Whyand How I'm a "liberal"

[ironmonk]

[quote name='sraf' date='Feb 4 2006, 10:44 PM']*claps*
[b]Snarf[/b], it's good to find someone who agrees with me here. It's been lonely.

Allow me to chime in my two cents, please?

As a Catholic, as a biology student in high school, I don't [i]like[/i] abortion. In the early days of my political awareness, when I was starting to be aware of what issues in the world were, I openly opposed it, seeing it as a way to have sex and escape consequences and responsibility. And in my heart, I still don't like it. Whatever you say, at the moment that the egg and sperm join, you have got all the chromosomes needed for a human being.  There isn't anything else except for the rapidly dividing cells and the blastospore, but it is still as human as you or I.
However, as I grew more aware, I realized that to fight for the [i]rights [/i]of the bunch of cells and ignore the rights of the mother is cruel to both of them.  I can't decide whether or not a life lived in poverty with a mother who never wanted you is better or worse than not living at all.  But I think it is best if the responsibility for the choice was given to the person whom it really matters the most - the mother.  But here's the key: she has got to decide on behalf of herself [i]and [/i]the fetus.  If she chooses to abort the fetus, I would not agree with her. It is something I would never do to my own child.  I might try to persuade her against it and I might succeed or I might not. But I will not take away the woman's right to decide for herself.

But I still want to keep the number of abortions down.  So I came up with an idea of a Pro-Balance movement - one that strives to keep the number of abortions in the U.S. below 5% of what it is now, by a combination of 1. thorough sex education in schools (teaching about consequences, STDs, etc. as well as financial difficulties of childrearing) 2. 'Crisis Pregnancy Clinics' that do not promote either abortion, adoption, or keeping the infant but somewhere that a woman can go to in need and find guidance to see which option is really best - usually adoption. 3. In all public schools and Catholic ones, a class that teaches children to make moral decisions and understand various moral codes around the world and 4. Widespread sale of contraceptives, because in today's day and age, you are being foolish and impractical to think that people are going to stop having premarital sex if you deny abortions and contraceptives.  You cannot take away both abortions and contraceptives, so you have to leave one option - in this case, contraceptives are the lesser of two evils.

So, in short, I understand why you do not support abortions. But I am trying to give you my set of glasses to see how I view the situation - that is, you cannot take away this practice now that it has been instated.  If you want to change it completely, find a time machine and go to the 1920's and stop the first Sexual Revolution.  But until then, you must accept that people are going to have sex and you must give the woman thorough facts and a choice.
[right][snapback]876010[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Ensoulment happens at moment of conception. Christ was God in Mary's womb at the time of conception. The mother has no right to kill an innocent baby in her womb. If sperm and egg meet and conception occurs, it is a human being.

You have alot of misconceptions and missing many facts.

You are not Catholic if you support abortion. I hope you do not take communion. Any person who thinks themselves Catholic and supports abortion is not allowed to have the Eucharist.

Get educated:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/morality_ethics.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/morality_ethics.asp[/url]


Saying that we should allow contraceptives because people will have pre-marital sex is a lazy cop out. Before contraceptives were widely available pre-marital sex was much much lower.

If you go against Catholic teachings you are not of the Catholic Faith that was established by Christ. Are you wiser than the Church that is never to be overcome and directly guided by God?! That is what you are saying when you say the Church is wrong.

You also should check out this website: [url="http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com"]http://www.ScriptureCatholic.com[/url] and read the New Testament daily... at least one chapter a day and pray about it.

There is no excuse for a Catholic with a computer on the Internet to not know the teachings and reasonings of why the Church teaches what it teaches.

[Socrates]

[quote name='sraf' date='Feb 11 2006, 07:39 PM']Okay, [b]jmjtina[/b] did you even read the rest of my post?

I do want to give women an informed choice.  But going through an adoption process could be humiliating or difficult, and abortion looks so much simpler.   One surgery and you're out of there.   This is why we need to teach about sex in our schools, and about the resulting consequences.
[right][snapback]884253[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Murder should never be given as an option, no matter how simple it is, or how "humiliating or difficult" the alternative may be. This kind of talk is simply madness - human life weighed against convenience!

And do you really think any of the vast increase in "sex education" in the schools over the past couple decades has done anything to decrease sexual activity among teens?
Kids need to be taught virtue, not just more "information" about sex!

[Cow of Shame]

[quote name='sraf' date='Feb 11 2006, 09:39 PM']I do want to give women an informed choice.  But going through an adoption process could be humiliating or difficult, and abortion looks so much simpler.  One surgery and you're out of there.  This is why we need to teach about sex in our schools, and about the resulting consequences.
[right][snapback]884253[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Is this an excuse for abortions, or are you simply stating your understanding of why they might look appealing to some women?

Only Democrats think that simply educating people will lead them to make the right decisions. Heh

We've had plenty of sex ed, condoms are available practically anywhere...yet we have an exploding teen pregnancy problem. Are you saying we need to expose kids to [i]more[/i] sex? Hell, I've known [i]nursing students[/i] that have gotten pregnant outside of marriage. You can't get more 'aware of the consequences' than that.

[jmjtina]

Yes I did read it all sraf. Thanks for asking.

All of it. And I disagreed with you on many points and paraphrased your whole post with the sentence, "I choose to sit on the fence". Your informed choice means giving them options. My point was, you give them the facts of all the harm that could be done, mental, emotional, sprititual, and physical. Who in their right mind would jump out of a plane with the parachute having only 75% chance of working?

Here is longer version. I'm blue.



[quote]However, as I grew more aware, I realized that to fight for the [i]rights [/i]of the bunch of cells and ignore the rights of the mother is cruel to both of them.  [/quote]

[color=blue]You say it’s cruel to both of them but how is killing one of them less cruel? If you leave those cells alone, they become a baby. Also, in a choice between saving lives or infringing upon lives, saving lives must always be chosen.
[/color]

[quote]I can't decide whether or not a life lived in poverty with a mother who never wanted you is better or worse than not living at all. [/quote]

[color=blue]The fact is that you are taking the worst case scenario. Again, how is killing them better? It's not like abortion is a small pill a baby takes, but done in the most inhumane way possible. [/color]

[quote]But I think it is best if the responsibility for the choice was given to the person whom it really matters the most - the mother.  [/quote]

[color=blue]The fact is, the choice isn’t hers to kill her own child. Murder is wrong no matter WHO does it. [/color]

[quote]But here's the key: she has got to decide on behalf of herself [i]and [/i]the fetus.  If she chooses to abort the fetus, I would not agree with her. It is something I would never do to my own child.  I might try to persuade her against it and I might succeed or I might not. But I will not take away the woman's right to decide for herself. [/quote]

[color=blue]This is the “sit on the fence” statement I am talking about. [/color]

[quote]But I still want to keep the number of abortions down.  [/quote]

[color=blue]So it’s okay with you with only a “little” bit of innocent children being killed?[/color]

[quote]So I came up with an idea of a Pro-Balance movement - one that strives to keep the number of abortions in the U.S. below 5% of what it is now, by a combination of 1. thorough sex education in schools (teaching about consequences, STDs, etc. as well as financial difficulties of childrearing) [/quote]

[color=blue]This is already in place and has done nothing to drop the “abortion rate”. [/color]

[quote]2. 'Crisis Pregnancy Clinics' that do not promote either abortion, adoption, or keeping the infant but somewhere that a woman can go to in need and find guidance to see which option is really best - usually adoption.[/quote]

[color=blue]So they can have the options given to them, but none would be promoted? Unfortunatly, we already have one of those places, planned parenthood. But they went with what they thought was their best option, abortion.[/color]

[quote] 3. In all public schools and Catholic ones, a class that teaches children to make moral decisions and understand various moral codes around the world and [/quote]
[color=blue]Fine there….[/color]

[quote]4. Widespread sale of contraceptives, because in today's day and age, you are being foolish and impractical to think that people are going to stop having premarital sex if you deny abortions and contraceptives.  You cannot take away both abortions and contraceptives, so you have to leave one option - in this case, contraceptives are the lesser of two evils. [/quote]

[color=blue]Contraceptives? That’s throwing out your number 3 out the window isn’t it? A double standard with your own “balance”? Contraceptives are an abortificient and there is a high link between infertitlitiy and other dangers harzardous to women. [/color]

[quote]So, in short, I understand why you do not support abortions. But I am trying to give you my set of glasses to see how I view the situation - that is, you cannot take away this practice now that it has been instated.  If you want to change it completely, find a time machine and go to the 1920's and stop the first Sexual Revolution.  But until then, you must accept that people are going to have sex and you must give the woman thorough facts and a choice.[/quote]

[color=blue] Yes, it can be all summed up in one sentence. "I choose to sit on the fence. " [/color]

Edited February 12, 2006 by jmjtina

[jmjtina]

Here are some resources:
[url="http://www.prolife.com/"]http://www.prolife.com/[/url]

[url="http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html"]http://www.prolife.com/FETALDEV.html[/url]

[url="http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html"]http://www.prolife.com/SARAH2.html[/url]

[url="http://www.prolife.com/EVERETT.html"]http://www.prolife.com/EVERETT.html[/url]

[url="http://www.priestsforlife.org/"]http://www.priestsforlife.org/[/url]
graphic pictures (America will not reject Abortion until America sees abortion) and great information!

Rock for life
[url="http://www.rockforlife.org/html/index.html"]http://www.rockforlife.org/html/index.html[/url]

[url="http://www.lifedynamics.com/"]http://www.lifedynamics.com/[/url]
Life Dynamics is great...doing work, reports and studies. This one is a must to go to. Check it out.

Virtue Media
[url="http://www.virtuemedia.org/television.htm"]http://www.virtuemedia.org/television.htm[/url]
great ads......download some.

Silent Scream.org
[url="http://www.silentscream.org/"]http://www.silentscream.org/[/url]
The true horror of abortion

Edited February 12, 2006 by jmjtina

[Socrates]

This is complete nonsense.

Abortion did not become commonly accepted and legal in this country until after contraception had become easy, effective, and commonly accepted.
The common use and acceptence of contraceptives, both outside of and within marriage, has led to a "contraceptive mentality" in which sex and having children are divorced from one another in the common mind. Sex is seen as "just for fun," and children are seen most of the time as an unwanted inconvenience, which can be avoided with contraception. If contraception fails, or if the couple was "careless," and pregnancy results, no big deal - it's still not to late for an abortion.

Fr. Eutenauer of the pro-life organization [url="http://www.hli.org"]Human Life International[/url] has said that the pro-life movement will not make any significant headway until the contraceptive mentality is overcome.

[Snarf]

To Socrates: So, you want to call it quits. Fine. If you want to know what I have to say to the points you addressed, then fine, I'll state them. But I'm not so immature as to fight over the "last word". The one point I wanted to make is that HISTORICAL socialism is young and inchoate, but if done properly it can be a beautiful thing. I'm a economical relativist, so I think that it would be best if socialism were phased in and out of usage. Heavy taxation may be more suitable to one era than the next, and vice-versa. Such a view is in fine accordance with the Church.

And your bringing up my "Hello, I don't rep the Church" thing is just immature as well. I was not given that title because of my political leanings, and if I had been then that'd just be a grave error on part of the admins. I personally think that EVERYONE, minus confirmed Clergy, have that title. I DO represent the Church in that I am a practicing Catholic, and the vast majority of practicing Catholics today have grievances with the Church far more serious than my own. I DO NOT represent the Church in that I am not her minister, and I do have very trivial disputes as to minute details of doctrine. I'd have more respect for your opinions on my "heresies" if you had actually read my book, which I offered to be done without costing you a penny.

I presently have an ordained priest reading my book, and I'll carefully wage whatever he has to say about it.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Snarf' date='Feb 12 2006, 07:17 PM']To Socrates: So, you want to call it quits.  Fine.  If you want to know what I have to say to the points you addressed, then fine, I'll state them.  But I'm not so immature as to fight over the "last word".  The one point I wanted to make is that HISTORICAL socialism is young and inchoate, but if done properly it can be a beautiful thing.  I'm a economical relativist, so I think that it would be best if socialism were phased in and out of usage.  Heavy taxation may be more suitable to one era than the next, and vice-versa.  Such a view is in fine accordance with the Church.

And your bringing up my "Hello, I don't rep the Church" thing is just immature as well.  I was not given that title because of my political leanings, and if I had been then that'd just be a grave error on part of the admins.  I personally think that EVERYONE, minus confirmed Clergy, have that title.  I DO represent the Church in that I am a practicing Catholic, and the vast majority of practicing Catholics today have grievances with the Church far more serious than my own.  I DO NOT represent the Church in that I am not her minister, and I do have very trivial disputes as to minute details of doctrine.  I'd have more respect for your opinions on my "heresies" if you had actually read my book, which I offered to be done without costing you a penny.

I presently have an ordained priest reading my book, and I'll carefully wage whatever he has to say about it.
[right][snapback]885147[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The point is not "quitting" or "having the last word."

The point is about format - that there are way too many different issues being debated in this one thread.

Ideally a debate thread should be on one topic - this thread has about five or six, which continue to branch in new directions.
I don't have the time nor energy to continue debating each of these topics over and over again - and this debate is getting circular - I've heard your points and I've made mine.

And calling people immature is immature.
If this is simply going to devolve into a name-calling contest, I've already lost interest.

All myself and others have suggested is that if you wish to keep debating, to [b]make seperate threads - each on a specific defined topic[/b].
This helps keep the debate focused, and allows each issue to be discussed in more depth.

Feel free to start seperate threads on any of the specific topics on this debate! :

As for socialism, I happen to think Narnia is a beautiful thing, but when discussing political systems we must stick with the real world, not utopian fantasies. (Feel free to continue this discussion in another thread.)

And saying that opposing Satanism is "simply bigotry" most certainly does not "rep the Church."
And trying to trivialize your dissent from Church teaching does not make it any less dissenting. Either one is faithful to Church teaching or one is not. Simply being a "practicing Catholic" (as in going to church) does not mean one's thought is in accord with Church teaching. Catholic church pews (and often pulpits) are full of "practicing" heretics.