"porportionate Reasons"

[Ash Wednesday]

Schmoozers are people that downplay the gravity of the abortion situation in the name of "conscience," in my opinion.

Jimmy Akins hit the nail on the head.

[littleflower+JMJ]

[quote]
Jobs? The economy? Taxes? Education? The environment? Immigration? Forget it. We do not have nine million people dying in a typical president’s term of office due to bad job programs, bad economic policies, bad taxes, bad education, bad environmental law, bad immigration rules—or even all of these combined. All of them together cannot provide a reason proportionate to the need to end abortion.

Make no mistake: Abortion is the preeminent moral issue of our time. It is the black hole that out-masses every other issue. Presenting any other issues as if they were proportionate to it is nothing but smoke and mirrors.[/quote]

good read.....peep it folks

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Sep 23 2004, 01:57 AM'] Schmoozers are people that downplay the gravity of the abortion situation in the name of "conscience," in my opinion. [/quote]
Conscience first sounds a lot like Martin Luther. Conscience first. Catholic Church's Tradition second.

I agree one shouldn't go against his conscience. Then again, I think that the Church helps out tremendously with forming that same conscience once people get over their personal feelings.

[cmotherofpirl]

Conscience must be formed within Church teaching.
Then you will never go wrong.

[MichaelFilo]

Good Friday,


(Taken out of the Jimmy Akin article)

[i]Personally, I wish he had either not added this note to his memorandum or that he had elaborated the matter further to prevent the confusion that was sure to arise from it, but he was not writing for public consumption and this may account for his writing on such a sensitive matter with such brevity.[/i]

This wasn't meant for public consumption means, it wasn't meant for public consumption. He was breif because he was talking to people who understood what he had to say without writing an article about it.

God bless,

Mikey

[MC Just]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 24 2004, 05:00 PM'] Conscience must be formed within Church teaching.
Then you will never go wrong. [/quote]
Exactly!!!! You tell em Mother of Phatmass!!!!

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote]Conscience must be formed within Church teaching.
Then you will never go wrong.[/quote]

Yep. I think people wrongly mistake conscience for emotions and feelings.

I could have someone insult me or someone I love, and I might [b]feel[/b] like physically assaulting them and punching their lights out. But that isn't my conscience speaking, and just because I "feel" a certain way doesn't necessarily make it right. The rational part of me, the conscience, tells me I ought not do that, that it would not be justified.

If we always did what we felt like, we'd probably play hooky and skip work all the time, eat cheesecake for breakfast and bacon cheeseburgers for dinner every day, never exercise, sleep in, watch TV all day....

[cmotherofpirl]

I like the cheescake part....

[qfnol31]

Last night the Priest talked about the poorest of the poor being the unborn babies (especially those aborted) and said that the most fundamental right is that to life. Nothing else matters until that has been granted.

I personally don't care what Kerry has to offer, he doesn't seem to have much for those who are never born, whom he seems to care very little about. I guess one could argue those who die because of war, but war can be just, and whether it is or not is up to us to decide. Abortion isn't. One could argue capital punishment, but then again, it's for us to decide. Abortion isn't. Rights for the poor is for us to decide what is just for them.

I can't see very many cases that Kerry presents that outweigh abortion. If you can't be born, why do you care about anything else that the government can offer?


I can understand some arguments that Kerry is "really getting at the root of the problem," but I don't understand why the problem is still allowed to exist. If a person kills another, is he not punished? You can take care of the root of the problem, but you must also take care of the problem first. I don't think that "getting at the root" without taking care of the problem is a "proportionate reason" to vote for a candidate who is pro-choice.

Oh well, more of my .02.

Edited September 27, 2004 by qfnol31

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday']Schmoozers are people that downplay the gravity of the abortion situation in the name of "conscience," in my opinion.[/quote]
It's not so much that anyone is trying to downplay the abortion situation, it's that some of us are striving not to downplay other situations. Personally, I acknowledge abortion as a very troubling situation in that it terminates human life; I don't think that means I should ignore other offenses against the dignity of human life.

Let me give you an example from my own life. We recently experienced two floods here in the Ohio Valley where I live. The first was a result of what was originally Hurricane Frances (it was Tropical Depression Frances by the time it got here). The second was a result of Tropical Storm Ivan. The first damaged the foundation of my home, the second destroyed the floors and further damaged the foundation. We went to the Department of Job and Family Services as instructed to get our $750 voucher from the government, but because we had been displaced from our home and didn't hear about the voucher earlier, we were unable to get one even though our house was the worst damaged in our entire neighborhood. Why did that happen?

- It happened because the government's criteria for helping citizens is based largely upon immorality. We were not given priority because there are no minor children in our home; a neighbor of ours got her $750 voucher because she's an unwed mother. Responsible young adults are punished for their responsibility, while irresponsible young adults are rewarded for their irresponsibility. This happens under Republican administrations as well as it does under Democratic administrations, if not better.

- It happened because Gov. Bob Taft (R-OH) only allocated $50,000 in relief for my county (Belmont County). That means that only 66 families in all of Belmont County can get relief from the government, but Emergency Management in Belmont County estimates that 2100 people have been affected. Still, Gov. Taft refuses to allocate anymore money to Belmont County. When my mother attempted to call Gov. Taft's office collect because we have no long distance coverage here in the motel friends are putting us up in, the assistant at his office refused to accept the charges even though we identified ourselves as displaced flood victims. Her response? "[b]I don't care[/b], we won't accept the charges." She also wouldn't give her name.

In other words, only 66 of approximately 2100 families in Belmont County will get help from the government because, in the words of Gov. Taft's assistant, they don't care. No one in their right mind can say that this is a pro-life position for Gov. Taft and his office to take, and yet many Ohio voters will vote for him precisely because they believe he's pro-life -- they will ignore how he treats the poor and the homeless, simply because he gives lip service to the anti-abortion cause (and it is only lip service, he has done nothing concrete to end abortion in Ohio or nationwide).

If anything, I think the crime that Democrats can be accused of is having a broader definition of pro-life. Call me crazy, but a man who wouldn't care if my family and I were living under a bridge doesn't strike me as particularly pro-life, and I don't intend to vote for him. If you're comfortable with calling him and other men and women like him pro-life and casting your vote for them, that's your decision, but I don't think we should be condemned for feeling otherwise. It's not as black and white as people would like to believe.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 27 2004, 06:21 PM'] [quote name='Ash Wednesday']Schmoozers are people that downplay the gravity of the abortion situation in the name of "conscience," in my opinion.[/quote]
It's not so much that anyone is trying to downplay the abortion situation, it's that some of us are striving not to downplay other situations. Personally, I acknowledge abortion as a very troubling situation in that it terminates human life; I don't think that means I should ignore other offenses against the dignity of human life. [/quote]
Good Friday, which ones compare to abortion according to the Church? None of the others are being downplayed, but rather abortion is being put in its place in the way of Social Injustice goes.

I agree that maybe more could be done for you in your case. However, you are at least alive, be glad for that. Had you been aborted, you wouldn't have nearly as much as you have now. That's why abortion should be the first issue taken care of in our society.

[Guest Aluigi]

here's an idea... the way to not downplay those other situations is to get involved actively working for that kinda economic stuff while still putting the larger effort towards stopping abortion. i know, that just sounds abstract and possibly undoable, but i'm trying to sympathize with your situation. i do agree that those other things should not be overlooked, but if it needs to be done at the expense of BIGGER problems, then they bigger problems need to be dealt with first.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='qfnol31']Good Friday, which ones compare to abortion according to the Church? None of the others are being downplayed, but rather abortion is being put in its place in the way of Social Injustice goes.[/quote]
Well, to those who are experiencing them, all of the things I mentioned either compare to abortion or outweigh it. It has not always been church teaching that human life begins at conception; on the contrary, many Church Fathers and St. Thomas Aquinas himself believed that human life (or ensoulment) began quite some time after conception -- St. Thomas believed that it was forty days afterward, some believed that life occurred at viability or quickening. Many of the Fathers taught that abortion was sexual sin, not murder. Abortion didn't carry the penalty of murder until Pope Pius IX, so the now universal view that abortion is murder is a fairly modern one.

In addition to that, Jesus talked about the poor; he didn't talk about abortion. If it was as big a deal as the devastating circumstances of the poor, surely he would have mentioned it. Abortion was going on in his time and was actually quite widespread, especially in the Graeco-Roman world.

[quote name='qfnol31']I agree that maybe more could be done for you in your case. However, you are at least alive, be glad for that. Had you been aborted, you wouldn't have nearly as much as you have now. That's why abortion should be the first issue taken care of in our society.[/quote]
Of course I'm glad to be alive, but that doesn't excuse the government's negligence in my case or in the cases of about 2034 citizens of Belmont County. It also doesn't excuse the government's negligence in matters of healthcare, care for senior citizens, foreign diplomacy, etc. It certainly doesn't excuse the government's preemptive and unjust war in Iraq. The fact that all of these people are alive doesn't mean that it's okay to mistreat or kill them. Being pro-life does not mean [b]just[/b] being anti-abortion. Take a look at [i]Evangelium Vitae[/i] instead of getting theology from pundits.

Basically, what you said above is that I don't deserve the attention of the government or the church because my mother [b]didn't[/b] abort me. Is that really the message we want to send, that only fetuses deserve attention while humans who have already been born are allowed to suffer and, in many cases, die? Is it really true that conservatives only care about people while they're in the womb but not once they come out of it?

[quote name='Aluigi']here's an idea... the way to not downplay those other situations is to get involved actively working for that kinda economic stuff while still putting the larger effort towards stopping abortion. i know, that just sounds abstract and possibly undoable, but i'm trying to sympathize with your situation. i do agree that those other things should not be overlooked, but if it needs to be done at the expense of BIGGER problems, then they bigger problems need to be dealt with first.[/quote]
The problem is that if the solution to the so-called "bigger problem" of abortion is electing George W. Bush, then that necessarily means that the other problems will be neglected and in many cases worsened. George W. Bush [b]may[/b] do something to stop abortion (although that's questionable; he hasn't done anything in four years), but he's only going to ignore the other moral and social teachings of the church, to the detriment of many of our society's most vulnerable.

What's very likely is that neither man will do anything to stop abortion or even effectively limit it. Thus you have George W. Bush, who will not do anything to stop abortion but who will worsen conditions for other people; and then you have John Kerry, who also will not do anything to stop abortion, but who may do something to make conditions better for other people. It's a choice between an ideological battle over the fetus (and that's all it will be, an ideological battle; there will be no overturning of Roe v. Wade by 2008) or concrete help for at least some people in the world. The choice is yours.

[littleflower+JMJ]

i dont think john kerry will do good for the ppl if his going to allow society, morals and LIFE to be flushed down the drain.

i rahter live in a socity that is striving to move forward than live in one that has lost complete direction and identity to leave only chaos and nothing but disorder.


whats next after abortion? euthansia! its already happening in Florida....in fact i its creeping up on us.....are we too gonna put that on the back burner like some do with abortion beacuse well compromise for other areas and chose to ignore ppl who are literally dying in another. if we do that euthansia will be legal and practiced widely before we can blink....its a defense on life itself that we cannot stop fighting....

again james akin link says it all........i recommend reading it again.


if the definiton of LIFE is lost......then ALL is lost....

a house cannot be built without being first layed down a foundation........thus LIFE no matter how many benefits will/can be given do any benefit if LIFE is not recognized.

for without a foundatin.......we will only sink.

just my 2 cents.

pax.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='littleflower+JMJ']i dont think john kerry will do good for the ppl if his going to allow society, morals and LIFE to be flushed down the drain.[/quote]
Well, history tells a different story. Even though the Democrats have been pro-choice and pro-gay rights for several decades, economic growth and better conditions for the poor and vulnerable in society have only happened under Democratic administrations. Thus, it seems that you're wrong to say that a party must legislate the morality of a few in order to effectively improve conditions for people who are truly mistreated and marginalized in our society. The Republicans have legislated the morality of a few, but people suffer more than ever when they have control of the government. Perhaps that's due to the fact that the morality of a few is a misplaced morality?

[quote name='littleflower+JMJ']i rahter live in a socity that is striving to move forward than live in one that has lost complete direction and identity to leave only chaos and nothing but disorder.[/quote]
Is it an indication that society is moving forward when the poor here and especially in the Third World are allowed to get poorer and, as a result of their poverty, eventually die? Is the only indication that society is moving forward a restriction on reproductive rights and a limitation of marriage rights to heterosexuals? Is that really the sum of Catholic morality?

[quote name='littleflower+JMJ']whats next after abortion? euthansia! its already happening in Florida....in fact i its creeping up on us.....are we too gonna put that on the back burner like some do with abortion beacuse well compromise for other areas and chose to ignore ppl who are literally dying in another. if we do that euthansia will be legal and practiced widely before we can blink....its a defense on life itself that we cannot stop fighting....[/quote]
Although I don't agree with what is going on with Terri Schiavo in Florida, it isn't euthanasia. Euthanasia is actively killing someone -- usually with the use of lethal, but painless drugs. What's happening in Florida is the removal of a feeding tube, which is not euthanasia. In fact, removal of the feeding tube was not even defined as immoral by the Pope or by anyone in the Curia until relatively recently, when Pope John Paul II stated that it was indeed immoral. I disagree with the Pope, because he was not speaking [i]ex cathedra[/i], it was not an act of the ordinary magisterium, and it is not already part of Catholic tradition. Given his ill health, I'm inclined to scrutinize anything he says unless he's speaking [i]ex cathedra[/i].

I think that the removal of a feeding tube is fine if that is the person's wish. It is an extraordinary means of life support. I think the question in the Terri Schiavo case is whether or not it was actually her wish to have her feeding tube removed, and unfortunately I think that her husband is lying about her wishes. That's why it's important for people to set up a living will while they're still in their right minds so that the decision doesn't rest in someone else's hands later.

[quote name='littleflower+JMJ']again james akin link says it all........i recommend reading it again.[/quote]
I've read it, and I don't disagree with most of what it says. However, I do disagree that those five issues are the only five non-negotiable elements of Catholic moral and social teaching. I think it is a backdoor Catholic campaign for the Republican Party, because the five non-negotiables he mentions are items the Republicans are strong on; but he neglects to mention other non-negotiables that the Repulicans are very weak on. Again, that's why the [i]Faithful Citizenship[/i] document by the U.S. bishops is a better source of information for Catholics.

[quote name='littleflower+JMJ']if the definiton of LIFE is lost......then ALL is lost....[/quote]
As I've stated many times before, the definition of life by the magisterium can only trace its roots back to Pope Pius IX, and in fact there was no formal definition of life until the Second Vatican Council. It was at Vatican II that life was defined to begin at conception; prior to that, there were many Fathers and theologians (including St. Thomas Aquinas) who believed that ensoulment occurred sometime after conception, and thus that life didn't begin until sometime after conception. Throughout most of church history, early abortions carried the penalty of sexual sin, not murder.