"porportionate Reasons"

[Colleen]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 28 2004, 01:46 PM']Given his ill health, I'm inclined to scrutinize anything he says unless he's speaking ex cathedra.[/quote]
The Holy Father may not be in the best of physical health, but that doesn't mean his mind is weak.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Colleen']The Holy Father may not be in the best of physical health, but that doesn't mean his mind is weak.[/quote]
I only mentioned it because my grandmother had Parkinson's Disease, and the mind does eventually deteriorate.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 28 2004, 03:37 PM'] [quote name='Colleen']The Holy Father may not be in the best of physical health, but that doesn't mean his mind is weak.[/quote]
I only mentioned it because my grandmother had Parkinson's Disease, and the mind does eventually deteriorate. [/quote]
The mind does not deteriorate due to Parkinson's Disease. Perhaps your grandmother had another disease as well.

I have a friend in neuromedicine at Rice University who does apologetics. He's had to state this many times to people.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 28 2004, 12:00 AM'] 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. [/quote]
I've read Evangelium Vitae. I know that pro-life does not mean just being anti-abortion. But I also know that abortion is the main and most important issue. Also, I realize that it is important that you get help, and for those who aren't getting it, it means more than abortion in some cases. But then again, I should think that by natural law the dignity denied those babies aborted is so much greater objectively. You still have dignity. Those babies aborted do not. Evangelium Vitae says we should attempt to preserve the dignity of all people. I agree that we should respect the dignity of those in Iraq as well, but it was not necessarily an unjust war.

[quote]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]

I didn't say that at all. What I said is you do not get the priority of the govenment's attention, and that's okay. I think they should help you in every way possible. What I said is you keep talking about the help you should get, but at the same time babies aborted are denied all luxuries that anyone alive today can feel. I realize that suffering can be great, but the government isn't just choosing to ignore us. They just can't give us everything either.

[quote][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.[/quote]

What Bush would do is much better than what Kerry would try to do. If we elect Kerry, things may get better in Iraq (then again, he wants to just pull out all troops rapidly, and that doesn't seem to be the best option, and not one supported by the Pope). What Kerry would do is support those things that are contrary to the Natural Law, and then it could easily become illegal discrimination against say homosexual civil unions, in which we would no longer publically be able to say that's wrong. Well, it is, and it is our duty to say otherwise. Very easily if Kerry got into office, we could lose our rights as Catholics. What would we gain? Maybe an easier life-style, contrary to how the government was set up anyways.

Our society is most vulnerable in its morals. Who wants to help that out better? There is no way that Kerry could do that. He refuses to let his morals influence his actions and policies.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Sep 28 2004, 01:46 PM'] 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. [/quote]
Yeah, and they're right. Though this is off topic, it is very much in line with Augustine and Aquinas that life begins at conception. Though you may not realize it, their philosophies hold this up today. You cannot take everything they say as literal, just as it does not work for the Bible. This causes way too many problems. It is very true that life begins at conception, and I'd argue this forever if you like. Aquinas just thought life started later, and science has proven this to be wrong, just as it proved to be wrong that the Earth is the center of the Universe.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Raphael']The mind does not deteriorate due to Parkinson's Disease. Perhaps your grandmother had another disease as well.[/quote]
She also had Alzheimer's Disease, but her doctors said that the deterioration of her mind was accelerated by her Parkinson's Disease.

[quote name='qfnol31']I've read Evangelium Vitae. I know that pro-life does not mean just being anti-abortion. But I also know that abortion is the main and most important issue. Also, I realize that it is important that you get help, and for those who aren't getting it, it means more than abortion in some cases. But then again, I should think that by natural law the dignity denied those babies aborted is so much greater objectively. You still have dignity. Those babies aborted do not. Evangelium Vitae says we should attempt to preserve the dignity of all people. I agree that we should respect the dignity of those in Iraq as well, but it was not necessarily an unjust war.[/quote]
Well, considering that there is still no concrete evidence that human life begins at conception (ensoulment is the beginning of human life, and there is no definitive church teaching on ensoulment -- St. Thomas Aquinas believed it occurred forty days after conception), it may be that some abortions are sexual sin and are not murder. I think that the offense to the poor and homeless here in Ohio is more serious than a sin that we're not even able to definitively classify.

[quote name='qfnol31']I didn't say that at all. What I said is you do not get the priority of the govenment's attention, and that's okay. I think they should help you in every way possible. What I said is you keep talking about the help you should get, but at the same time babies aborted are denied all luxuries that anyone alive today can feel. I realize that suffering can be great, but the government isn't just choosing to ignore us. They just can't give us everything either.[/quote]
They're not [b]giving[/b] me anything -- they [b]owe[/b] me help when my home is destroyed. What do I pay taxes for? They're not giving me a handout, they're giving me a [b]fraction[/b] of what my family and I have paid in taxes over our lifetimes. Please don't act as if they're giving us -- or not giving us, as the case may be -- a handout.

I'm not going to debate this particular point with you further.

[quote name='qfnol31']Aquinas just thought life started later, and science has proven this to be wrong, just as it proved to be wrong that the Earth is the center of the Universe.[/quote]
No, science has not proven that life [b]as the church understands it[/b] begins at conception. I don't think anyone, even Aquinas, would have thought that the physical form of a human being (what we're currently understanding as "life") began at any other time than conception. Aquinas believed that ensoulment began forty days after conception, and until ensoulment occurs even the physical form of a human being is not a human being -- human beings are body and soul. Thus, Aquinas definitely did believe that human life did not begin until forty days after conception, and I challenge you to prove otherwise.

As for science, it will never be able to prove that life as the Catholic Church understands it begins at conception. Why not? Because science will never be able to observe ensoulment, and for [b]human[/b] life to begin, ensoulment must occur. Thus, this is a doctrinal question and not a scientific one. No one is disputing that the physical form of a human being begins at conception, but for Catholics there is more to a human being than the physical form -- so the question is not when the physical form begins, but when ensoulment occurs. That doctrinal question has never been settled, and the Fathers and great theologians like Aquinas disagreed on the answer.

[Guest JeffCR07]

Good Friday, God Bless!

Before I say anything, I would like to point out that I respect much of what you have said, particularly your comments on how being pro life is not simply being anti-abortion.

However, it seems to me that you have not yet addressed the central issue and the primary point made in the article that was presented:

If one were to add up even the largest estimates of death and harm that would be caused by Bush's economic, civil, and foreign policies, the end total would still not even be [i]close[/i] to the (low) estimate of 8 million deaths by abortion. In fact, even if we cut that low estimate in half (thus making the total 4 million), it would still outnumber the deaths caused by all other factors combined. Thus, abortion must be considered the single most important factor, even outweighing all the others combined. For this reason, the article posits, there is [i]no proportionate reason[/i] by which a catholic could vote for Kerry without incurring mortal sin.

I am interested to here your thoughts on this point. While I am sympathetic to a lot of your thoughts, I personally find this argument to be very persuasive.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[qfnol31]

GF, you're missing a few fundamental things about the Church and conception. There is also such a thing as capacity. I may not be able to rationalize as a fetus, but now that capacity has been (is being) used, meaning that now I'm acting out my capacity to rationalize. Each person with the soul has the capacity for rationality. Though many disagree with this, it's what has been taught since Aristotle. Even babies, though they cannot act on it, have the capacity, meaning their soul has the ability to at some time rationalize. Sometimes the body can inhibit this, as in the cases of sickness or youth.

At the moment of conception, the fetus has a life of its own. Granted, it gets nutrients from outside, but then again, so do we. It attaches itself to the wall and does this on its own terms. It can grow and metabolize. These are the requirements for life according to Augustine and Aristotle. What I've just described is something that has at least a vegetative soul. That means it has life, in otherwords. However, since no other acts from the outside are working to form this new body, the acts must come from the inside. It isn't the mother that causes the fetus to grow, but rather the fetus itself. It is at this point that the growth of the body to where it can house the organs begins. Soon the organs begin to grow, once again, not from the outside, but from within. By our definition above, it's still alive. The word used for this is anima, soul. That's where we get souls from. The souls is what forms the body. Now, we know that there is a rational soul, because the bodily aspects needed for the soul to rationalize begin to be formed soon, and the necessary requirements for before this is possible begin to form at the very beginning (i.e. the head which houses the brain will soon begin to form, etc). I don't think that Augustine or Aquinas had the knowledge that they know now, otherwise they would most likely agree with our Magesterium.

Sorry that's so long and not explained well, it's a few classes rolled up into a few minutes.

Now that I've made that point, which desides whether or not it is a "murder," isn't the only thing to be worried about. Abortion takes away greatly from the dignity of man and woman in the Marriage Sacrament (and Natural Marriage). This is why contraception is wrong (Humanae Vitae). The dignity of human life as a life, and where it springs from too, is the soul source of all dignity problems today. I disagree with the fact that abortion and contraception stems from the problems with the poor, and would argue the other way around in some cases. Also, the Church has defined it as the greater matter, I should take caution to go against Her Magesterium's judgement. And the documents that hold this, though maybe not infallible, do have full authority. By the way, didn't Mary have an Immaculate Conception, meaning wasn't her soul free from sin from the first instant of her conception? That is an infallible doctrine, and would seem to imply a soul at birth, but I could be wrong on this part.

I will respect your wishes not to argue about the case in Ohio, for I know that's a tough situation. I have a friend up there right now, and I know she's having a hard time. However, I still hold murder and sexual sins higher in the order of dignity than outreach to the poor, for dignity is there from the marital act to birth, and there is where it should be preserved the most.

Edited: I agree with Jeff, and would say that so many babies are lost to abortion, and their right to life is severly cut off, more so than any week of a war or other tragedy can produce are lost to abortion in a week. It's a sad thing, and one the Church has said we should be most concerned with.

By the way, I do feel sorry for you guys, and pray for all the victims of the hurricanes.

Edited September 29, 2004 by qfnol31

[MC Just]

I had a horrible Vision.. America with a smiling kerry in the middle, homosexuals and feminists blowing kisses at him and at the same time dancing around on dead fetuses. In the background are Orthodox Catholics locked behind bars. Has anyone else seen a vision like this?

[qfnol31]

Yeah, in my moral Theology class.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='MC Just']I had a horrible Vision.. America with a smiling kerry in the middle, homosexuals and feminists blowing kisses at him and at the same time dancing around on dead fetuses. In the background are Orthodox Catholics locked behind bars. Has anyone else seen a vision like this?[/quote]
Well, I would say you need to get off the psychedelic drugs you're on. Gay people don't dance on fetuses, sorry.

[MC Just]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Oct 2 2004, 11:47 AM'] [quote name='MC Just']I had a horrible Vision.. America with a smiling kerry in the middle, homosexuals and feminists blowing kisses at him and at the same time dancing around on dead fetuses. In the background are Orthodox Catholics locked behind bars. Has anyone else seen a vision like this?[/quote]
Well, I would say you need to get off the psychedelic drugs you're on. Gay people don't dance on fetuses, sorry. [/quote]



I'm not on any drugs. I'm just horrified by this evil culture. a.The vision was to show how immoral people will rejoice When their savior (kerry) gives them everything they want..

Edited October 2, 2004 by MC Just

[cmotherofpirl]

Normal people of any persuasion don't dance on babies.
McJust is talking hyperbole of the nightmare of the triumph of extremism here.

My nightmare would include the nice people of planned parenthood, the british medical society, Terri Schiavo's husband, and Pete Singer[sic] who thinks we should practice infanticide.

Edited October 2, 2004 by cmotherofpirl