The Ultimate Sacrifice/Cure for Abortion?

[cathqat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 3 2005, 04:33 PM']so these women are poor, SO WHAT, if you choose to kill your children rather than be poor you are a monster, a selfish monster who deserves nothing more than the quick death all monsters deserve.[/quote]

I disagree. They are [i]not[/i] "monsters," they are confused human beings who do not have the practical and social resources that they believe they will need to continue their pregnancies. I have read the surveys. I have talked to the women. The overwhelming majority of them [i]did not want[/i] to get an abortion, and would not have if they had adequate resources; practical resources, sure, but [i]especially[/i] social resources. Instead, these women felt pressured into a choice that they themselves believed to be wrong.

[quote]Actually the Idea that there is a right to an education or even that universal education is best has been condemned infallibly as a heresy, so no the Church does not consider it a basic human right[/quote]

"At the same time, however, there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to [i]the human person[/i], since he stands above all things, and [i]his rights and duties are universal and inviolable[/i]. Therefore, [i]there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human[/i], such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, [b]the right to education, to employment[/b], to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one's own conscience, to protection of privacy and rightful freedom, even in matters religious." [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html"][i]Gaudium et Spes[/i][/url]

I think I'll go with what the Church documents teach on this one, thanks

[quote]So say 40% are homeless Families that means that only 1.2 million are families at all so are you saying there are no adults in these families?[/quote]

In its 2003 survey of 25 American cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that families comprised 40% of the homeless population, a definite increase from previous years (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2003). On a national level, the numbers are higher: the Urban Institute found that approximately 39% of the homeless population are children (Urban Institute 2000). These proportions are likely to be higher in rural areas; research indicates that families, single mothers, and children make up the largest group of people who are homeless in rural areas (Vissing, 1996).

[Don John of Austria]

Error 47 of the Syllubus of Errors( all of the Errors are condemned as Heresy)

[quote] 47-[color=red]The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people[/color], and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. [/quote]

I think I'll go with the Church documents on this one, any document which contradicts this is not in keeping with the tradition of the Church and is in Error ( i.e. heresy)

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]In its 2003 survey of 25 American cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors found that families comprised 40% of the homeless population, a definite increase from previous years (U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2003). On a national level, the numbers are higher: the Urban Institute found that approximately 39% of the homeless population are children (Urban Institute 2000). These proportions are likely to be higher in rural areas; research indicates that families, single mothers, and children make up the largest group of people who are homeless in rural areas (Vissing, 1996).
[/quote]

Hey I was just useing the figures you presented in your own post.

[Q the Ninja]

Heresy does not mean unjust...it's not something you'll find in the Natural Law.

[Don John of Austria]

First I was refering to the supposed right to education.


Secondly heresy is by definition unjust as Heresy seperates one from The Body of Christ, by doing so it seperates one from God, from whom all Justice springs. So while you are right in that it doesn't directly relate to Natural Law it does in fact relate directly to justice.

Edited January 3, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]I disagree. They are not "monsters," they are confused human beings who do not have the practical and social resources that they believe they will need to continue their pregnancies. I have read the surveys. I have talked to the women. The overwhelming majority of them did not want to get an abortion, and would not have if they had adequate resources; practical resources, sure, but especially social resources. Instead, these women felt pressured into a choice that they themselves believed to be wrong.
[/quote]


Your not making a very convincing case for them, if one believes that your child is just a lump of flesh, then at least culpabiltiy is questioned, If one is killing ones Child when one beilieves it is wrong then one is even more monsterous. Murdering ones own children because you lack the " resources " is not even as morally upright as a dog. Even a beesh will die trying to find the resources to protect her pups, any women who will not do that is not worthy of the name human, any man whotrys to convince her not to do that is likewise not worthy of the name Human-- are they human certianly, but even the most monterous of villians in history protected t heir own children.

Edited January 3, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[cathqat]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 3 2005, 06:04 PM'] any document which contradicts this is not in keeping with the tradition of the Church and is in Error ( i.e. heresy) [/quote]
Ah! You reject Vatican II. I thought you were Catholic. I'm sorry, I'm new here.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:07 PM'] Ah! You reject Vatican II. I thought you were Catholic. I'm sorry, I'm new here. [/quote]
Before you start throwing around heretical fallacies, I suggest you back off.

Don John does not reject Vatican II and IS CATHOLIC.

I assure you.


Please don't jump to conclusions. And particularly not that one. It's rude, disrespectful and unnecessary.

Cute smilies don't make it better either.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Jan 3 2005, 06:04 PM'] Error 47 of the Syllubus of Errors( all of the Errors are condemned as Heresy)



I think I'll go with the Church documents on this one, any document which contradicts this is not in keeping with the tradition of the Church and is in Error ( i.e. heresy) [/quote]
"47-The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. "

Read all the words carefully. What this condemning is the notion that it is best that popular education be freed from the authority of the Church. It is not a condemnation of the right to education in general. There is no contradiction involved.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 05:19 PM'] The overwhelming majority of them [i]did not want[/i] to get an abortion, and would not have if they had adequate resources; practical resources, sure, but [i]especially[/i] social resources. Instead, these women felt pressured into a choice that they themselves believed to be wrong.

[/quote]
Pressured by who? By What?

Why weren't there "social resources"? Are you talking money? Medical care? Support groups? Friends and families to hold their hands? What are you talking about? If I've learned anything over the last couple of years, it's that there are ABUNDANT programs for women and children ALL OVER THE PLACE. All one has to do is look or ask. Seek and find.

So please, to avoid a misunderstanding here, define what you speak of when you say "social resources".

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:07 PM'] Ah! You reject Vatican II. I thought you were Catholic. I'm sorry, I'm new here. [/quote]
Hmm, I find this post troubling, I think.

Tradition is complimented (and in some ways complemented) by Vatican II.

Pre-Vatican II texts hold the same amount of weight. (Sometimes more).

Don John and I may not agree often, rarely perhaps (J/K sir), but he is faithful to Vatican II.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:14 PM']Before you start throwing around heretical fallacies, I suggest you back off.[/quote]

What heretical fallacy?

[quote]Don John does not reject Vatican II and IS CATHOLIC. Please don't jump to conclusions.  And particularly not that one.  It's rude, disrespectful and unnecessary.[/quote]

I'm new here, OK? And this guy just told me that [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i], a Vatican II document, is heretical. What conclusion should I draw? :confused:

Besides, you just accused me of "heretical fallacies" yourself!

[Socrates]

Back to an earlier (and more important) issue, I strongly disagree that prolifers have done everything possible to peacably change society on abortion. Some probably have, but most have not.

If everyone professing to be a pro-life Catholic would actually seriously act on his beliefs, what a difference there would be!
I have come across too many people on this site and elsewhere claiming to be pro-life, but supporting pro-abortion candidates such as Kerry! (Is this really "doing all they can do?") I myself have been somewhat lazy in supporting the pro-life cause.

Believe me, running around bombing and killing people in the name of the "pro-life" cause will seriously set back the pro-life cause, not promote it!

[Kilroy the Ninja]

[quote name='cathqat' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:27 PM']
What heretical fallacy?



I'm new here, OK? And this guy just told me that [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i], a Vatican II document, is heretical. What conclusion should I draw? :confused:

Besides, you just accused me of "heretical fallacies" yourself! [/quote]
Accusing someone of being a heretic who is clearly not a heretic is a heretical fallacy.

I have made no such claim about you.

You should carefully re-read his posts.

Newbies should be mindful of toes they might be a-tramplin'.


Otherwise, Welcome to Phatmass!

[journeyman]

The joys of radio . . . driving to work this morning, I listened to a radio evangelist discussing Obadiah - whether or not you can keep the faith when working for the government or a business in which ethics and morals are not the highest item on the list or priorities - and I thought of this discussion thread - they're right, this thing is addicting . . .

Back on topic - Obadiah is revered as a good man (perhaps even a prohet himself - in both the Christian scriptures and apparently the Jewish as well, [url="http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=4&letter=O)"]http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=4&letter=O)[/url] - even though he was a high ranking officer in the house of Jezebel and Ahab - in fact, he was a trusted confidant of the King, the governor of his household - 1 Kings 18:3-6) because he saved 100 prophets when Jezebel had ordered them all destroyed. How many others died? I don't know - possibly as many as as the prophets of Baal (450) and the prophets of the gorves (400) who were invited to Elijah's barbeque (1 Kings 18:20-40) . . . Elijah says he is the last remaining prophet, which might have been theatrics.

If we can each save 1 or 2 or 10 or 20 or a 100 - aren't we doing the Lord's work? More so than if we define our society as one deserving of being the target of a "just war?"

[cathqat]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:17 PM']Pressured by who?  By What?[/quote]

The circumstances in which they live and the people they know and trust.

[quote]Why weren't there "social resources"?  Are you talking money? Medical care? Support groups?  Friends and families to hold their hands?[/quote]

Money and medical care fall under what I am calling "practical resources." Social resources are relationships with supportive people. When you discuss the abortion decision with women, you find that social resources are a huge factor in the abortion decision; usually the most decisive factor.

Most women who decide to carry a baby through pregnancy, whether they keep the baby or give the child for adoption, are women who have supportive family and friends (the people they know, trust, and rely upon), a network of people who are present and eager to help. Most women who decide to get abortions do not have supportive family and friends. In fact, many are actually pressured by the people they know, trust, and rely upon (through words, actions, threats, etc.) to abort.

I can't tell you how many women I have talked to who were, for example, who were constantly pressured by their own mothers to get abortions. Their mothers told them they could not possibly have a child, told them that they were worthless and stupid, told them the child would ruin their lives, threatened to oust and disown them and leave them destitute, made clinic appointments and drove their daughters to the clinic telling them they had no choice, etc. etc. It's really sick and perverse, but it happens all the time.

This is not a question of mere "hand-holding." Ask any mother you know how difficult it is (or would be) to have a child without any social support, encouragement, or help, especially from the people they trust and rely upon the most. I have friends without children who have horrific difficulties enough living without local support networks. It is one of the hardest crosses imaginable, I assure you.

There are many great women, of course, who would gladly do all of this alone to the best of their ability, and they are amazing heroes who deserve our constant admiration. But although I do not believe that abortion is ever, [i]ever[/i] justified in any circumstances, I do understand why some women really believe they have no other choice.

[quote]If I've learned anything over the last couple of years, it's that there are ABUNDANT programs for women and children ALL OVER THE PLACE.  All one has to do is look or ask.[/quote]

Most of these programs and facilities are desperately underfunded and shortstaffed though. More pro-lifers need to commit themselves to providing these resources. There is no way we can believably claim that we have done all that can be done.

[cathqat]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:18 PM'] Don John and I may not agree often, rarely perhaps (J/K sir), but he is faithful to Vatican II. [/quote]
If that is true, then why did he call it heretical?

[cathqat]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Jan 3 2005, 07:38 PM']Accusing someone of being a heretic who is clearly not a heretic is a heretical fallacy. I have made no such claim about you.[/quote]

I didn't call Don John a heretic. I really thought, based on his comment on [i]Gaudium et Spes[/i], that he was not a Catholic. And if he were not a Catholic, then it wouldn't matter to him what Vatican II said, so it would be pointless for me to quote it like I did. Hence, "I thought you were Catholic. I'm sorry."

You, on the other hand, really did accuse me of "heretical fallacy." What do you mean you made no such claim?

[quote]Newbies should be mindful of toes they might be a-tramplin'.[/quote]

I'm not trying to trample any toes; just the opposite. If he is not Catholic, as I thought after he called it heretical, it was pointless for me to post a G&S quote, which is why I apologized for doing it.

But if he is Catholic, then I think he should explain why he called G&S heretical.

Edited January 4, 2005 by cathqat

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Read all the words carefully. What this condemning is the notion that it is best that popular education be freed from the authority of the Church. It is not a condemnation of the right to education in general. There is no contradiction involved. [/quote]

I assure you I have read aLL the words in the entire Syllubus Quite carefully, you however are not being so careful this is what is condemned that 'The best theory of society requires that the popular schools open to children of every class of the people[color=red], and,[/color]..." that [color=red]comma and [/color]is pivotal,( it indicates the end of a thought, if it was not so it would simply have a comma) one does not have a right to an education, schools do not have to be open to the Children of every class of people, so one cannot have a right to it. To say that one does is to embrace the error.


[quote] I'm new here, OK? And this guy just told me that Gaudium et Spes, a Vatican II document, is heretical. What conclusion should I draw? [/quote]



Gaudium et Spes is a Pastorial Constitution it is pastorial opinion it is not protected from Error in the same way as is a Dogmatic statement. however the Syllubus fits all of the requirements for infallability so it must be taken in that light and with that Authority. I assure you I am completly Faithful to the Magisterium not the Current Magesterium or the Old Magesterium nor the Ancient Magesterium but The Magisterium, the entire teaching of the Church not just the teaching fashionable right now.

Edited January 4, 2005 by Don John of Austria

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]If we can each save 1 or 2 or 10 or 20 or a 100 - aren't we doing the Lord's work? More so than if we define our society as one deserving of being the target of a "just war?" [/quote]

Yes saving the unborn is Gods work; is it more so than stoping all of them No. But I don't really like comparing what is more or less " Gods work", Gods work is just That Gods work.