Kerry Takes Communion despite Vatican Decree

[Neserk]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040425/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_s_church&cid=694&ncid=716

In brief, the Vatican issued a statement a day or so ago that politians who are pro-choice should not be given communion. Kerry, a Catholic, received communion at his local Parish today.

[skunk]

In brief, the Vatican issued a statement a day or so ago that politians who are pro-choice should not be given communion. Kerry, a Catholic, received communion at his local Parish today.
Did I hear someone say "theocracy"? Bow to the mad mullah! Kerry is DELIBERATELY going against Jesus' pronouncements on abortion. Hmm, let me see if I can find the link in the Bible....

[pseudobrit]

This is a total non-issue.

[Krizoitz]

Did I hear someone say "theocracy"? Bow to the mad mullah! Kerry is DELIBERATELY going against Jesus' pronouncements on abortion. Hmm, let me see if I can find the link in the Bible....

Of course its a theocracy, all churches are. As far as I'm concerned John Kerry is free to hold any beliefs he wants to. The Catholic church is free to exclude him if he doesn't want to follow thier beliefs. Whats the big deal?

[skunk]

Of course its a theocracy, all churches are. As far as I'm concerned John Kerry is free to hold any beliefs he wants to. The Catholic church is free to exclude him if he doesn't want to follow thier beliefs. Whats the big deal?
I agree the Catholic Church has more important moral issues to deal with, such as illegal war-making...

[Krizoitz]

I agree the Catholic Church has more important moral issues to deal with, such as illegal war-making...

Actually considering the sanctity of Communion in the eyes of the Church it is a big deal, and as far as I have seen the Church is against war.

[takao]

i guess this is just the vatican wanting to play a little bit politics... they don't like those "pro-choice" thing because there isn't something like that in the catholic choice...and of course women are less worth for some of them...

austria is 87% catholic and and the catholic chruch hadn't a change when abortion was introduced (decades ago)...and now it is widly accepted ...with majority "pro-choice"
sure the catholic church are always making comments about it and how "bad" it is but that's it ...they don't try to influence the politics during a election
in law it is clearly reglemented as something between a woman and her doctor and it is a complete private thing.... if the catholic curch here would openly attack a politician because of his decisions and even refuse communion, the media,press,students,members of other religions,and local members of the catholic church would criticise them and tear their opinion apart, because church needs to be kept out of politics

this is absolutly a wrong move by the catholic church,this will hurt their reputation bad...

[Stelliform]

.....

[numediaman]

My thing is what does it say about Kerry that he doesn't represent a good Catholic. But on the other hand, what does that say about any pro-choice church going candidate since almost every christian denomination is pro-life?

First off the Vatican said no such thing. This has been misreported from the beginning.

The person who said this was Cardinal Francis Arinze, who is a Vatican official. Cardinal Francis is a conservative cardinal from Nigeria, and was not speaking for the pope.

Other pro-choice Catholics include: George Pataki, Rudolph Giuliani and Tom Ridge.

Finally, if Republicans really hate the Constitution and the separation of church and state so much, why don't they simply come out with an anti-Constitution platform at the convention? They can invite God to speak at the convention, and if God doesn't show up we will know they are fakers.

[Krizoitz]

i guess this is just the vatican wanting to play a little bit politics... they don't like those "pro-choice" thing because there isn't something like that in the catholic choice...and of course women are less worth for some of them...

austria is 87% catholic and and the catholic chruch hadn't a change when abortion was introduced (decades ago)...and now it is widly accepted ...with majority "pro-choice"
sure the catholic church are always making comments about it and how "bad" it is but that's it ...they don't try to influence the politics during a election
in law it is clearly reglemented as something between a woman and her doctor and it is a complete private thing.... if the catholic curch here would openly attack a politician because of his decisions and even refuse communion, the media,press,students,members of other religions,and local members of the catholic church would criticise them and tear their opinion apart, because church needs to be kept out of politics

this is absolutly a wrong move by the catholic church,this will hurt their reputation bad...

The Catholic church has always been pro-life, and frankly it has NOTHING to do with the equality of women. That is something I am really really sick of being accused of.

I can agree to disagree with people on the abortion issue because I realise that for many non-religious people they view the embryo/fetus as not a human life until some later period. The Catholic Church however teaches that human life begins at conception. I'm not saying which is right, just pointing out what the difference is.

I have never once met anyone who thinks that we should ban abortion because women are inferior. Its not about that. As far as I'm concerned the woman has freedom over her body as long as its just hers. She can go out and have sex all she wants, its her choice. However as soon as a baby is involved its not just her body anymore and its not just a choice. She CHOSE to have sex knowing full well that it was possible to become pregnant.

Now again I realize that many don't feel that it is a human being at conception and that is where the real argument lies. Accusing people who are pro-life as somehow being against women is an inflammatory argument meant to take peoples attention away from the real question. When does life begin. Obviously its not a clear cut answer, and even if we ignore the fallacious anti-woman argument, its not like the abortion question will go away.

The only reason the idea of choice comes up is because of the ambiguity of when the embryo/fetus becomes human. Imagine for a second that we could somehow prove life began at conception, that there was no debate on that (its not realistic, but just go with it for a second). Do you really think that people would still be trying to claim it as a choice? As far as I have experienced the people I know who favor abortion do so because they feel its not a human being yet, not because they think a mother should be able to kill her own child. Likewise the Pro-Life (take a cue from the title) side feels that it is a life, an innocent one with no way to defend itself, that is under attack. The agenda of the Pro-Life side has never been one of repressing women.

Now, you may not feel that the Catholic Churches position on abortion is the right one from your perspective, but the Church has always held the same belief on abortion, its not something new. You don't have to agree with it, but you could atleast stop accusing those who have that view of things which we are not doing.

[numediaman]

What if we had a law that said a doctor can not fix a broken bone on an athlete? Why? Because he chose to play the game and therefore must live with the consequences.

What if we said all smokers must die from lung cancer -- doctors are not allowed to treat their condition because they chose to smoke and therefore must die.

The "choice" issue is not relevant. We all make choices, but most of us are allowed to go back on those choices.

People in the 70's were closer to this issue than today because they knew what the reality was: women were going to get abortions -- in back rooms, under horrible conditions. Or, they were going to go to Europe to get the procedure done, if they could afford it.

The issue isn't whether abortion is morally defensible -- you can argue that in church or in your homes. This is a legal issue: do women have the right to abortion in this country? My position is the same as Kerry's: I am fundamentally against abortion, but believe a woman has a right to choose.

Kerry's position seems perfectly consistent with both the Vatican's position AND U.S. laws.

Finally, this isn't the religious board, this is the political board. People who want to change laws based on their religious beliefs ought to take a civics lesson. If you outlaw abortion based on religious grounds, then why would you object to changes in the laws based on amish beliefs, islamic beliefs, druid beliefs? This is about one groups saying that their religious beliefs trump other people's religious beliefs.

[Krizoitz]

sure the catholic church are always making comments about it and how "bad" it is but that's it ...they don't try to influence the politics during a election
in law it is clearly reglemented as something between a woman and her doctor and it is a complete private thing.... if the catholic curch here would openly attack a politician because of his decisions and even refuse communion, the media,press,students,members of other religions,and local members of the catholic church would criticise them and tear their opinion apart, because church needs to be kept out of politics


I forgot to address this part of your statement so here goes.

Why should the church stay out of politics? If you want to keep the Church out, lets start keeping other interest groups out, like Greenpeace, the NAACP, the ACLU, unions, etc. All these groups have different agendas, and politics is the way they try and get those view through. As long as every group has the opportunity to present there views thats EXACTLY what they should be doing.

The Catholic Church has very clear teachings on the morality of abortion. For those who aren't Catholic its not an issue, but if you are a Catholic and you are going against those teachings the Church has every right to criticize and refuse you participation for it. In addition the Church has every right to call upon its members to try and right what it sees as social injustice. Question. Lets go back to before the Civil War. What if the Church had told all Catholic politicians that they should oppose slavery, something else it considered morally wrong. Lets say you had a politician, a senator lets say who was Catholic and favored slavery. Would the Church be out of line calling for that Senator to oppose slavery? Absolutely not.

Now Kerry is completely free to hold whatever beliefs he wants. If he wants to be pro-choice thats his right. BUT he can't claim to be both pro-choice AND part of a group whose teachings are pro-life. It would be like the NRA revoking someones membership if they tried to pass a law banning all guns.

Also, its not like the church is advocating that we overthrow the government and install a theocracy, or that Kerry violate the law. We aren't talking about bombing abortion clinics here (something the church is very very much against).

If you are going to ask the Church to stay out of politics then I want the Pro-Choice movement to stay out too. I want animal rights activists and labor unions not to be able to voice their views. I want big buisness and the media out. In short no one with an opinion is allowed to use it in politics. Oh wait. That doesn't work.

Government isn't math. There isn't a right or a wrong answer, there is only the will of the people. So long as a law is Constitutional it can be enacted regardless of where the idea came from. This idea that religion isn't allowed to interact with politics is absurd. The only thing its not allowed to do is to be allowed to silence all opposition completely. The Church has not only the right, but the responsibility to try and convince others that its views are the better one, just as the opposition has the responsibility to do the same. Thats democracy, thats freedom. In this country at least you don't get to keep someones view out just cause you don't like it. Thats freedom. Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. Our Constitution holds that people don't have the right to silence something just because they don't like it. Thats why Nazi's are allowed to hold their views, no matter how much we disagree with them. Or the NRA, or any other group. Heck, I don't like some of what I see on TV (South Park) but I support their right to have the freedom to say it. (With in reason obviously). And so long as the church doesn't come marching in and force us to have no abortions they have every right to try and convince others that abortion is wrong AND to expect members to hold to that view (not saying that all Catholics are expected to go out and hold anti-abortion protests, just that they are expected not to be supporting abortion).

[Krizoitz]

What if we had a law that said a doctor can not fix a broken bone on an athlete? Why? Because he chose to play the game and therefore must live with the consequences.

What if we said all smokers must die from lung cancer -- doctors are not allowed to treat their condition because they chose to smoke and therefore must die.

If you outlaw abortion based on religious grounds, then why would you object to changes in the laws based on amish beliefs, islamic beliefs, druid beliefs? This is about one groups saying that their religious beliefs trump other people's religious beliefs.

A society exits because it is based on a collective set of morals that the people feel are necessary to protect that which they as a society hold are important.

We have laws that ban killing. Should we allow someone whose moral outlook is ok with killing other people? Aren't we repressing cannibals rights?

No you say, because they are infringing on other peoples rights to live. Which is EXACTLY what the pro-life group believes. Abortion to us isn't a matter of allowing a woman to change her mind about the car she bought, its about the right of the baby to life.

Your examples don't work because in both cases the actions of the person involved (playing sports and injuring themself for example) only affect that person.

What if a person were driving down the street and they ran into another persons car. They made a choice, maybe it was a mistake, but they don't get to just drive away and not have to deal with the consequences.

Some people don't feel that stealing is wrong, they think they are entitled to stuff for whatever reason. Imagine someone who felt that way walked into a store and took something. Is it ok for them to take it? Well who are we to foist our views of right and wrong on them. Obviously their view is its ok to steal right? WRONG. It affects someone else. Maybe they get away with it a bunch of times (like having sex and not getting pregnant), and then one time they get caught (got pregnant!). To a person who believes that abortion is wrong, its like saying they should be able to get away with shoplifting without being punished. Just as society feels its wrong to take something from someone because you are hurting them, so too do those of us who are Pro-Life feel that you are killing a child and no matter how inconvenient, or troublesome it is, its still wrong.

If we lived in a society where no one could place limits on anyones actions because they might have different beliefs we would live in anarchy. Even the idea that its not ok to do things when they adversely affect other people (i.e. theft, or murder) is itself a moral judgement. What you are saying to that person is that human life is more important than there freedom, which is a value judgement.

This is not to say that we should allow religious or any other views to simply be enacted en masse. Of course we shouldn't, that would be just as bad. Anarchy on the one side, totalitarianism on the other. Democracy is the balance between those two extremes.

In a society such as ours it is my responsibility to try and convince the people and their representatives that abortion is wrong if that is what I feel. It is your responsibility to convince them it isn't.

Pushing aside the argument merely because it has some religious background is just as arbitrarily biased. What you are saying is that my views are somehow less important than yours. There is this stigma that religious views are somehow different than other belief systems, and it is simply not true. ALL belief systems whether they are labeled as religious or not are still based on assumptions and beliefs held by the individual or the group.

You comment that it is about one groups beliefs trying to trump anothers, and you are right. BOTH sides are saying that they are right and the other is wrong. Which one do we choose?

What makes the pro-choice argument superior? According to your argument it shouldn't be because it is foisting one groups belief system on another. But you say they are still free not to get abortions right? It doesn't affect them. Only it does, because the pro-life group feels that it is murder. If you say that we should allow one group to perform an action as long as they other group doesn't have to thats like saying you don't get to be against shoplifiting because you don't have to do it.

To draw the analogy further I'd like to ask this. Does someone who is not in the military have the right to criticze the war? By your logic they don't, because they aren't involved and they don't have to be. Only the people directly involved should have the right to criticize or have an opion. This is one of the arguments I hear Pro-Choice and especially women make. You don't have to have a baby so you shouldn't get a say. If we lived ina some kind of place where what we did didn't affect others than fine, live and let live. But in the real world it doesn't. Just as you are allowed to have an opinion on the war and voice that view and try and convince others of it, so too should ALL people in our society get to have a say in this issue because it does affect all of us.

[SlyHunter]

A church or a group has the right that says you will abide by our rules even when not here or you will no longer be a member of our church or group, or for that matter other punishments short of being kicked out as well. I don't agree with the Catholic faith and I don't agree with their position on abortion however they do have the right to say you are against abortion or else. Or else being limited to what is in their actual power to implement such as excommunicate, expelling etc.

Kerry has the right to be pro abortion in fact I myself agree with him on this particular position. However His church has the right to condemn him for it.

I said this before and I'll say it again the right giving freedom of religion, which some people like to call seperation of church and state, was not written to protect the government from the church. Just like freedom of speech was not written to protect the government from the press. I've yet to hear anything about seperation of the press and state.

[Ugg]

The Vatican is playing politics, something it really has no business doing. Kerry's choices concerning his adherence to his religion are between he and his god.

[takao]

Krizoitz you have a few good points in there thanks for your comments but i just can't take thise black&white thing with catholic church

i believe in evolution, the catholic church does not
i have nothing against abortionlike the catholic church
i have no problem with pre martial sex as opposite to the catholic church
i am in favour for the use of condoms to prevent AIDS etc., the catholic church don't like them because people are not allowed to have have sex without having children...
i am pro-women-as-priests compared to the catholic church
i believe the pope can make mistakes, the catholic church does not
i don't believe in heaven and hell either...

so if i follow your argumentation...i am not catholic:
i was raised catholic but i don't take everything as "right" a priori... i have no problem with being critical with church and _other_ institutions.... if it's greenpeace,the party i voted last election,people who are against genitic modified food, etc. i am for a free press but i know that there are borders in free speech ...

i am just very afraid of religious based laws.... because you can't argue against belief...because belief doesn't respect other opionions...in the past there were so much hate,war,murder in central europe because of following blindly some churches.... i just can't ignore that

BTW: in austria and germany you have to pay 1-2% of your monthly income to the catholic church if you are catholic as a tax..... perhaps of this the catholic church doesn't very critizing politicians...they fear the loss of money...

[Neserk]

i believe in evolution, the catholic church does not
.

I'm a bit confused on that point. My stepson goes to a Catholic Elementary School and he is taught evolution as part of his science curriculum. I thought the Catholic Church had conceded that in fact evolution is a valid theory for how we all got here...

[mactastic]

The Catholic church has always been pro-life, and frankly it has NOTHING to do with the equality of women. That is something I am really really sick of being accused of.

If women are equal in the Catholic church, why can't they be priests?

[SlyHunter]

If women are equal in the Catholic church, why can't they be priests?
If men are Equal in this world why can't they bear children?

[mactastic]

If men are Equal in this world why can't they bear children?

Cause that a biological law. Kinda like 'why can't I ignore gravity?'. Nothing you can do about it. Now answer my question without resorting to another question.

[numediaman]

A society exits because it is based on a collective set of morals that the people feel are necessary to protect that which they as a society hold are important.

We have laws that ban killing. Should we allow someone whose moral outlook is ok with killing other people? Aren't we repressing cannibals rights?

Like most pro-lifers you did not even bother to read my post. I am not in favor of abortion. The issue I addressed is two fold: one, I am pro-choice -- that doesn't make me pro-abortion; two, you want your religious views to trump every other view. Sorry that's not the way its supposed to be done in this country.

I know it is hard for you to see how someone could be morally against abortion personally and not want to see abortion made illegal. But I don't see that its that hard. I could tell you about many positions people hold where they are against something but don't want it made illegal (smoking, drinking, gambling, etc.)

This issue is certainly different because it involves a fetus. But it's not my fetus, its not your fetus, its a woman's fetus. You want to make a woman into a child bearing machine, and a lot of women I know will tell you where to go.

I do not want to live in a society where the state is in complete control of who lives and who dies. It is bad enough that we have capital punishment in this country and that those of us who do not believe in capital punishment are not allowed to serve on juries in capital cases.

[Neserk]

, you want your religious views to trump every other view. .


This is something I don't understand. There is not one word in the Hebrew Bible or the Christian bible that addresses abortion, even though they existed at that time. Further, the closest thing we have is a law in Leviticus which expressely recgonizes the difference between a fetus and a viable human being. It states something along the lines that if a woman who is pregnant is struck and killed then it is life for a life. But if she is okay and the fetus is harmed then the father of the unborn will demand a price for it. That is not life for a life.

So, the only thing the bible tells us is that life prior to birth is not of the same value as life after birth. Seems to me that the mother carrying the child is the only one who has a right to determine if the fetus will make it to a living, breathing creature. If we are going to go on what the bible says and what it does not say.

[Krizoitz]

Like most pro-lifers you did not even bother to read my post. I am not in favor of abortion. The issue I addressed is two fold: one, I am pro-choice -- that doesn't make me pro-abortion; two, you want your religious views to trump every other view. Sorry that's not the way its supposed to be done in this country.

I know it is hard for you to see how someone could be morally against abortion personally and not want to see abortion made illegal. But I don't see that its that hard. I could tell you about many positions people hold where they are against something but don't want it made illegal (smoking, drinking, gambling, etc.)

This issue is certainly different because it involves a fetus. But it's not my fetus, its not your fetus, its a woman's fetus. You want to make a woman into a child bearing machine, and a lot of women I know will tell you where to go.

I do not want to live in a society where the state is in complete control of who lives and who dies. It is bad enough that we have capital punishment in this country and that those of us who do not believe in capital punishment are not allowed to serve on juries in capital cases.

First, you are completely wrong about my views. Personally I think homosexual marriage is morally wrong but I am not against it being legal. Why? Because it doesn't hurt anyone. Its completely between the two people involved. Abortion on the other hand is murder from my perspective and those who are Pro-Life. I am against it in the same way I don't think a person should be able to kill their children, or frankly anyone at all.

You're right its not my fetus. But that doesn't make it any less of a human being in the eyes of some one who is pro-life. And its not and never has been about making women a child making machine. I repeat yet again, for someone like myself who is Pro-Life its about exactly that, a life. The woman CHOSE to have sex, knowing full well that she could get pregnant, even on birth control its a possibility. The baby didn't choose to be concieved. Why does the womans life trump the babies (again we are assuming it IS alive, that being the Pro-Life position after all). The only way I can see for someone to reasonable believe that the fetus can merely be disposed of would be if they really felt it was not yet human. Otherwise we are talking about murder for convenience sake.

You claim that you don't want to live in a society where the government can say who lives and dies. Fine lets get rid of all laws against murder, because again to a Pro-Life person thats exactly what abortion is. Not only is it murder, but its the murder of the most innocent of life possible. You yourself claim you are against capital punishment. This has always puzzled me. Why is it that a criminal, someone who has chosen to break the law, and kill other people, has more right to live than an innocent baby who has done nothing wrong at all, just happened to have a mother who didn't want to deal with the consequences of her actions?

In conclusion, I am not trying to tell you what to believe on abortion. I'm trying to point out that if one accepts the premise that human life begins at conception then abortion is indefensible. Obviously if you feel it is not so then the argument is not going to hold for you. However to those of us who are Pro-Life its not about foisting our views on anyone, its about protecting the innocent who can't protect themselves.

Thats how a good society functions, the strong protect the weak. Its why you have things like Child Protective Service, who can remove a child from an abusive home. Its not my child its the womans child, but that doesn't give her the right to violate that childs rights.

And I'll point out yet again no matter what the law is on this issue one side is foisting their religious views on the other. Just because your views of what is or isn't life don't come from the teachings of God doesn't make them any less religious btw. Again I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong, I'm saying that for those of us who are Pro-Life its not about taking away the rights of the woman, we just feel that murder isn't a right.

[Krizoitz]

i believe in evolution, the catholic church does not
Thats not true, the church has said that God created the world, and that he could have done it through evolution.

i believe the pope can make mistakes, the catholic church does not
This is a comon misconception that many people have. The idea of Papal infallibility is a very limited one. It isn't what most people think, that the Pope can't make mistakes. It in fact a rare occurence, and has only been used once in the past 130 years in regards the Immaculate Conception.

For info check out this article from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

From the rest of your points it seems clear you doon't believe as the Church does and I have no problem with that. I think people are free to choose their beliefs, right or wrong though they may be in the end. Forcing religion on people is a bad bad idea.

I also understand your hesitation about religious based law, and for the most part I agree. For example I don't think there should be laws against pre-marital sex because they would be based solely on religious grounds. I personally think homo-sexual marriage is wrong, but again I don't think you can oppose it legally or that their should be laws (or heaven forbid a constitutaionl ammendmant) against it.

When it comes down to abortion we are talking about a very fundemental thing however, life. If one accepts that the fetus is alive and human than abortion is just another name for murder. Its only because the action is ending the life of an innocent that I feel the law should protect the fetus.

I also understand your fear based on war and suffering. In my mind organized religion is merely a tool that should be PART of ones faith life. It shouldn't be the whole part though. If you are Christian you believe that God gave us free will. He gave it to us so we could choose whether or not to follow him and he wants us to make that choice, but not blindly. Faith is not completely blind as some might claim it to be.

If it were God wouldn't provide us with teachings such as the Bible or teachers such as Jesus. He would merely say I am God, follow me or go to hell, and that would be that.

I feel that one must question their beliefs in order to trully understand them. Just as a good student will explore what a teacher says and sometimes challenge it so must a person of faith explore the teachings.

Unfortunately many people abuse this and use religion as an excuse to do terrible things. But its not just religion, nationalism, and other ideologies can be used the same way.

Its like science. Science is neither good nor evil, its merely a tool and how it is used determines the right or wrong of the action.

BTW I don't think taxes should go to the church, people who don't believe in the church and don't belong shouldn't have to support it.

[pseudobrit]

I say it's a non-issue whether you're Catholic or not.

Millions of Catholics are pro-choice. Denying someone communion is but a symbolic gesture.

If Kerry really had done something serious against Church doctrine, they'd respond in a serious way -- by excommunicating him. This isn't going to happen.

All that's happening here is a few higherups are getting ahead of themselves and stepping out of line, abusing their power and making empty threats to make a point and an example.

It's nonsense and a non-issue.

[skunk]

The woman CHOSE to have sex, knowing full well that she could get pregnant, even on birth control its a possibility.
There is a remarkable absence in your post of any mention of placing any responsibility on the man. It takes two, remember? I suppose he can just walk away. As a matter of interest, do you allow any exceptions to your rule? Rape, within or without marriage, severe disability, extreme youth? How do you feel about AIDS? Is this a "choice" issue as well? Is it just what you have to expect if you indulge? And what about self-defence killing? I would be interested to know where you draw the line on these life-or-death issues.

The baby didn't choose to be concieved. Why does the womans life trump the babies (again we are assuming it IS alive, that being the Pro-Life position after all).
Why not?

You claim that you don't want to live in a society where the government can say who lives and dies. Fine lets get rid of all laws against murder, because again to a Pro-Life person thats exactly what abortion is. Not only is it murder, but its the murder of the most innocent of life possible. You yourself claim you are against capital punishment. This has always puzzled me. Why is it that a criminal, someone who has chosen to break the law, and kill other people, has more right to live than an innocent baby who has done nothing wrong at all, just happened to have a mother who didn't want to deal with the consequences of her actions?
Again I ask you, what about the man who didn't want to deal with the consequences of HIS actions?

In conclusion, I am not trying to tell you what to believe on abortion. I'm trying to point out that if one accepts the premise that human life begins at conception then abortion is indefensible. Obviously if you feel it is not so then the argument is not going to hold for you. However to those of us who are Pro-Life its not about foisting our views on anyone, its about protecting the innocent who can't protect themselves.
You make it sound so eminently reasonable, but you're talking about murder here. If you mean it, you should demand life imprisonment. You can't avoid "foisting your views" on the perpetrator of a murder. It must be obvious to you that jailing a woman for abortion is going to be totally counter-productive in most cases. And this is all predicated on a personal guess as to when a collection of cells miraculously becomes a baby. It's like trying someone for estimating a different number of angels can dance on the head of a pin from the number you reckon.

Thats how a good society functions, the strong protect the weak. Its why you have things like Child Protective Service, who can remove a child from an abusive home. Its not my child its the womans child, but that doesn't give her the right to violate that childs rights.
Here you go again: you may not mean it to sound that way, but you are talking about a woman being responsible again. And this is a completely different scenario. We don't jail women for being careless when they are pregnant. We wait until the little darlings have come out before we offer them this protection. No-one can argue that they aren't human at that point.

And I'll point out yet again no matter what the law is on this issue one side is foisting their religious views on the other. Just because your views of what is or isn't life don't come from the teachings of God doesn't make them any less religious btw. Again I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong, I'm saying that for those of us who are Pro-Life its not about taking away the rights of the woman, we just feel that murder isn't a right.
Oh but you most certainly ARE saying you're right. How can you disown your own deeply-held convictions like this? And how can you talk about the "teachings of god"??? Do you have a private line, or can anyone join in? Which version are we talking about, by the way, where the Deity specifies the point of becoming human? Different gods "teach" different things, and according to many, the same god often appears to "teach" different things, too. This is the whole reason why the Vatican should keep its nose out of this. It's a divisive article of faith, not a "teaching of God" or a clear-cut empirical deduction. The Church has done enough damage already with its objections to birth control and its support of dodgy regimes and doctrines. The best we can hope to do is to arrive at a judgment based on the best and most objective science, coupled with commonsense in face of the realities we face today.

[numediaman]

Krizoitz, you need to read your own posts. You are boarding on hysterical.

Did I ever mention gay marriage? Then why did you start your post with this subject?

You say that abortion is wrong, so that if abortion remains legal why not change every other law like robbery. This is a silly argument and you know it.

You're mad because I won't cede you the position that a woman loses her right to her body once she becomes pregnant. "Why does the womans life trump the babies" -- because the woman is of legal age and is giving rights by law that can not (and should not) be taken away.

You say that if you believe life begins at conception then abortion in indefensible. Why?

Clearly "life" begins at conception. The question is this: at what point does a woman lose her right to choice, and what point can the state say a fetus has rights that will be protected by the state?

You say that a woman loses her rights the minute she has sex. I don't see a lot of women running to embrace this argument.

The hurdle you have climb is this: you have to convince pro-choice people, and women, in particular, that they should surrender their rights in order to protect the "rights" of the fetus. It is a tough hurdle -- especially when several hundred thousand pro-choicers who marched on Washington DC are willing to fight you on this.

But saying that all laws should be thrown away because you can't get your way on this one is not a solid argument.

[skunk]

Thats not true, the church has said that God created the world, and that he could have done it through evolution.
Wow. Progressive or what?

This is a comon misconception that many people have. The idea of Papal infallibility is a very limited one. It isn't what most people think, that the Pope can't make mistakes. It in fact a rare occurence, and has only been used once in the past 130 years in regards the Immaculate Conception.
Even the idea of Papal Infallibility is indefensible, in my opinion. There have been many very fallible Popes, and to think otherwise is looking for trouble: all it takes is for another mad Mullah to say HE's infallible too, and what do we get? Not very humble, either.

I also understand your hesitation about religious based law, and for the most part I agree. For example I don't think there should be laws against pre-marital sex because they would be based solely on religious grounds. I personally think homo-sexual marriage is wrong, but again I don't think you can oppose it legally or that their should be laws (or heaven forbid a constitutaionl ammendmant) against it.
How can you say that you think homosexual marriage (and presumably therefore homosexuality itself) is morally wrong, and at the same time say that it doesn't harm anyone? Choose.

When it comes down to abortion we are talking about a very fundemental thing however, life. If one accepts that the fetus is alive and human than abortion is just another name for murder. Its only because the action is ending the life of an innocent that I feel the law should protect the fetus.
You cannot have conditional murder. Either it is, in which case you need to do something about it, or it is not. Choose.

If it were God wouldn't provide us with teachings such as the Bible or teachers such as Jesus. He would merely say I am God, follow me or go to hell, and that would be that.
That is certainly a matter of opinion. Who says that God provided us with the Torah? You ARE talking OT here, aren't you? I thought it was written by a bunch of Hebrew scholars. And I don't think Hell was even invented back then...

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by mactastic
If women are equal in the Catholic church, why can't they be priests?

Cause that a biological law. Kinda like 'why can't I ignore gravity?'. Nothing you can do about it. Now answer my question without resorting to another question.
I'm not Catholic and I don't know their religion as well as a devote Catholic would. But I believe they belive there are jobs for men and jobs for women. Women child bearing house keeping etc. Men Priests. Just because someone believes that different genders are different doesn't mean they are unequal.

Besides they have the right to decide man is master of his house and woman is subservient to man if they choose to believe that. Any woman who doesn't believe that can leave the church. They still have freedom. Muslim women don't have that choice as do women in other countries where they feel that way. They have the right to see things differently than we do. I am not sure it would be right for an outside source to "free the women" of those other countries. And by extension nor would it be right to do so for the Catholic church, if that is actually their feelings on the matter.

[Neserk]

"Why does the womans life trump the babies" -- because the woman is of legal age and is giving rights by law that can not (and should not) be taken away.


Not according to the Bible, the source of the anti-abortion stance they don't. The woman's life supercedes the rights of the unborn child.


You say that if you believe life begins at conception then abortion in indefensible. Why?



If that is true then God is the biggest abortion doctor ever. Only 1 in 4 conceptions are even known by the woman. I'm having problems finding a reliable source of information but the best I could get was about 15% of known pregnancies miscarry. After the 20th week of pregnacy it is no longer considered a miscarraige but rather a still birth and here the number I found was about 1% of the remaining pregnancies end in a stillbirth.

1000 conceptions results in 250 known pregnancies which ends in 213 pregnancies that make it to the 20th week and 1% of those are stillborn. So we have about 211 conceptions of 1000 that turn into a living breathing human beings. That is just over 20% of all conceptions.


You say that a woman loses her rights the minute she has sex. I don't see a lot of women running to embrace this argument.


Nor does it make sense.

[Ugg]

However to those of us who are Pro-Life its not about foisting our views on anyone, its about protecting the innocent who can't protect themselves.

Thats how a good society functions, the strong protect the weak. Its why you have things like Child Protective Service, who can remove a child from an abusive home. Its not my child its the womans child, but that doesn't give her the right to violate that childs rights.

And I'll point out yet again no matter what the law is on this issue one side is foisting their religious views on the other. Just because your views of what is or isn't life don't come from the teachings of God doesn't make them any less religious btw. Again I'm not saying I'm right and your wrong, I'm saying that for those of us who are Pro-Life its not about taking away the rights of the woman, we just feel that murder isn't a right.

What a lame argument. The pro-lifers get all up in arms about protecting the weak but totally and utterly fail to follow through with it. If you really believe in what you say, you would be out there ensuring that every child born has equal access to food, shelter, health care and housing. IMHO, the lifers could care less what happens to the child after it is born as long as it is born. The day when all children have access to the above is the day that I will begin to listen to the pro-lifers, until then I consider them hypocrites if they refuse to see beyond the birth of the child.

[Neserk]

What a lame argument. The pro-lifers get all up in arms about protecting the weak but totally and utterly fail to follow through with it. If you really believe in what you say, you would be out there ensuring that every child born has equal access to food, shelter, health care and housing. IMHO, the lifers could care less what happens to the child after it is born as long as it is born. The day when all children have access to the above is the day that I will begin to listen to the pro-lifers, until then I consider them hypocrites if they refuse to see beyond the birth of the child.

Which is why I find it hard to call most of them pro-life. They seem only interested in protecting the life until it is born then they no longer interested. For the reasons you stated above and others. That is why I say they are anti-abortion.

It is a strong argument for saying it is more about control over a woman than it is about the life inside. If they were truly pro-life they would be activists against war and poverty. I've known a few truly pro-life people. I had respect for their beliefs becasue they were pro-life from conception to old age. It infiltrated every aspect of their life. For some it even meant being a vegetarian and restricting the companies they would make purchases from.

[takao]

Thats not true, the church has said that God created the world, and that he could have done it through evolution. well i guess i can live with that and i am still a catholic ;) phew


For info check out this article from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility
thx for the link intresting read

and about religious motivated laws well if other beliefs are nt completle against it or it is forcing other people into things they might not want i have nothing against it too...


When it comes down to abortion we are talking about a very fundemental thing however, life. If one accepts that the fetus is alive and human than abortion is just another name for murder. Its only because the action is ending the life of an innocent that I feel the law should protect the fetus.
hm this whole "what is life" discussion is difficult....because some could argue that your 'arm' (only a example) is living too...so if you want to cut your own arm off (over-dramatical example)... is it murder ? because the arm which was part off you was living before...
i know it's a bad example :rolleyes: but you always have too see both sides of it ... the fetus and the mother are connected (not like a arm but they are still connected) so they are part of each other...this can't be easily decided..

in austria abortion is only allowed in the first few weeks (5 or 6 ? sorry just don't remeber my biology lessons..we had endless hours full of stuff about birth, womens zyklus etc. ijust don't remember everything) when the fetus is small ..after that it is forbidden to abort and you have to bring the child to the world ...


I also understand your fear based on war and suffering. In my mind organized religion is merely a tool that should be PART of ones faith life. It shouldn't be the whole part though. If you are Christian you believe that God gave us free will. He gave it to us so we could choose whether or not to follow him and he wants us to make that choice, but not blindly. Faith is not completely blind as some might claim it to be.

well if everybody would think like that i would not have to fear religious motivated wars :(
i fear it because austria play so often a (sometimes big sometimes smaller) role in such things because we have so much catholics ...
and with the whole christanity-islamic hatred which is (i hope not) coming back it doesnt look good...


I feel that one must question their beliefs in order to trully understand them. Just as a good student will explore what a teacher says and sometimes challenge it so must a person of faith explore the teachings.

Unfortunately many people abuse this and use religion as an excuse to do terrible things. But its not just religion, nationalism, and other ideologies can be used the same way.

exactly... ideologies are always scratching on the 'dangerous' line...and sometimes if nobody looks closely and just jump over the line an voilá: 'big mess'...
ideologies always need people who watch that they don't go too far and people who 'think different' ...and they have to make signals even if it sometimes means disobeience ...


BTW I don't think taxes should go to the church, people who don't believe in the church and don't belong shouldn't have to support it.

thankfully i am a student and i don't have to pay anything untill i have finished... but i want to be be buried in our 100+ year old family grave together with my ancestors...so i guess i'm going to pay it...you know... tradition

[skunk]

If that is true then God is the biggest abortion doctor ever. Only 1 in 4 conceptions are even known by the woman. I'm having problems finding a reliable source of information but the best I could get was about 15% of known pregnancies miscarry. After the 20th week of pregnacy it is no longer considered a miscarraige but rather a still birth and here the number I found was about 1% of the remaining pregnancies end in a stillbirth.

1000 conceptions results in 250 known pregnancies which ends in 213 pregnancies that make it to the 20th week and 1% of those are stillborn. So we have about 211 conceptions of 1000 that turn into a living breathing human beings. That is just over 20% of all conceptions.
Interesting figures: I had no idea.
All sorts of isms and ists coming out of the woodwork in this thread, aren't there? :(

[Neserk]

Interesting figures: I had no idea.
All sorts of isms and ists coming out of the woodwork in this thread, aren't there? :(

Yup.

[skunk]

Thats not true, the church has said that God created the world, and that he could have done it through evolution.
Sorry, I was just re-reading the posts: this is really clutching at straws, isn't it? I mean, REALLY! It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. If God was only necessary to fire the whole show up, then he or she has been out of a job for about fifteen billion years. Makes Bush look positively hard-working.
By the way, according to this "doctrine", what was the purpose of the dinosaurs? Did God take a wrong turning for 500 million years?

[Stelliform]

.....

[skunk]

Lastly, when dealing with the church you have to realize that this organization is over 2000 years old!
Oh no it's not.

[mactastic]

I'm not Catholic ...

Wait, I'm confused. Is this your evidence that the Catholic church considers women equal? 'Cause obeying and being subserviant aren't exactly a hallmark of equality.

[IJ Reilly]

It's nonsense and a non-issue.

I agree -- as a substantive issue, it doesn't work, but as politics, it may. Let's not forget the age-old Catholics in politics subtext: that Catholics might just be more loyal to the Vatican than to the law. It hardly matters what was said by some functionary in the Vatican. What really counts is how it's being played over here for political mileage by people who are relishing the opportunity to remind American voters that Kerry is a Catholic, and that Catholics have a special relationship with the Vatican and the pope. This angle was used quite effectively against the first JFK. In this day and age, it's harder to be as nakedly anti-Catholic as it was then, so instead we can expect more subtle hints like these to come from Kerry's political opponents. The people for whom the message is intended will get it.

[Stelliform]

.....

[Stelliform]

.....

[mactastic]

I take it you do not believe in a creator or god? If that is the case it really isn't something that I or any organization could argue you into believing. It is a realization that you have to come to yourself. However I will leave you with Pascal's wager.

You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven.
You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.

If being a good person throughout my life isn't good enough for God than I'll take punishment. The company will be better.

[skunk]

It is a realization that you have to come to yourself.
Oh no I don't. :cool:

[skunk]

Well how old is it?
Probably, in a recognisable form, around 1750 years. From a hazy recollection. Certainly JC didn't found it when he was less than four years old. :D

[Stelliform]

.....

[Stelliform]

.....

[skunk]

Heh, I guess when Pascal came up with this there was either believers or sinners.
Isn't that how it still is?

[skunk]

Most theologians feel Peter founded the Roman Catholic church. It was officially recognized by the roman empire in 380 AD. So if you go be official recognitions it is 1620 years old. Here is an excerpt from a webpage I found.
I was trying to be generous. :D

[Stelliform]

.....

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
I'm not Catholic ...

Wait, I'm confused. Is this your evidence that the Catholic church considers women equal? 'Cause obeying and being subserviant aren't exactly a hallmark of equality.
Your confusion is in the fact that your right its not evidence. Whether the Catholic church considers women equal or not is irrelevant they have the right to believe what they believe just like everyone else does. Like the Mormons, Islamists etc.

[Neserk]

You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven.


Christianty requires more than just believing in God to go to heaven...


You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing



Or you could have completely the wrong religion and end up in Hell despite all your beliefs ;) You are missing that in your equation.


Somehow, a god that sends most of the world to hell isn't going to be very forgiving of someone who only believes in its existence to keep from going to hell... I suspect *that* god would send you to hell because you believed for the wrong reasons.

[SlyHunter]

Originally Posted by skunk
Sorry, I was just re-reading the posts: this is really clutching at straws, isn't it? I mean, REALLY! It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. If God was only necessary to fire the whole show up, then he or she has been out of a job for about fifteen billion years. Makes Bush look positively hard-working.
By the way, according to this "doctrine", what was the purpose of the dinosaurs? Did God take a wrong turning for 500 million years?

I take it you do not believe in a creator or god? If that is the case it really isn't something that I or any organization could argue you into believing. It is a realization that you have to come to yourself. However I will leave you with Pascal's wager.

You may believe in God, and God exists, in which case you go to heaven.
You may believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which case you gain nothing.
You may not believe in God, and God doesn't exist, in which you gain nothing again.
You may not believe in God, and God may exist, in which case you will be punished.
I have wondered about something. The first day God created the heavens and the earth. Since neither the earth nor the heavens existed yet how long was a day?


I always thought it was If you believe in God he will save you from eternal hell not that he would cast you there if you didn't believe in him? To God what is hell? Abscence of order? I tried to think this thru logically you can't get to heaven except by laying all your sins at Jesus's feet. You have no need of anythign for anything you need will be provided. No hunger, no fear, no pain etc. You spend the rest of your life with your loved ones but all those who are in heaven are your loved ones so he's not saying you'll spend it with your wife or which wife for that matter. All in heaven are brothers and sisters. Anyhow when I put together all that information sounds like those who are willing to strip from their essence all their knowledge, all their memories, the good the bad the ugly, the son making his first homerun memmories for even pride is a sin. Thus pass thru the filter called Jesus you are left as nothing but an amoeba with no thought, no need, just eternal bliss or as some might call it ecstasy. For all eternity without a thought in your head except for that long drawn out town of exquisite joy. I'm not sure I would call a drugged stupor heaven :(

but then again another saying if you don't believe in God and he really does exist there is hell to pay.

[SlyHunter]

Somehow, a god that sends most of the world to hell isn't going to be very forgiving of someone who only believes in its existence to keep from going to hell... I suspect *that* god would send you to hell because you believed for the wrong reasons.
I believe the way it works is when you die you go to hell.
If you believe in God he saves you. He doesn't send you to hell.

But then I remember the jealous God who during the long march by Moses Isiah and that bunch there was a little blurb in the bible. A priest entered the arc they carried with him and didn't follow the proper motions like he was suppose to and in payment for his error God sent down a lightning bolt and turned him into ash. I'm an old radio man and sound like to me the arc might've been an extremely powerful radio to the stars and he may have flipped the 1000 volt PCM push to send the signal further without first properly grounding the system? Then again I could be reading too much into it.

[Stelliform]

....

[Neserk]

And if your religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or others, helps you to be good to your neighbor, and generous to others, and generally you make the world a better place, then everybody wins, regardless of heaven or hell.

That is similar to my belief. If your relgion makes you a better person then more power to you.

However, my experience with people who are relgious is quite the opposite, though. Most of those who I've known or met who practice religion make everyone around them more miserable.

Unfortunately there is a huge gap between what religions teach and what people practice.

I'm continually amazed at how few Christians (my area of expertise, probably works for all relgions) actually know what their religion requires of them or have any idea at all about what the bible says. Those who are often most adament about their religion (again, speaking of Christianity, my area of expertise) are often the most ignorant. (Ignorant in the sense of being uninformed, not stupid).

[mactastic]

OK, since you are going off on a tangent I have to remind you of what we are arguing over here. The question is, does the Catholic church (the institution, not individual members whose views may differ) view and treat women as equals to men. (Pardons to those who have a special someone on ignore.)

Just because someone believes that different genders are different doesn't mean they are unequal.

Besides they have the right to decide man is master of his house and woman is subservient to man if they choose to believe that. Any woman who doesn't believe that can leave the church. They still have freedom.

We aren't arguing that they have the right to believe it, but whether or not they do. You seem to be giving a tacit admission that they view women as inferior to men.

[Krizoitz]

I say it's a non-issue whether you're Catholic or not.

Millions of Catholics are pro-choice. Denying someone communion is but a symbolic gesture.

If Kerry really had done something serious against Church doctrine, they'd respond in a serious way -- by excommunicating him. This isn't going to happen.

All that's happening here is a few higherups are getting ahead of themselves and stepping out of line, abusing their power and making empty threats to make a point and an example.

It's nonsense and a non-issue.

To someone who is not Catholic denying them communion may seem a symbolic gesture, but to someone who believes in the teachings of the Church it is a very important thing.

[SlyHunter]

OK, since you are going off on a tangent I have to remind you of what we are arguing over here. The question is, does the Catholic church (the institution, not individual members whose views may differ) view and treat women as equals to men. (Pardons to those who have a special someone on ignore.)



We aren't arguing that they have the right to believe it, but whether or not they do. You seem to be giving a tacit admission that they view women as inferior to men.
No actually the original topic was about whether or not the church had the right to refuse communion to Kerry for his pro abortion beliefs and how such church edicts could influence politicians. Whether or not women are considered equal or not is immaterial to the discussion but since you threw it out there I kinda replied to it.

[Neserk]

No actually the original topic was about whether or not the church had the right to refuse communion to Kerry for his pro abortion beliefs and how such church edicts could influence politicians. Whether or not women are considered equal or not is immaterial to the discussion but since you threw it out there I kinda replied to it.


Of course they have the right... it is part of their belief.

I just thought it was interesting that it was said (last night?) and Kerry took communion this morning.

Since I posted the topic does that mean I get to decide what it was orginally about? :D

Well, then it was orginally about Kerry defying whoever it was that said he couldn't take communion!

[mactastic]

No actually the original topic was about whether or not the church had the right to refuse communion to Kerry for his pro abortion beliefs and how such church edicts could influence politicians. Whether or not women are considered equal or not is immaterial to the discussion but since you threw it out there I kinda replied to it.

Ok, nevermind then. I wasn't asking you initially anyway. You just kinda replied.

[Krizoitz]

Did I ever mention gay marriage? Then why did you start your post with this subject?
I mentioned gay marriage as an example of how I could believe something was wrong and still think it legal, something you accused me of not being able to do.


You say that abortion is wrong, so that if abortion remains legal why not change every other law like robbery. This is a silly argument and you know it.

I don't think it is. If the only defense against making abortion illegal is that it is based on moral principles of one group, then we can't make laws that are based on any kind of morality whatsoever.


You're mad because I won't cede you the position that a woman loses her right to her body once she becomes pregnant. "Why does the womans life trump the babies" -- because the woman is of legal age and is giving rights by law that can not (and should not) be taken away.

Even if one is at legal age we don't give them the "right" to do everything, they still can't harm other people legally, and thats what this argument centers around. People who are pro-life feel that harming the fetus/embryo is wrong because they see it as a human being. People who are pro-choice don't see it that way. I'm not mad because you won't cede my position, I don't expect you to. What bothers me is your complete inability to try and understand that the other side has a valid argument IF you accept the premise that human life begins at conception.


You say that if you believe life begins at conception then abortion in indefensible. Why?

Clearly "life" begins at conception. The question is this: at what point does a woman lose her right to choice, and what point can the state say a fetus has rights that will be protected by the state?

I should have been more specific, by life I don't mean any kind of life, obviously the cells are alive, but true human life. Pro-life advocates believe that at conception their is a human life who deserves all the rights of protection and right to life as any newborn baby does. Thats why we feel the government has a right to protect it. Again if you don't believe that it becomes an individual until later in the pregnancy this argument doesn't apply to you and I'm not trying to make it do so, I am merely pointing out that if one accepts the premise that individual human life with the same right to life as any other human begins at conception that there is no good way to argue for abortion, (with this one caveat when carrying that pregnancy threatens the life of the mother I would say there is an unfortunate choice to be made, and only then is it morally defensible to end the life of the fetus from the pro-life perspective)


But saying that all laws should be thrown away because you can't get your way on this one is not a solid argument.
That is not what I am saying, what I am saying is that if your defense is merely that the law is based on one groups set of morals and not anothers than no law can reasonably be held to apply. If I don't feel it is morally wrong to kill someone what right does society have to foist their view on me? If I don't feel it is morally wrong to steal, what right does society have to foist their view on me?

[numediaman]

If I don't feel it is morally wrong to kill someone what right does society have to foist their view on me?

Excuse me, but who is trying to foist their view? I'm not telling you that you have to believe that abortion is illegal. You are the one telling me that my view should change -- and that the law should change.

I don't care one bit that you want to make abortion illegal. I'm just telling you that I will fight you in your effort to take away a woman's right to choose.

[Krizoitz]

There is a remarkable absence in your post of any mention of placing any responsibility on the man. It takes two, remember? I suppose he can just walk away....Again I ask you, what about the man who didn't want to deal with the consequences of HIS actions?

You are right, I didn't feel it was important to that post but since you brought it up I'll address it here.
There are very few people in this world who bother me more than men who have no regard for responsibilty when it comes to having sex. It bothers me extremely that a man is free to have sex and be considered macho while a woman who does so is considered to be a whore. It bothers me even MORE that men are either not held equally responsible for the care of the child or that when they are that some skip out on that responsibility. Its completely and utterly wrong.
If you get a woman pregnant I feel that you should be held responsible for that action and that you should do whatever is necessary to support her and the child. Any man who walks away from this responsibilty is equally wrong in my eyes.

[Krizoitz]

If that is true then God is the biggest abortion doctor ever. Only 1 in 4 conceptions are even known by the woman. I'm having problems finding a reliable source of information but the best I could get was about 15% of known pregnancies miscarry. After the 20th week of pregnacy it is no longer considered a miscarraige but rather a still birth and here the number I found was about 1% of the remaining pregnancies end in a stillbirth.

1000 conceptions results in 250 known pregnancies which ends in 213 pregnancies that make it to the 20th week and 1% of those are stillborn. So we have about 211 conceptions of 1000 that turn into a living breathing human beings. That is just over 20% of all conceptions.


The difference from the stand point of someone who believes in God is that he gives life and takes it away, he is God. The problem is that we feel as a society that PEOPLE shouldn't have the right to take other peoples life away. Again it all boils down to who are people and who aren't. If you accept the premise that the unborn baby at any stage is a person than it is perfectly reasonable to allow the government to protect that life. If you don't accept it than it is reasonable to expect the government not to get involved.

[numediaman]

Who wrote "By doubting, we come to inquire and by inquiry we arrive at truth"?

This same author wrote a book named "yes and no" (Sic et Non) that said that truth must be arrived at by carefully weighing all sides of any issue.

He has also condemned by the church for this teaching, and declared a heretic. This was in 1121. Not much has changed in the church, or in the public debate about religion.

Krizoitz, by your profile I see you are a student. As an old man (well, not that old) I can only give you one bit of advice: spend more time listening to women.

[Neserk]

I'm not telling you that you have to believe that abortion is illegal.

good point. If you don't believe in abortion, dont' have one. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex.

[Neserk]

I'm just telling you that I will fight you in your effort to take away a woman's right to choose.

It would be truly pointless to make abortion illegal. Abortions happened when they weren't part of politics and they happened when they were illegal. The means to have them are much simplier now and a GP or Nurse could perform one. I'm guessing the average person, given the right medications, could also peform one (ie the Pill). In fact, I recall a connection made between taking ibuprofen and spontaneous abortions. That would be another method.

[pseudobrit]

Wait, I'm confused. Is this your evidence that the Catholic church considers women equal? 'Cause obeying and being subserviant aren't exactly a hallmark of equality.

His "evidence" was a figment of his imagination. He obviously has no clue as to what the Catholic Church teaches or stands for.

[Krizoitz]

good point. If you don't believe in abortion, dont' have one. If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get married to someone of the same sex.

The difference being that gay marriage doesn't affect those outside the marriage where as abortion does. At least to the pro-life movement. Again it goes back to when you see human life as begining. It is different than gay marriage in that way.

[Krizoitz]

It would be truly pointless to make abortion illegal. Abortions happened when they weren't part of politics and they happened when they were illegal. The means to have them are much simplier now and a GP or Nurse could perform one. I'm guessing the average person, given the right medications, could also peform one (ie the Pill). In fact, I recall a connection made between taking ibuprofen and spontaneous abortions. That would be another method.

Murder happens, its illegal. Drug use happens, its illegal. Theft happens, its illegal. Just cause people are going to do it doesn't mean we should make it illegal.

[numediaman]

From Daily Catholic:

Fifth on the list of congressional pro-abort 'Catholics' from the State of California and eighteenth overall on the list of "Herod's Heroes" is Congressman George Miller, Democratic Representative in the House from California's 7th District which covers the San Francisco East Bay area including Oakland and Vallejo. As an ally of satan through his uncompromising pro-abortion stance, he is enabling lucifer to "destroy both soul and body in hell." Through his actions he has become an enemy of God and the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001Mar/mar17hh.htm

By the way, the election results were as follows:

George Miller . . . . . . . Dem . . . 95,789 . . . 70.7%
Charles R. Hargrave. . . Rep. . . . 35,998 . . . 26.5%

[Sayhey]

First saw this piece by atrios the liberal blogger over at Eschaton (http://atrios.blogspot.com/) , but it is an article from the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41965-2004Apr25.html) that is relevant to this conversation.

A question has been gnawing at Frank A. McNeirney since he read that some Roman Catholic bishops want to deny Communion to Catholic politicians, such as Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, whose public positions are at odds with church doctrine.

"Does this only apply to abortion?" asked McNeirney, 67, of Bethesda. "What about the death penalty?"

After retiring as a trade magazine editor a dozen years ago, McNeirney founded a nonprofit organization, Catholics Against the Death Penalty, which has 1,200 members across the country. It's a mom-and-pop operation, run by McNeirney and his wife, Ellen, out of their home on a shoestring budget. They are the first to acknowledge that it has nowhere near the political clout or public visibility of the nation's antiabortion groups.

But McNeirney is not alone in questioning whether the church's political vision has become myopic, focusing too narrowly on abortion.

Some Catholic publications, educators and elected officials are also warning that church leaders may appear hypocritical or partisan if they condemn Kerry because he favors abortion rights while they say nothing about Catholic governors who allow executions, Catholic members of Congress who support the Iraq war or Catholic officials at all levels who ignore the church's teachings on social justice.

Answering questions at a news conference in Rome on Friday, a top Vatican official said politicians who unambiguously support abortion rights are "not fit" to receive the Eucharist, which Catholics believe is the body and blood of Christ. But the official, Cardinal Francis Arinze, was not asked about, and did not mention, politicians who disobey other church teachings.

The American Life League, a Catholic antiabortion group that has led the charge against Kerry, said Arinze's statement should encourage more U.S. bishops to follow the example of Archbishop Raymond L. Burke of St. Louis. In January, Burke issued a decree barring three Wisconsin politicians who support abortion rights from receiving Communion in his former diocese of La Crosse, Wis., and said he would deny Communion to Kerry if the Massachusetts senator came to town.

But Burke's decree did not apply to church doctrine on subjects other than abortion, and neither the American Life League nor any major Catholic lay organization has called for bishops to take politicians to task because of their stands on other matters.

"Both Kerry and [President] Bush support the war in Iraq and [Pope John Paul II] does not. The pope has made that very, very clear. But does it get any attention? No," said Raymond L. Flynn, head of the San Francisco-based group Your Catholic Voice and a former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican and former mayor of Boston.

One reason, Flynn said, is that antiabortion groups are "far better organized" than Catholic organizations that focus on promoting peace, fighting poverty or abolishing the death penalty.

Another reason, in the view of many Catholics, is that abortion is a more important and clear-cut issue. "Abortion is a foundational piece. If you don't have life, the other rights don't matter," said Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, who heads a bishops' task force on Catholics in public life. "Abortion is always wrong. The death penalty and war are not always wrong."

McNeirney agreed that the church teaching on abortion is "more categorical" than its teaching on the death penalty. According to the official catechism of the church, the death penalty is justified under certain narrow circumstances -- if it is "the only possible way of effectively defending human lives" against a criminal, a situation that in modern times is "very rare, if not practically non-existent."

Still, McNeirney argued that Catholic governors such as Jeb Bush of Florida who have approved numerous executions are "morally worse" than politicians such as Kerry who vote for abortion rights legislation but are not "personally participating in the killing."

"I'm pro-life in all respects -- for the unborn child and the criminal or the elderly person considering euthanasia," McNeirney said. "I think the church is very consistent in saying that ending human life is something that should be up to God, not man."

The weekly National Catholic Reporter, a leading voice of liberal Catholics, took issue in an editorial last week with "those among the Catholic laity and hierarchy . . . who argue that abortion trumps all other issues in the upcoming election."

The editorial reminded Catholics that there are "other issues -- war and peace, immigration, tax cuts, housing, the death penalty, economic justice, welfare reform, the federal deficit, civil liberties, education, health care, crime, and on and on."

"Are we permitted to consider these right-to-life issues?" the newspaper asked. "These issues -- it seems strange to have to say it -- matter too. In this election, in fact, they matter more than abortion, which is not on the table in any significant way."

Rep. Nick Lampson (D-Tex.), who attends Mass most mornings in Washington, said he fears the church is being polarized by single-minded efforts to make abortion illegal.

The "tragedy and travesty of single-issue voters," he said, is not only that they ignore other issues but also that they forget "there are other valid approaches" to the issue they care about most.

Lampson said he and many other Catholics in Congress believe that the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is to promote adoption, strengthen families and improve health care for pregnant women. Despite a pro-abortion-rights voting record, he said: "I feel like I am a good Catholic. I feel like I have a good heart. I do not want to kill anybody, and I do not consider myself pro-abortion."

No priest has threatened to deny him Communion, Lampson said. But if it happened, "I don't know how I would react," he said. "I certainly would be deeply saddened and disappointed that someone had made a decision about what's in my heart."

[Krizoitz]

From Daily Catholic:

Fifth on the list of congressional pro-abort 'Catholics' from the State of California and eighteenth overall on the list of "Herod's Heroes" is Congressman George Miller, Democratic Representative in the House from California's 7th District which covers the San Francisco East Bay area including Oakland and Vallejo. As an ally of satan through his uncompromising pro-abortion stance, he is enabling lucifer to "destroy both soul and body in hell." Through his actions he has become an enemy of God and the Roman Catholic Church.

http://www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001Mar/mar17hh.htm

By the way, the election results were as follows:

George Miller . . . . . . . Dem . . . 95,789 . . . 70.7%
Charles R. Hargrave. . . Rep. . . . 35,998 . . . 26.5%

Heh, dailycatholic is not exactly the best site to go for information on the Church. They are an extreme branch, one that considers everything since Vatican II to be wrong. Not quite as extreme as truecatholic, but not exactly a reflection of what the church actually teaches. Take this site with a large grain of salt if you are looking for teachings of the actual church.

[numediaman]

Heh, dailycatholic is not exactly the best site to go for information on the Church. They are an extreme branch, one that considers everything since Vatican II to be wrong. Not quite as extreme as truecatholic, but not exactly a reflection of what the church actually teaches. Take this site with a large grain of salt if you are looking for teachings of the actual church.

I ran across that site looking for information about George Miller because of this thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=69203

Is this a better example of American Christianity? . . .

[Krizoitz]

I ran across that site looking for information about George Miller because of this thread:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=69203

Is this a better example of American Christianity? . . .

Sadly for some people this is what they think Chrisitianity is. Unfortunately they failed to read the Bible. God doesn't hate anyone, at least thats what I have always been taught.

Unfortunately the vocal minority on both sides usually results to this kind of hate filled rhetoric. Its embarassing and dissapointing.