquinas did speculate on the time of ensoulment, but to say abortion was OK is making a leap. The Didache forbade abortion along with infanticide. I'm sure you knew that. And Aquinas never okayed abortion. I'm sure you know that too. The Church has always been against abortion. She is against contraception as well (even though that's not homicide), and she has always been against abortion even when it was not considered murder.

For someone who is "nicer" than most Christians you're awfully snarky lately.

[Anomaly]

I did know that and you made the point better than I did.   

It isn't the procedure, but the point of killing a person.   When theology and science did not consider the zygote a person until "quickening" as evidence of ensoulment, it was okay to rid a body of "tissue".  

 The point is when people can easily consider the fetus as a non-person because it is convenient, and have the fact there is no legal protection or definition of "personhood", the life of that person is subject entirely to the whim of others.  Outlawing abortion does little to make sure the fetal person has as much right to live and rights for protection as people outside the womb. 

I'm snarky because it is tiresome, repeating this and arguing this to stubbornly obtuse people who think there is some superior and final argument because "that is what the Church says".   The Church does not run the Country, not make the laws in this pluralistic society.  You have to establish, justify, and defend your position with reason, logic, and  science, or just be a New Earth cultist or Radical Shiite and dream of a theocracy to force you beliefs in others.  AFAIK, that isn't Catholic.  

[Jack4]

1 hour ago, Ice_nine said:

17 hours ago, Anomaly said:

  When the state of science and theology was such that Thomas Aquanis didn't think the zygote was"ensouled", it was okay to have an abortion.

Aquinas did speculate on the time of ensoulment, but to say abortion was OK is making a leap.

https://douglasbeaumont.com/2012/03/01/aquinas-on-abortion/

http://www.faith.org.uk/article/march-april-2014-st-thomas-aquinas-and-abortion

 

4 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

I'm snarky because it is tiresome, repeating this and arguing this to stubbornly obtuse people who think there is some superior and final argument because "that is what the Church says".   The Church does not run the Country, not make the laws in this pluralistic society.  You have to establish, justify, and defend your position with reason, logic, and  science, or just be a New Earth cultist or Radical Shiite and dream of a theocracy to force you beliefs in others.  AFAIK, that isn't Catholic.  

Allow me to quote at length the magnificient words of Pope Leo XIII in his Enyclical Libertas:

On 2/26/2017 at 8:09 PM, Jack4 said:

man, by a necessity of his nature, is wholly subject to the most faithful and ever-enduring power of God; and that, as a consequence, any liberty, except that which consists in submission to God and in subjection to His will, is unintelligible. To deny the existence of this authority in God, or to refuse to submit to it, means to act, not as a free man, but as one who treasonably abuses his liberty; and in such a disposition of mind the chief and deadly vice of liberalism essentially consists. The form, however, of the sin is manifold; for in more ways and degrees than one can the will depart from the obedience which is due to God or to those who share the divine power.

37. For, to reject the supreme authority to God, and to cast off all obedience to Him in public matters, or even in private and domestic affairs, is the greatest perversion of liberty and the worst kind of liberalism; and what We have said must be understood to apply to this alone in its fullest sense.

38. Next comes the system of those who admit indeed the duty of submitting to God, the Creator and Ruler of the world, inasmuch as all nature is dependent on His will, but who boldly reject all laws of faith and morals which are above natural reason, but are revealed by the authority of God; or who at least impudently assert that there is no reason why regard should be paid to these laws, at any rate publicly, by the State. How mistaken these men also are, and how inconsistent, we have seen above. From this teaching, as from its source and principle, flows that fatal principle of the separation of Church and State; whereas it is, on the contrary, clear that the two powers, though dissimilar in functions and unequal in degree, ought nevertheless to live in concord, by harmony in their action and the faithful discharge of their respective duties.

39. But this teaching is understood in two ways. Many wish the State to be separated from the Church wholly and entirely, so that with regard to every right of human society, in institutions, customs, and laws, the offices of State, and the education of youth, they would pay no more regard to the Church than if she did not exist; and, at most, would allow the citizens individually to attend to their religion in private if so minded. Against such as these, all the arguments by which We disprove the principle of separation of Church and State are conclusive; with this super-added, that it is absurd the citizen should respect the Church, while the State may hold her in contempt.

40. Others oppose not the existence of the Church, nor indeed could they; yet they despoil her of the nature and rights of a perfect society, and maintain that it does not belong to her to legislate, to judge, or to punish, but only to exhort, to advise, and to rule her subjects in accordance with their own consent and will. By such opinion they pervert the nature of this divine society, and attenuate and narrow its authority, its office of teacher, and its whole efficiency; and at the same time they aggrandize the power of the civil government to such extent as to subject the Church of God to the empire and sway of the State, like any voluntary association of citizens. To refute completely such teaching, the arguments often used by the defenders of Christianity, and set forth by Us, especially in the encyclical letter Immortale Dei,(12) are of great avail; for by those arguments it is proved that, by a divine provision, all the rights which essentially belong to a society that is legitimate, supreme, and perfect in all its parts exist in the Church.

41. Lastly, there remain those who, while they do not approve the separation of Church and State, think nevertheless that the Church ought to adapt herself to the times and conform to what is required by the modern system of government. Such an opinion is sound, if it is to be understood of some equitable adjustment consistent with truth and justice; in so far, namely, that the Church, in the hope of some great good, may show herself indulgent, and may conform to the times in so far as her sacred office permits. But it is not so in regard to practices and doctrines which a perversion of morals and a warped judgment have unlawfully introduced. Religion, truth, and justice must ever be maintained; and, as God has intrusted these great and sacred matters to her office as to dissemble in regard to what is false or unjust, or to connive at what is hurtful to religion.

 

Note: You see the quote just above saying, " On 2/26/2017 at 8:09 PM, Jack4 said ". This is the result of me copy-pasting from another thread. The content is nos. 36-41 of L13's Libertas, as mentioned. 

[Anomaly]

Jack, 

That is fine for you as a Catholic, but is an except and not complete. The conclusion for a Principle of the Sanctity of a Life can be the overarching theme for the Church and the foundation for a law to protect life. That can also be argued philosophically and scientifically as well as natural law. It is WHY abortion is wrong to Catholics.  

It does not mean the conclusion is devoid of reasonable justification and arguments as well or that those arguments should be abandoned and not offered to non-Catholics in today's world.  But then again...  

[Jack4]

12 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Jack, 

That is fine for you as a Catholic, but is an except and not complete. The conclusion for a Principle of the Sanctity of a Life can be the overarching theme for the Church and the foundation for a law to protect life. That can also be argued philosophically and scientifically as well as natural law. It is WHY abortion is wrong to Catholics.  

It does not mean the conclusion is devoid of reasonable justification and arguments as well or that those arguments should be abandoned and not offered to non-Catholics in today's world.  But then again...  

I'm sorry, I can't follow you. Can you explain further?