My Position On Abortion

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='apparently' date='24 November 2009 - 06:20 AM' timestamp='1259065256' post='2008499']
No, it is a cop out. By changing the subject or focus all it accomplishes is the diluting of the position, it is posturing and unproductive.
[/quote]
It's not a cop out. I have said NOTHING contrary to your position. You have yet to demonstrate how my usage is wrong, other than the popular definition being different. I've already explained my use and have not been deceitful.

[JimR-OCDS]

Bishop Tobin of Providence Rhode Island, was in Hardball with Christ Matthews last evening.

Bishop Tobin has been in the news as Representative Patrick Kennedy, began a public debate with the Roman
Catholic Church, where he accused the USCCB of being unchristian, for opposing the healthcare bill, merely because
it did not have abortion funding excluded.

This kicked off a storm of back and forth between the Bishop and Kennedy, and it was Kennedy who brought forth
the information, that he had been told by the Bishop, three years ago, that he should not recieve holy Communion.
Kennedy said that priest were even told by the Bishop, not to give Kennedy the sacrament should he approach. This was
a lie, the Bishop never told the diocessan priest this.


So, as a result of all this, Chris Matthews had the Bishop on his program last evening to talk about it.

To paraphrase the interview;

Matthews first showed an old clip of JFK's speech about his Catholic faith, and how he would not be forced to govern in anyway by the Catholic Church. Kennedy spoke about the separation of Church and State.

Matthews asked Bishop tobin, if he agreed with JFK? The Bishop responded, in the affirmative, ]but within the context of what JFK said.


Matthews went on to ask if the Bishop were a member of congress, would he vote to outlaw abortion. The Bishop said he would. Then Matthew's asked the Bishop, what should the penalty be, for a woman who obtains an illegal abortion. This is where the Bishop fell apart and attempted to dodge the question.

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/[/url]

Jim

Edited November 24, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[JimR-OCDS]

Double post deleted

Edited November 24, 2009 by JimR-OCDS

[Aloysius]

Chis Matthew's idiocy here is that the Bishop isn't getting on Kennedy for not illegalizing it, but for voting for laws in favor of it. All Catholics have a responsibility not to facilitate abortion in any way, shape, or form. That includes voting in favor of funding it, voting in favor of making it more available. The Bishop is not saying that Kennedy must write specific laws outlawing it and punishing it, but that he must vote against any law that is in favor of it.

I wish the Bishop had been more articulate on the point of whether or not we wish to see it punished and how much, in terms of saying we think it's a tragic choice and that those who have done it must be treated with compassion; the doctors who perform it must at least be fined heavily if not put in jail themselves, and the women ought to be helped as victims in one sense but also given some degree of punishment for their willful killing in another sense. The bishop isn't trying to say Catholics have to support one specific type of punishment for doctors or one specific type of punishment for the women, just that they ought to support some type of punishment. OR at the VERY least, cannot ACTIVELY SUPPORT it.

it's not as if these pro-abort democrats are just passively refusing to construct legislation specifically illegalizing it. that might be almost excusable from the standpoint that they might see the judiciary as already deciding against such legislation and not feel they have the means at their disposal to make such legislation work. they're not passive though, they're active: they consistently support putting federal funding into abortion, taking away as many restrictions from it as they can and making it more and more widely available. for God's sake (I do not mean that vainly either, I mean that literally: FOR GOD'S SAKE) at the very least have the dignity of conscience to follow Church teaching against actively promoting abortion.

No member of congress would be asked to not receive communion if they simply did not vote in favor of laws that make abortion more available and fund it more. They wouldn't pass the test of heroic virtue necessary if they were to be canonized if they remained passive in not actively working for legislation illegalizing it, but they would not be in the state of mortal sin that comes with being the accomplice to killing (which is what voting in favor of funding abortion or loosening restrictions on abortion is: being an accomplice to that act)

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='25 November 2009 - 02:04 AM' timestamp='1259075065' post='2008535']
Double post deleted


[/quote]
-3
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!

Edited November 24, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='24 November 2009 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1259098719' post='2008697']
-3
Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me!
[/quote]
Not me!

[Socrates]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='24 November 2009 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1259074927' post='2008534']
Bishop Tobin of Providence Rhode Island, was in Hardball with Christ Matthews last evening.

Bishop Tobin has been in the news as Representative Patrick Kennedy, began a public debate with the Roman
Catholic Church, where he accused the USCCB of being unchristian, for opposing the healthcare bill, merely because
it did not have abortion funding excluded.

This kicked off a storm of back and forth between the Bishop and Kennedy, and it was Kennedy who brought forth
the information, that he had been told by the Bishop, three years ago, that he should not recieve holy Communion.
Kennedy said that priest were even told by the Bishop, not to give Kennedy the sacrament should he approach. This was
a lie, the Bishop never told the diocessan priest this.


So, as a result of all this, Chris Matthews had the Bishop on his program last evening to talk about it.

To paraphrase the interview;

Matthews first showed an old clip of JFK's speech about his Catholic faith, and how he would not be forced to govern in anyway by the Catholic Church. Kennedy spoke about the separation of Church and State.

Matthews asked Bishop tobin, if he agreed with JFK? The Bishop responded, in the affirmative, ]but within the context of what JFK said.


Matthews went on to ask if the Bishop were a member of congress, would he vote to outlaw abortion. The Bishop said he would. Then Matthew's asked the Bishop, what should the penalty be, for a woman who obtains an illegal abortion. This is where the Bishop fell apart and attempted to dodge the question.

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/[/url]

Jim
[/quote]
Oh those poor saintly Kennedys, so persecuted by those nasty bishops!

[sacredheartandbloodofjesus]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='20 November 2009 - 12:55 AM' timestamp='1258696555' post='2006119']
I am pro-choice: you have to choice to have sex, you have the choice to have a baby. You do not have the choice to terminate a pregnancy, however. You made your choice when you decided to have sex. After that, you've made the choice and have to live with it.

As a biologist, I assent that from the moment of conception, the embryo is a living human being. No one should be able to decide to kill a human being, be it pre-born or post born.

What I disagree with:
[list]

[*]the tactics of argument. I don't believe it's an effective method to throw emotionally charged around and expect to change minds. People need to be shown why an embryo or fetus is living, not accused of supporting murder. Yes, you believe what you believe. But not everyone does, regardless of how reasonable you think that belief is. Learn to deal with those differences and make better arguments around them rather than being pig-headed and repeating the same thing over and over again as if it'll make a difference the next time you say it.
[*]Personhood. I embrace life as an inalienable right that should never be taken away. However, in the Catholic argument, having a soul plays a major role in the inalienable right - God granted a soul. I think more of an effort needs to be made in regards to how pro-choice persons use "personhood" as a qualifier, not for the sake of agreement but to better understand their argument in an effort to persuade them. Personhood refers to when the fetus becomes a viable member of society, rather than just a living organism that it became at conception. Usually personhood can be equated with ensoulment, which for Catholics, happens at conception. However, the secular view is usually that personhood beings when the fetus is viable outside of the womb. I DO NOT WANT TO DEBATE THIS POINT. I am just pointing it out so that you can understand the difference in opinion. Again, a useful debate is about the issues, not calling people murderers.
[/list]

Now everyone can know where I stand.
[/quote]


+ 1

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Socrates' date='24 November 2009 - 06:57 PM' timestamp='1259103459' post='2008753']
Oh those poor saintly Kennedys, so persecuted by those nasty bishops!
[/quote]


Translated, Socrates didn't watch the interview.


Jim

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='24 November 2009 - 06:16 PM' timestamp='1259108190' post='2008795']
Translated, Socrates didn't watch the interview.


Jim
[/quote]
He doesn't have the internet.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='24 November 2009 - 11:24 PM' timestamp='1259126674' post='2009068']
He doesn't have the internet.
[/quote]
I don't even think he has a computer.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='24 November 2009 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1259126919' post='2009073']
I don't even think he has a computer.
[/quote]
With him, I can believe it.

[add]

[quote name='fidei defensor' date='24 November 2009 - 10:51 AM' timestamp='1259074275' post='2008527']
It's not a cop out. I have said NOTHING contrary to your position. You have yet to demonstrate how my usage is wrong, other than the popular definition being different. I've already explained my use and have not been deceitful.
[/quote]
----------------------------------------------------------
well, you can start with the truthful definition of pro-choice, not some obscure new meaning you made up.

[color="#000000"] pro-choice (prō-chois[b]'[/b])[/color]
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.

[Antigonos]

Allow me, if I may, to add two more aspects to the question?

One, when does an embryo/fetus have full legal rights that are equivalent to those of the persons conceiving/bearing him/her? If we say that the soul enters at the moment of conception, and therefore [i]even[/i] if the fetus is [i]completely[/i] unable to survive outside the womb, his interests are equal to those of his parents, we put ourselves in a very difficult position for reasons I'll discuss below. If we say that once the fetus can survive outside the uterus, he is given full rights, even if his prematurity means that his chances of survival are not equal to that of the mother, whose rights take precedence? Or do we only assume that the fetus is legally an individual from the moment of birth?

Second, pregnancy can be dangerous to the mother [about 10 times more dangerous than side effects of the Pill, btw]. If the existence of the fetus causes harm, possibly fatal harm, to the mother, does the fetus' rights as a fully-ensouled human being take precedence even if continuing the pregnancy can kill the mother? [and, coincidentally, probably killing the fetus, depending on the stage of pregnancy when the situation develops] Or are we justified in ending the pregnancy, even in a relatively advanced stage, in order to avoid killing two people by killing one? Must the mother inevitably be sacrificed to the child? Does that not mean that we are giving a potential life more importance than an actual one?

What happens when the pregnant woman, as occasionally happens in cases of rape, declares that she will absolutely commit suicide unless the pregnancy is terminated? Do the rights of the fetus take precedence over those of the mother? Even if the fetus is only several weeks old, and not even fully formed as a human being?

Further, if we assume that the soul enters at the moment of conception, is it not immoral to have sex when conception cannot take place, since obviously the reason for sex is conception, and, contrariwise, must married couples engage in sex whenever conception is likely to take place, so that no potential fetus is prevented from existing? I know this seems to verge on the absurd, but it is the logical extension of claiming that every joining of egg and sperm is already a complete human being with legal rights equivalent to those of an adult.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='apparently' date='25 November 2009 - 06:44 AM' timestamp='1259153049' post='2009169']
----------------------------------------------------------
well, you can start with the truthful definition of pro-choice, not some obscure new meaning you made up.

[color="#000000"] pro-choice (prō-chois[b]'[/b])[/color]
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
[/quote]
You're the definition of closed minded.

I've explained, MANY TIMES, what I believe it means to truly be pro-choice, that the choice happens before pregnancy. I don't care what the "truthful" definition is. All words have the meaning we give to them. If you have some sort of problem with me, come out with it. But stop accusing me of being deceitful or whatever. I'm ON YOUR SIDE. Just because you live in a word of concrete and unchanging anything doesn't mean I can't be honest with my words and mean what I say.

Edited November 25, 2009 by fidei defensor

[Winchester]

[quote name='apparently' date='25 November 2009 - 07:44 AM' timestamp='1259153049' post='2009169']
----------------------------------------------------------
well, you can start with the truthful definition of pro-choice, not some obscure new meaning you made up.

[color="#000000"] pro-choice (prō-chois[b]'[/b])[/color]
Favoring or supporting the legal right of women and girls to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy to term.
[/quote]
It's a rotten euphemism and THE Godless heathen is correct in coopting it. The fact thet you initially responded improperly is clouding your judgement.