Priest Says Who to Vote For

[KnightofChrist]

And I want to apologize Gabriela to you for my actions. I was too mad in my reply to you and HCF. I had heard very similar logic for voting for Hillary from many of my Catholic friends that you used for voting for Johnson, naming that the slaughter of children isn't the only issue, or perhaps not the most important issue. I blew up on you and I shouldn't have.

However, no person Catholic or pro-life should vote for any pro-abort candidate, it does betray the Faith and the movement.

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

I believe the value of a unborn person's life is equal to the value of a born person's life. When born people are murdered those that knowingly take part in that murder are punished to varying degrees, if both have equal value murdering both should have equal punishments. You disagree, and you are wrong.

 

Hey Peeps.  It's been a while.

I saw this and liked it.  But I wanted to add that I might argue the point that the unborn person's life is greater in value than a born person's life.  That might not be accurate, but it's worth delving into (it's at least arguable).  However, the unborn person is certainly not worth less than a born person.

[Gabriela]

48 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

That's what I took from your argument against her and other pro-life persons who's actions you don't seem to care for.

You are pro-life aren't you? I know we recently had a strong disagreement on whom we can vote for and whom we cannot when it comes to pro-choice third party candidates. But yes, I thought you believed yourself to be pro-life.

Judgmental isn't at all what I was implying. Obsessed is what I was going for. In the clinical sense.

Sorry, that was a typo: I meant "pro-choice", but on reviewing your first post again, I realize I misread it.

I am actually not the slightest bit passionate about the abortion issue. Yes, it's a terrible thing. But I devote zero attention or effort to that issue. None. I have never prayed outside a clinic or even, I think, prayed about it. I went on the March for Life once because some friends wanted me to go. I'd never go again (not because I thought it was bad; I didn't). I just honestly do not care—again, not in the sense that I think it's a non-issue, just in the sense that it isn't my issue.

What I do care about is public sanity and civility. And the pro-life movement has done nothing whatsoever to help achieve that.

24 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

And I want to apologize Gabriela to you for my actions. I was too mad in my reply to you and HCF. I had heard very similar logic for voting for Hillary from many of my Catholic friends that you used for voting for Johnson, naming that the slaughter of children isn't the only issue, or perhaps not the most important issue. I blew up on you and I shouldn't have.

However, no person Catholic or pro-life should vote for any pro-abort candidate, it does betray the Faith and the movement.

I appreciate the apology. I still disagree with the second paragraph, but I'm okay with us disagreeing.  

[Anomaly]

23 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Judgmental isn't at all what I was implying. Obsessed is what I was going for. In the clinical sense.

Sorry, that was a typo: I meant "pro-choice", but on reviewing your first post again, I realize I misread it.

I am actually not the slightest bit passionate about the abortion issue. Yes, it's a terrible thing. But I devote zero attention or effort to that issue. None. I have never prayed outside a clinic or even, I think, prayed about it. I went on the March for Life once because some friends wanted me to go. I'd never go again (not because I thought it was bad; I didn't). I just honestly do not care—again, not in the sense that I think it's a non-issue, just in the sense that it isn't my issue.

What I do care about is public sanity and civility. And the pro-life movement has done nothing whatsoever to help achieve that.

I appreciate the apology. I still disagree with the second paragraph, but I'm okay with us disagreeing.  

LOL.  Most people just don't care about abortion.    

Hence Father Pavone's shock video (which was/is a mistake) and why KoC was right when he said abortion is easily ignored since the public doesn't see or smell it in the street. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Anomaly

[KnightofChrist]

35 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

Judgmental isn't at all what I was implying. Obsessed is what I was going for. In the clinical sense.

It's easy for one to mistake caring for people for obsession over an issue when one doesn't care at all about those people or the issue of whether or not they are murdered in mass.

Quote

Sorry, that was a typo: I meant "pro-choice", but on reviewing your first post again, I realize I misread it.

I am actually not the slightest bit passionate about the abortion issue. Yes, it's a terrible thing. But I devote zero attention or effort to that issue. None. I have never prayed outside a clinic or even, I think, prayed about it. I went on the March for Life once because some friends wanted me to go. I'd never go again (not because I thought it was bad; I didn't). I just honestly do not care—again, not in the sense that I think it's a non-issue, just in the sense that it isn't my issue.

You're clearly passionate about criticizing the pro-life movement, even if you believe and state otherwise. People who don't actually care, don't actually go out of their way to say what you've said and most definitely not the way you've said it. So yeah, you passionately care about the pro-life movement, but in the form of extremely negative criticisms of it and the people in it.

@dUSt perhaps you will want to review Gabriela's being a CM in light of her position of not caring at all about the destruction of ten's of millions of babies lives? I think we should respect her as a person of course but this position could mislead others that read PM that it is acceptable to you and the Church. Otherwise what other fundamental Church positions can we not at all care about and yet highly and extremely criticize?

Edited November 10, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[Peace]

2 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

I believe the value of a unborn person's life is equal to the value of a born person's life. When born people are murdered those that knowingly take part in that murder are punished to varying degrees, if both have equal value murdering both should have equal punishments. You disagree, and you are wrong.

I don't tend to think of a human life as something that can be valued for the purpose of comparing one life to another. Perhaps one might say that all lives have infinite value in the sense that you use the term, but I haven't thought about that deeply. 

Let's say for the sake of argument that all human lives, born and unborn, are "equal"  in value, per your statement. Your conclusion that the penalties should be the same does not logically follow. That is why I consider your position to be irrational. 

But let me ask you. The median sentence for murder in the USA is about 25 years. Pre-meditated murder often has a life sentence, and the death penalty in certain situations. So let's say that rougly 10 million women have had an abortion in the last 10 years. You would put 10 million women behind bars for an average of 25 years each? You would lock women up for life, and/or give the death penalty to those who had adequate time to meditate and consider their actions before doing it?

You don't see any leaders or serious thinkers in the pro-life movement advocating for such things. Of course, the fact that you and few others are the only one who take your position is not evidence that you are irrational. But perhaps it may give one pause.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

However, no person Catholic or pro-life should vote for any pro-abort candidate, it does betray the Faith and the movement.

You have already violated that principle by voting for Donald Trump, who believes that abortion should be legal in the case of rape and incest. Trump is also pro-abortion, although less pro-abortion than Clinton.

If what you wrote above was really a principle that you believed in you would have written in a candidate like Marco Rubio, who believes that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape and incest.

What you did was make a prudential decision and voted for a pro-abortion candidate (Trump) because you believed that he was more likely to win and that therefore the chance of minimizing overall harm was greatest by voting for him.

The point is that you have not stood by any principle yourself. You have engaged in the same type of prudential decision making that others here have engaged in.

[KnightofChrist]

12 minutes ago, Peace said:

I don't tend to think of a human life as something that can be valued for the purpose of comparing one life to another. Perhaps one might say that all lives have infinite value in the sense that you use the term, but I haven't thought about that deeply.

Well when you do think and pray on it more deeply perhaps then we can have this discussion, again. Until then, I'm going to have to take a pass on it as I believe it would be fruitless for the both of us. 

Each human being, no matter what age, sex, color, creed, no creed, sexual orientation, geographical local, etc, etc, etc  are created equal, with equal rights. This is true because God has made each of us in His own image and because of the incarnation the Son of God which united Christ with every single human being giving incomparable value to every single human being.

Perhaps you should start with Evangelium Vitae? So read it, pray on it, for a couple of weeks, then perhaps we can continue the same discussion we've had many times over, then again perhaps not.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

Hey Peeps.  It's been a while.

I saw this and liked it.  But I wanted to add that I might argue the point that the unborn person's life is greater in value than a born person's life.  That might not be accurate, but it's worth delving into (it's at least arguable).  However, the unborn person is certainly not worth less than a born person.

What would the rationale for that conclusion be?

A human life becomes less valuable as it becomes more developed?

Probably not, but how do how do you reach that conclusion? 

[KnightofChrist]

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

You have already violated that principle by voting for Donald Trump, who believes that abortion should be legal in the case of rape and incest. Trump is also pro-abortion, although less pro-abortion than Clinton.

If what you wrote above was really a principle that you believed in you would have written in a candidate like Marco Rubio, who believes that abortion should be illegal in cases of rape and incest.

What you did was make a prudential decision and voted for a pro-abortion candidate (Trump) because you believed that he was more likely to win and that therefore the chance of minimizing overall harm was greatest by voting for him.

The point is that you have not stood by any principle yourself. You have engaged in the same type of prudential decision making that others here have engaged in.

I am like Saint Paul, a chief of sinners. Rubio wasn't on the ballot, Johnson would have done nothing to overturn Roe V Wade, Clinton would have done what she could to increase abortions. Trump is a barbarian. Perhaps you are right and I am a hypocrite. Do you have any other faults of mine to point out?

[Peace]

13 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Well when you do think and pray on it more deeply perhaps then we can have this discussion, again. Until then, I'm going to have to take a pass on it as I believe it would be fruitless for the both of us. 

Each human being, no matter what age, sex, color, creed, no creed, sexual orientation, geographical local, etc, etc, etc  are created equal, with equal rights. This is true because God has made each of us in His own image and because of the incarnation the Son of God which united Christ with every single human being giving incomparable value to every single human being.

You mean that black people and white people have equal rights? Why Knight, the thought had never occurred to me. Thank you for explaining this deep subject matter that has somehow up until this point in my life managed to evade me. 

Now if we can get back to the matter at hand, I already conceded that your statement is true. Even assuming that your statement is correct, your conclusion does not logically follow. Among other reasons, this is because the purpose of the criminal law is not merely punitive.

[KnightofChrist]

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

What would the rationale for that conclusion be?

A human life becomes less valuable as it becomes more developed?

Probably not, but how do how do you reach that conclusion? 

 

A similar rational that would be used to punish a man less for getting into a fight with another man, than a man who gets into a fight with a handicap baby.

1 minute ago, Peace said:

You mean that black people and white people have equal rights? Why Knight, the thought had never occurred to me. Thank you for explaining this deep subject matter that has somehow up until this point in my life managed to evade me. 

Now if we can get back to the matter at hand, I already conceded that your statement is true. Even assuming that your statement is correct, your conclusion does not logically follow. Among other reasons, this is because the purpose of the criminal law is not merely punitive.

I'm not sure it has occurred to you that a 'less developed' baby still in her mother's womb has equal rights to us though.

[Peace]

10 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I am like Saint Paul, a chief of sinners. Rubio wasn't on the ballot, Johnson would have done nothing to overturn Roe V Wade, Clinton would have done what she could to increase abortions. Trump is a barbarian. Perhaps you are right and I am a hypocrite. Do you have any other faults of mine to point out?

Yes, but I will have to get back to you later about those.

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

A similar rational that would be used to punish a man less for getting into a fight with another man, than a man who gets into a fight with a handicap baby.

Perhaps, but we were discussing the value of life, not what an appropriate punishment should be.

5 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

I'm not sure it has occurred to you that a 'less developed' baby still in her mother's womb has equal rights to us though.

A fertilized egg has the same right to life as you and I.

[KnightofChrist]

21 minutes ago, Peace said:

Yes, but I will have to get back to you later about those.

Perhaps, but we were discussing the value of life, not what an appropriate punishment should be.

A fertilized egg has the same right to life as you and I.

Belief in Equal Value naturally or rationally leads to belief in Equal Rights and that naturally or rationally leads to belief in Equal Protection under the law.

Equal Protection in context to this discussion means treating the murderer of one person the same as the murderer of another person.

Edited November 10, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[Anomaly]

Would it be fair to say that every person has a right to a life regardless if their motor skills, cognitive ability, intelligence, or perceived contribution to society?

 

[KnightofChrist]

23 minutes ago, Anomaly said:

Would it be fair to say that every person has a right to a life regardless if their motor skills, cognitive ability, intelligence, or perceived contribution to society?

 

Of course as well as Equal Value and Equal Protection. Taking away one takes away the other two as well.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

It's easy for one to mistake caring for people for obsession over an issue when one doesn't care at all about those people or the issue of whether or not they are murdered in mass.

That's an easy but bogus argument. I didn't call out DS' obsession because I don't care, but because I've seen her post on hundreds of topics in this forum and others, and both her tone and personality completely change when she's talking about this one issue. She's not herself when she talks about this. She becomes totally irrational. That's why I expressed concern.

 

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

You're clearly passionate about criticizing the pro-life movement, even if you believe and state otherwise. People who don't actually care, don't actually go out of their way to say what you've said and most definitely not the way you've said it. So yeah, you passionately care about the pro-life movement, but in the form of extremely negative criticisms of it and the people in it.

You could say that, except that, when I'm not presented with talk of the pro-life movement, I never give it a second thought. I pretty much only ever hear or think about it when my father sends me one of Father Pavone's emails or someone posts about it in PM. Then I'm content to speak my mind about it, but otherwise, I have zero to do with it. If that makes me "passionate", okay.

 

1 hour ago, KnightofChrist said:

@dUSt perhaps you will want to review Gabriela's being a CM in light of her position of not caring at all about the destruction of ten's of millions of babies lives? I think we should respect her as a person of course but this position could mislead others that read PM that it is acceptable to you and the Church. Otherwise what other fundamental Church positions can we not at all care about and yet highly and extremely criticize?

Here's what I actually said:

Quote

I am actually not the slightest bit passionate about the abortion issue. Yes, it's a terrible thing. But I devote zero attention or effort to that issue.... I just honestly do not care—again, not in the sense that I think it's a non-issue, just in the sense that it isn't my issue.

So feel free to take away my CM tag (although I seriously doubt dUSt gives a croutons about this) because I don't think that abortion is the one single most important thing you must care about above all other things if you're going to call yourself Catholic. But if you're going to do that, though, make sure you take away everyone else's CM tag for not thinking that the rights of immigrants, the fair treatment of workers, the plight of the homeless, the starvation of the hungry, the nightmare of war, and a thousand other things the Church has said are huge issues that we must do something about are each and every one of them the one single most important thing you must care about above all other things if you're going to call yourself Catholic.

"My issue" is workers' rights. That's what I devote my time too. My whole career, in fact, is driven by a passion for workers' rights. How much do you care about that, or do for that cause, you bad, bad Catholics?

This whole BS exchange is the reason I say obsessed pro-lifers have replaced God with abortion. Catholic = rabidly pro-life, nothing more. The altar is the place for aborted fetuses, not Jesus. The rest of us well-balanced folks look at this and go

...but the obsessed can't see the problem, because they're obsessed.

[KnightofChrist]

11 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

That's an easy but bogus argument. I didn't call out DS' obsession because I don't care, but because I've seen her post on hundreds of topics in this forum and others, and both her tone and personality completely change when she's talking about this one issue. She's not herself when she talks about this. She becomes totally irrational. That's why I expressed concern.

 

You could say that, except that, when I'm not presented with talk of the pro-life movement, I never give it a second thought. I pretty much only ever hear or think about it when my father sends me one of Father Pavone's emails or someone posts about it in PM. Then I'm content to speak my mind about it, but otherwise, I have zero to do with it. If that makes me "passionate", okay.

 

Here's what I actually said:

So feel free to take away my CM tag (although I seriously doubt dUSt gives a croutons about this) because I don't think that abortion is the one single most important thing you must care about above all other things if you're going to call yourself Catholic. But if you're going to do that, though, make sure you take away everyone else's CM tag for not thinking that the rights of immigrants, the fair treatment of workers, the plight of the homeless, the starvation of the hungry, the nightmare of war, and a thousand other things the Church has said are huge issues that we must do something about are each and every one of them the one single most important thing you must care about above all other things if you're going to call yourself Catholic.

"My issue" is workers' rights. That's what I devote my time too. My whole career, in fact, is driven by a passion for workers' rights. How much do you care about that, or do for that cause, you bad, bad Catholics?

This whole BS exchange is the reason I say obsessed pro-lifers have replaced God with abortion. Catholic = rabidly pro-life, nothing more. The altar is the place for aborted fetuses, not Jesus. The rest of us well-balanced folks look at this and go

...but the obsessed can't see the problem, because they're obsessed.

"I just honestly do not care" You forgot to bold that part. That's the important part, that's the part I take issue with, that's why I asked @dUSt to review your words. The mass-murder of children aka abortion aka the pro-life movement is an issue, of course it's an issue, but an issue you just honestly do not care about. I cannot help to be reminded by the parable of the Good Samaritan when I read your statements. Those that walked pass that man also just honestly did not care about that man's issue either and the way that some talked of the Samaritans in those days is how you talk about pro-lifers today.

And yes ma'am you do care passionately, it's shows very clearly in your extremely negative criticisms.

Edited November 10, 2016 by KnightofChrist

[LittleWaySoul]

34 minutes ago, KnightofChrist said:

Belief in Equal Value naturally or rationally leads to belief in Equal Rights and that naturally or rationally leads to belief in Equal Protection under the law.

Equal Protection in context to this discussion means treating the murderer of one person the same as the murderer of another person.

Intentionality also plays a role, I would argue, as well as just how active you are in the procedure.

For example, a 15 year old girl gets pregnant and freaks out, worried that she's not ready, that people will judge her, that her parents will kick her out, and so on. She goes to Planned Parenthood, gets an early term abortion (I believe they take a pill?), the child dies, and she goes on with her life. You would have her go to jail (or suffer the death penalty) the same as if she had murdered an adult (say, shooting a classmate, for example)?

The fact of the matter is, those who have abortions and those who are pro-choice do not see abortion the way we do. Because they don't recognize the personhood of the unborn child, their intentionality is vastly different than it would be if they chose to kill an adult.

The Church herself also makes such distinctions in her teaching on mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal, it must be:

1. Grave matter.
2. Done with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense.
3. Done with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

(Thanks, Wikipedia. I never seem to remember the correct terminology for this).

In both cases mentioned above (frightened girl gets an abortion vs. girl shoots and kills a classmate), the matter itself is equally grave: a person is killed. But in one case, a person is killed in cold blood by another person who recognizes the gravity of the situation and fully consents to it, while in the other case, a frightened, pressured, and young girl has "a clump of cells" "terminated." I'm using the terminology of pro-choice advocates because it is so insidious that people truly believe it. Can you see how because of each person's respective viewpoints, the morality of the situation would be different?

~~~~~~

PS- Fun fact, according to canon law, the above-mentioned girl who gets an abortion does not actually even incur the latae sententiae excommunication stipulated in c. 1398 because she is below the age of 16 and acted out of grave fear. See canon 1323.

[KnightofChrist]

20 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

So feel free to take away my CM tag (although I seriously doubt dUSt gives a croutons about this) because I don't think that abortion is the one single most important thing you must care about above all other things if you're going to call yourself Catholic. But if you're going to do that, though, make sure you take away everyone else's CM tag for not thinking that the rights of immigrants, the fair treatment of workers, the plight of the homeless, the starvation of the hungry, the nightmare of war, and a thousand other things the Church has said are huge issues that we must do something about are each and every one of them the one single most important thing you must care about above all other things if you're going to call yourself Catholic.

"My issue" is workers' rights. That's what I devote my time too. My whole career, in fact, is driven by a passion for workers' rights. How much do you care about that, or do for that cause, you bad, bad Catholics?

I would also question in a very similar manner anyone who said "I just honestly do not care" about any one of those issues too. Because that would be seemingly unchristian to state that about those issues.

1 minute ago, LittleWaySoul said:

Intentionality also plays a role, I would argue, as well as just how active you are in the procedure.

For example, a 15 year old girl gets pregnant and freaks out, worried that she's not ready, that people will judge her, that her parents will kick her out, and so on. She goes to Planned Parenthood, gets an early term abortion (I believe they take a pill?), the child dies, and she goes on with her life. You would have her go to jail (or suffer the death penalty) the same as if she had murdered an adult (say, shooting a classmate, for example)?

The fact of the matter is, those who have abortions and those who are pro-choice do not see abortion the way we do. Because they don't recognize the personhood of the unborn child, their intentionality is vastly different than it would be if they chose to kill an adult.

The Church herself also makes such distinctions in her teaching on mortal sin. For a sin to be mortal, it must be:

1. Grave matter.
2. Done with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense.
3. Done with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

(Thanks, Wikipedia. I never seem to remember the correct terminology for this).

In both cases mentioned above (frightened girl gets an abortion vs. girl shoots and kills a classmate), the matter itself is equally grave: a person is killed. But in one case, a person is killed in cold blood by another person who recognizes the gravity of the situation and fully consents to it, while in the other case, a frightened, pressured, and young girl has "a clump of cells" "terminated." I'm using the terminology of pro-choice advocates because it is so insidious that people truly believe it. Can you see how because of each person's respective viewpoints, the morality of the situation would be different?

~~~~~~

PS- Fun fact, according to canon law, the above-mentioned girl who gets an abortion does not actually even incur the latae sententiae excommunication stipulated in c. 1398 because she is below the age of 16 and acted out of grave fear. See canon 1323.

Intention and knowledge plays a role I agree, which is why I stated earlier in the thread "When born people are murdered those that knowingly take part in that murder are punished to varying degrees." Also, even unintentional man slaughter is often punished, although to a much lesser degree of course, as it should be.

Also, murderer implies one murders someone and murder implies intent and knowledge that one is killing a person. I'm sorry for any confusion on my part.