stopping abortions

[Tarcisius]

I am not arguing a self defense theory at all. This is much more important, this is about defense of the innocent who can not defend themselves. You are morally bound as a Catholic to help them.

[quote]Think about it we all unload on the doctors end up with life in prison and who is left to lead the push.[/quote]

The millions of other Catholics not in jail... and your assuming everyone would end up in jail when most homicides are resolved, also hey, life in prison, plenty of time for that prayer then huh.

[quote]it will only force the government to put harsher ones on Pro-Lifers. If you don't think the pro-choice group will retaliate, you're in denial.[/quote]

this is of no relevance, the gov is constantly increasing laws against pro-lifers anyway, pro-choice groups already do everything they can. and besides all that, your argument is akin to saying people shouldnt have helped those being oppresesd in Nazi Germany because the Nazis would get angry, so what.

[quote]As far as the babies, yes it is horribly sad that their lives are being taken[/quote]

they are not being taken, they are being murdered by the thousands and eternally seperated from Christ and possibly ending up in Hell.

[quote]Oh yeah it doesn't take much for a mother to go to another clinic if her doctors been killed. [/quote]

some dont , i guess your right though, just a few babies saved from slaughter and given the chance at the Beautific Vision, eh

Get down to what your really feeling kids, you dont want to believe that I am right because your scared of the TRUTH.

Why not trust in the Lords Providence and do something that is right, stop that murder today, and just see how things take care of themselves.


ps. I am not advocating the breaking of any US laws, this is a hypothetical disucussion.

[stbernardLT]

I can't beleive your actually saying these babies might end up in hell or seperated from God eternally. God can have mercy on sinners but not on those who are innnocent. You my friend are very misled on the mercy God. And what is even more bizarre is that you have the nerve to say babies are going to hell on Good Friday of all days. I'm through with this messed up thread.

[avemaria40]

Violence is wrong and begets more violence. Once cannot put fire out with fire but with water. Prayer, peaceful protesting (which is guaranteed by the Constitution, take advantage of your rights as an American), helping these mothers (sidewalk counseling, volunteering in pregnancy centers, etc.) and voting for prolife candidates are what's going to get rid of abortion. Also, educating the young on chastity and abstinence with a program that actually works, and educating people on abortion can help with getting rid of abortion. People will listen to Truth if you respect them and can show yourself as a respectable, rational person. It works better than yelling at them and killing them and in the long run it saves more babies and more moms and the prochoice movement loses ground.

Edited April 16, 2006 by avemaria40

[Tarcisius]

[quote]I can't beleive your actually saying these babies might end up in hell or seperated from God eternally. God can have mercy on sinners but not on those who are innnocent. You my friend are very misled on the mercy God. And what is even more bizarre is that you have the nerve to say babies are going to hell on Good Friday of all days. I'm through with this messed up thread.
[/quote]

I hope they do go to Heaven, but...... I wonder why Satan would be sending legions of millions to Heaven......

[MichaelFilo]

Lol... babies go to heaven; where is thy sting now, original sin?

In reality, to use deadly force to save life is only appropriate in a situation when one is protecting another. This is always direct... and never neccessary in the abortion issue. However, force maybe neccessary to stop the abortion, and this is perfectly fine, or else we may not protect a retarded man if he is attacked and leave him to his own defenses. No, we must protect children born and unborn, but in the case of abortion, this is hardly a case where lethal force is neccesary.. Operation Rescue in Orlando Florida (or that area) is a wonderful example of using non-lethal force tos ave the unborn.

Anyone who thinks babies are going to heaven is not only a heretic, but they openly teach false doctrine to the Faithful. This is a most troublesome thing.

God bless,
Mikey

[stbernardLT]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='954254' date='Apr 19 2006, 03:56 PM']
Lol... babies go to heaven; where is thy sting now, original sin?

In reality, to use deadly force to save life is only appropriate in a situation when one is protecting another. This is always direct... and never neccessary in the abortion issue. However, force maybe neccessary to stop the abortion, and this is perfectly fine, or else we may not protect a retarded man if he is attacked and leave him to his own defenses. No, we must protect children born and unborn, but in the case of abortion, this is hardly a case where lethal force is neccesary.. Operation Rescue in Orlando Florida (or that area) is a wonderful example of using non-lethal force tos ave the unborn.

Anyone who thinks babies are going to heaven is not only a heretic, but they openly teach false doctrine to the Faithful. This is a most troublesome thing.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]

Hey Mikey please read the article in the CCC about the necessity of baptism before you condemn infants. God is not bound by His sacraments, and the church says we must trust in the MERCY of Christ and beleive that Jesus meant what he said we he said"Let them come to me". This is the CCC talking not me. Leave it to holier than thou Rad-Trads to call out heresy falsely. This is happening way too much on these boards lately.

[MichaelFilo]

Right, to hell with the councils, give me the CCC.

Thanks. I'm hardly holier than you, or the Church, but watch what you say, lest you tred falsely, the CCC is hardly an authoratative document on it's own accord, it's authority is derived from the truths contained in it; whilst the councils of Lyons II and Florence were led by the Holy Spirit and derive their authority from themselves, not neccessatating any former decree to be held as Truth.

God bless,
Mikey

[stbernardLT]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='954299' date='Apr 19 2006, 04:39 PM']
Right, to hell with the councils, give me the CCC.

Thanks. I'm hardly holier than you, or the Church, but watch what you say, lest you tred falsely, the CCC is hardly an authoratative document on it's own accord, it's authority is derived from the truths contained in it; whilst the councils of Lyons II and Florence were led by the Holy Spirit and derive their authority from themselves, not neccessatating any former decree to be held as Truth.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]

These councils were not dealing with wide spread abortion like we are now, and so just maybe the church has had to revisit this issue (the church can change certain views). If the church felt it necessary to address, don't you think it would expect us to accept the guidance. I don't know maybe that part of the catechism was just a big prank. Maybe you could go through the CCC and tell what is accurate and what isn't. It would be a good learning experience for all of us.

P.S. The Church Militiant title you hold is very misleading. It seems like you are fighting against anything the church has written ummm.....since Vatican II.

[MichaelFilo]

Really? Against everything since Vatican II? I'm appauled, since, well, Vatican II, as far as I can tell was a valid council, under a valid pope. Religious Freedom? Sounds good. Novus Ordo? Sounds good. Eucemenism(sp?). Sounds good too. None of it sounds great however.

If you think the Church can revist her doctrines than I would like to question, sir, what exactly it is that the Church is unchanging? Because dammit, that makes no sense, revisiting things the Church has spoken on. If the Church should contradict herself, then the gates of hell have prevailed, and anyone on Phatmass, except possibly EENS, understands that. (I mean that kindly EENS, but you don't understand that you cannot burn the Church down and exalt her, she must be cleaned out of the modernism, but you ought not go saying less than accurate things about the current pontiff). So, I must ask, are you suggesting the Church revist her teachings? She will say the same thing again and again, the real crime of abortion isn't that the children are removed from this world, it is that they are barred from the Beatfic Vision of the next. When that is realized, non-lethal force becomes not only an option, it may at times become a neccessity. This many priests nuns and monks knew when they engaged in operation rescue.

God bless,
Mikey

[stbernardLT]

If you think that the church is addressing issues and responding to certain issues the same way it did say 1,000 yrs ago, you need to study church history. Too say that if the church takes a different stand (not really different in this case just more interpretive) on an issue, the gates of hell have prevailed is very ignorant. If the church never changes its views, then how do you explain a church going from executing people left and right to almost outright condemning the death penalty. With age comes wisdom and experience. The church has a lot of this and the Holy Spirit continues to guide it in the right direction, otherwise the church(the people who make it up) would be perfect instead of striving for perfection.

If you are stating that the CCC is wrong, say it.

You might need to consider anger management, or just cool down.

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='954254' date='Apr 19 2006, 02:56 PM']
Lol... babies go to heaven; where is thy sting now, original sin?

. . . .

Anyone who thinks babies are going to heaven is not only a heretic, but they openly teach false doctrine to the Faithful. This is a most troublesome thing.
[/quote]


[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='954415' date='Apr 19 2006, 06:01 PM']
She will say the same thing again and again, the real crime of abortion isn't that the children are removed from this world, it is that they are barred from the Beatfic Vision of the next. [/quote]
The Church has made no declaration concerning the eternal destiny of the souls of aborted babies, so let us not be so quick to throw around the word "heretic" here.
A number of saintly Catholics (I believe Mother Teresa was among them) have expressed the opinion that the souls of the aborted may go to heaven by a kind of baptism of blood, similar to the Holy Innocents. I personally am dubious of this theory, but it is not my place to condemn those who hold it as heretics. The Church has thus far made no dogmatic pronouncements concerning the eternal reward of the aborted. At this point, all people can do is speculate.

The truth is that weather or not aborted babies go to heaven has [b]absolutely no bearing whatsoever [/b] on the evil of the act of abortion! Murdering an innocent human being is a horrible crime regardless of whether the victim goes to heaven or hell. If we take the logic that abortion is evil mainly because it supposedly bars entrance into heaven, then it would be acceptable to murder, so long as the victim is saintly. After all, by murdering them, we would be aiding their entrance into Eternal Life.

[MichaelFilo]

What do you mean killing heretics left and right? Do you know why She stopped? Whats the use of killing heretics if they are 10% of your population? You'll have to murder far too many. If instead, it is a small heresy (there were plenty from the churches inception, to this very day) then it would make sense. And since the church never actually carried out the killing (not that she objected, since she indeed had a power to put an end to it), She certainly did not put a stop to it, it was that it was no longer feasable. Also note, that the point was not to kill the heretic, it was to save others from the heresy, and to allow them a serious chance at conversion.

At any rate, the Church has as of yet to condemn the death penalty, and She will never do so, because it is a legal right granted to the governments whose authority comes forth from God. It is always applicable in defese of the many (and since today it is not so neccessary to kill them to defend the many, it makes sense that it's use ought to be limited, but that the morality behind has yet to change). A very simple example: we are not to eat meat sacraficed to idols because it is disturbing to our brothers who have had attachment those idols, not because it is immoral, it has never been called wrong by the Church, but simply because all things are lawful does not mean they are good (according to St. Paul). The morality behind removing a heretic from society so that no one else loses their eternal salvation is still there, but it is no longer good to do it as that is far too much of society to put away, other means must be used (although former means do not become immoral).

And I'd say the destination of the souls of the unborn has alot of bearing on this, because if they simply enter the Pearly Gates, then the effects of the sin become less severe than when we realize that they are unregenerate, and that through baptism is salvation. I'd say when it dawns on you what exactly is the full extent of the sin of murdering the unborn before they have a chance to be baptized is.. it becoems that much more wrong and disturbing. Of coruse, this isn't the sole critereon.. the murder of someone who is innoecent is the issue that is most bothersome, and we are indeed our brother's keepers. I would therefore be a proponent of non-lethal force (Did Jesus have to kill anyone at the temple, I do not think so... but did He use force, oh yes indeed).

God bless,
Mikey