State Of The Union Address

[God Conquers]

It just occurred to me what the real issue is:

CLINTON(democrats) vs BUSH

Americans die vs foreign terrorists die

Pick what you want.

[Azriel]

It just occurred to me what the real issue is:

CLINTON(democrats) vs BUSH

Americans die vs foreign terrorists die

Pick what you want.

now now. Clinton doesn't equal all democrats.

Personally, I hold to the economic principles of the Democratic party ... but anytime anyone on this board disagrees with the Republican party that automatically makes them pro-abortion, etc.

Someone else already said it, but being Catholic doesn't equal being Republican.

[Speech]

God Conquers writes:

Americans die vs foreign terrorists die

First: Aren't you from Canada?

Second: Why must we choose between Americans and foreign terrorists? Doesn't every human life have the same dignity -- from Hitler to Mother Teresa? Or has Catholic teaching changed?

Third: Americans have died under the policies of the Bush Administration. Over 500 American citizens have died because of Bush's orders to fight a war that your own pope has questioned the justice of. Americans are dying every day because of Bush's continued refusal to speak out about the injustice of capital punishment. Americans are dying because they can't afford health insurance. Soon, Americans will be dying because Bush has pulled the rug out from under Medicare. Americans are dying because Bush continues to support the kind of bigotry that fuels hate crimes against blacks, homosexuals, and other minority groups. To claim that Democrats kill Americans and that Republicans only kill "foreign terrorists" is absurd.

Fourth: I don't think abortion is murder, because I don't believe ensoulment occurs at conception, because I don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches. So how do you like them apples? (I don't actually know when ensoulment occurs, but this does bring up a good question -- have you any proof outside of your own faith that abortion is murder?)

[littleflower+JMJ]

(I don't actually know when ensoulment occurs, but this does bring up a good question -- have you any proof outside of your own faith that abortion is murder?)

nobody has to be a scientist to know that their killing and murdering an innocent child.

you answered your question yourself nathan here, let me quote...

Doesn't every human life have the same dignity -- from Hitler to Mother Teresa?

you are right, every person, born and unborn, deserve the right and dignity to LIFE.

you can hear a heartbeat, and see them in the womb thru an ultrasound, a mother can feel the baby kick inside her, move around.....we know LIFE.

and though many may choose to see it otherwise, its murder :sadder:

click below for pictures...

here

here

here

here

here

tomorrow thousands of others will be marching, for LIFE. for the 43,337,706 babies that have been murdered since abortion was legalized in 1973.

babies who should now be your age nathan and my age and older, livign life to its fullest, having jobs, families, school and friends.........but they dont', they were murdered before they were born, defenseless and killed when they are innocent.

"Any country that accepts abortion, is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what it wants."

"What is taking place in America," Mother Teresa said, "is a war against the child. And if we accept that the mother can kill her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another."

God bless you nathan, you are in my prayers!!!!!!

+JMJ

[BLAZEr]

Bush stinks. He's a liberal republican. About the only think I like about him is that he opposes baby-murder and he is appointing good judges. Pretty much everything else is suspect . . .

[God Conquers]

Fourth: I don't think abortion is murder, because I don't believe ensoulment occurs at conception, because I don't believe what the Catholic Church teaches. So how do you like them apples? (I don't actually know when ensoulment occurs, but this does bring up a good question -- have you any proof outside of your own faith that abortion is murder?)

Yes, I am from Canada, so I don't have a vote, but I enjoy American politics.

I agree that Catholics should not equal Republicans. Public health and welfare were invented by the Cathoilic Church. (my support of these policies is also a function of being Canadian)

Yes, every life is precious. But everyone should have a chance at life.

Abortion is murder- With no religious argument:

If you don't KNOW when ensoulment takes place, than you are MORALLY OBLIGATED to back-off. You hold the burden of proof. You must prove that the being in question DOES NOT have a soul. Since this is impossible, you must not allow abortion, for you run the risk, at any stage, of killing an ensouled being.

[Speech]

Flowery writes:

you are right, every person, born and unborn, deserve the right and dignity to LIFE.

you can hear a heartbeat, and see them in the womb thru an ultrasound, a mother can feel the baby kick inside her, move around.....we know LIFE.

Say my cat is pregnant. If you did an ultrasound, could you hear the heartbeat of the kittens? Could you see them in the womb through an ultrasound? Could the cat feel the kittens kicking inside her, moving around?

And yet, there are times when a cat's pregnancy must be terminated for a variety of reasons. It's done all the time. By your logic, because I can observe the life in growing inside a female cat, it is morally unsound to terminate the pregnancies of any living creatures. Correct? If not, please explain to me why it's different. Please explain to me, outside the context of your faith, why abortions are immoral.

God Conquers writes:

Abortion is murder- With no religious argument:

If you don't KNOW when ensoulment takes place, than you are MORALLY OBLIGATED to back-off. You hold the burden of proof. You must prove that the being in question DOES NOT have a soul. Since this is impossible, you must not allow abortion, for you run the risk, at any stage, of killing an ensouled being.

Au contraire, the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof is on the Catholic Church to prove when ensoulment does take place, or that ensoulment actually occurs at all. I can't observe the soul, can I? How do I even know that any human being has a soul? How do I know that we're not just a more advanced form of animal life?

And how do I know animals aren't ensouled? How can I be sure? By your logic, eating a steak would "run the risk of killing an ensouled being." Could plants have souls? If so, couldn't eating anything "run the risk of killing an ensouled being"? Perhaps I should starve myself, lest I run the risk of killing an ensouled being?

These arguments don't work on non-Catholics, that's why abortion is so widespread. If you want to end abortion, y'all are going to have to come up with something better than this.

[jrndveritatis]

OBVIOUSLY they meant the human soul and human life.

Anyways, Aquinas says plants and animals have vegetative and animal souls. The difference is they aren't immortal and they aren't in the image and likeness of God.

Speech, if you want us to prove ensoulment before you oppose abortion, does that mean that you do not oppose murder, since you obviously don't believe in the soul?

[Speech]

jrndveritatis writes:

OBVIOUSLY they meant the human soul and human life.

I know what they meant, but I'm now asking for you to explain why there's a difference between terminating a cat's pregnancy and terminating a human's pregnancy, without using ensoulment or any religious tenet, since I'm not Catholic and I don't know that I believe in ensoulment.

Anyways, Aquinas says plants and animals have vegetative and animal souls. The difference is they aren't immortal and they aren't in the image and likeness of God.

Says Aquinas. I don't believe him. There's the end of that argument.

Speech, if you want us to prove ensoulment before you oppose abortion, does that mean that you do not oppose murder, since you obviously don't believe in the soul?

I do oppose murder, because I believe that it's harmful to the social fabric -- whereas abortion is not always harmful to the social fabric, and sometimes may even be helpful. Incidentally, I do believe in ensoulment, but I'm asking you to make a case for someone who doesn't.

As for my beliefs regarding ensoulment: unlike the Catholic Church, I believe that ensoulment occurs at birth rather than conception. I have no proof of it, but neither do you, which makes your theory about ensoulment no more valid than mine.

[thicke]

Speech - May the peace of Christ be with you!

Au contraire, the burden of proof is on you.  The burden of proof is on the Catholic Church to prove when ensoulment does take place, or that ensoulment actually occurs at all.  I can't observe the soul, can I?  How do I even know that any human being has a soul?  How do I know that we're not just a more advanced form of animal life?

Are you saying the argument is if an unborn child has a soul, or it if the unborn child is alive. It seems to me that most Pro-Choicers believe that the unborn are not alive yet. That is why they justify abortion. Have I been wrong all this time? Now granted, we Catholics believe that having a soul and being alive are mutually inclusive. But, this is the first time I have heard a pro-choicer use the term "soul" in their arguments.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

Actually the Holy Father never said this. He said to "exhaust all other avenues." This does not mean the same thing as "do not go to war"

But Bush didn't exhaust all other avenues. So he's going against what the Pope said, right? I don't know too much about this, though, so if I'm wrong, please tell me again (second time's the charm in this case).

Speech, the difference between terminating a cat and human pregnancy is that one involves humans and one involves cats. You could argue that cats and humans have the same intrinsic worth but then that means no cat OR human abortions. You could argue that humans have a greater worth because they are humans, so it's okay to terminate a cat life but not a human life. It just depends on where you're coming from. I doubt you'd say that human life and cat lives do not have worth and then it is okay to kill them both. But who am I to assume?

Also, I'm curious why you think murder (not talking about abortion in this case) is harmful to the social fabric? Please explain further...

[God Conquers]

Speech,

There is nothing more harmful to the social fabric than abortion, barring widespread war and the precursers to abortion, contraception and broken families. How many doctors, scientists, lawyers, great thinkers and politicians have been aborted we can never know. It destroys women, psychologically and physically. It makes men more irresponsible. Besides, it is murder, so if murder is wrong so is abortion.

Life is a single continuum. There is only one place where ensoulment could logically take place, conception. We become a unique genetic being at conception. After that, we do not change, we only grow. Birth changes nothing except our location. Death is the end of the line, and the only other significant change. Almost as much change happens in our bodies through puberty than from conception to birth, is it ok to kill adolescents?

There is no reason for abortion. All arguments i've heard for it are ridiculous and fall apart under philosophical (not even religious) scrutiny.

[Speech]

thicke writes:

Are you saying the argument is if an unborn child has a soul, or it if the unborn child is alive. It seems to me that most Pro-Choicers believe that the unborn are not alive yet. That is why they justify abortion. Have I been wrong all this time? Now granted, we Catholics believe that having a soul and being alive are mutually inclusive. But, this is the first time I have heard a pro-choicer use the term "soul" in their arguments.

It would be silly to argue that fetuses are not alive. It's undeniable biological fact that when fertilization occurs, life comes into existence. Some have argued that this life is not human life, but I don't think that's really worth its weight in gold. If it's not human life, what else is it? If it comes from a human father and a human mother, what are we to assume that it is if not a human life?

Ensoulment is not my primary argument for abortion choice. As I've said, I don't know when ensoulment occurs. Given my ignorance, if I were basing my pro-choice views only on the possibility that ensoulment doesn't occur at conception, that would really be a gamble. My primary argument for abortion choice is that there are some instances when such an unfortunate choice may have to be made for the greater good. Some find this horrifying, but I find it no more horrifying than the doctrine of just war or the (rarely) just use of capital punishment.

PatrickRitaMichael writes:

Speech, the difference between terminating a cat and human pregnancy is that one involves humans and one involves cats. You could argue that cats and humans have the same intrinsic worth but then that means no cat OR human abortions. You could argue that humans have a greater worth because they are humans, so it's okay to terminate a cat life but not a human life. It just depends on where you're coming from. I doubt you'd say that human life and cat lives do not have worth and then it is okay to kill them both. But who am I to assume?

I don't think it's okay to just arbitrarily kill either a cat or a human. But just as I think there are times when it may be necessary to kill cats, I think there are times when it may (unfortunately) be necessary to kill humans. Before you look at me in horror and call me a monster, consider your own church's teaching on just war. Your own church teaches that there are times when it may be necessary to kill humans. Granted, the doctrine of just war is an entirely separate issue. But my point is that some people believe in a doctrine of just abortion, and I'm one of those people. I don't think abortion is okay all the time, but I think there are times when it may be okay.

Actually, I believe that humans are different from cats. But it's simply belief. I do believe that humans have a different kind of soul from cats. Not necessarily better, but different. But I have no proof for this. That's been my point in this thread. There is no proof for ensoulment, so it can't be used as a legal argument.

Also, I'm curious why you think murder (not talking about abortion in this case) is harmful to the social fabric? Please explain further...

Because it removes a human being who is contributing to society, and it diminishes the dignity of all life to arbitrarily take away even one life. When even one murder is okay, then the dignity of all life is diminished until even more murders are okay. Thus, it destroys the social fabric.

God Conquers:

There is nothing more harmful to the social fabric than abortion, barring widespread war and the precursers to abortion, contraception and broken families. How many doctors, scientists, lawyers, great thinkers and politicians have been aborted we can never know. It destroys women, psychologically and physically. It makes men more irresponsible. Besides, it is murder, so if murder is wrong so is abortion.

This is certainly an emotionally charged statement. But can you prove any of it? Can you prove that there's nothing more harmful to the social fabric than abortion? Can you prove that any aborted fetuses were going to become doctors, scientists, lawyers, great thinkers and politicians? (The answer: No, not anymore than I can prove that they were going to become pedophiles, prostitutes, serial killers and drug users). Can you prove that it destroys women psychologically and physically? (All women?) Can you prove that it makes men more irresponsible? Can you prove that it's murder?

[littleflower+JMJ]

just to let you guys know, we talked to one of the peeps from march for life :infant: and she said it was a HUGE success, that sooo many ppl showed up and it was like -32 degrees!! and they still showed up in washinton to stand up for life!! not to mention ALOT of youth and other denominations were there!

amazing!! ^_^

[hyperdulia again]

Abortion is sick. Killing people is sick, always. It is never necessary to kill an unborn child. Babies are babies are babies. This is why raging little liberal I am, I have only ONE choice, don't vote; I can't vote for a man responnsible for the death babies in Iraq and I can't vote for the alternative, a man who wants babies to continue dying here. So I won't be voting.

[Laudate_Dominum]

I can't vote for a man responnsible for the death babies in Iraq

What about just war? Sometimes death is a consequence of something that must be done. I'm not talking about Iraq particularly because I don't know that much about it but just the fact that sometimes people die because of other people doing the right thing. It's an unavoidable consequence of war. That's a different kind of thing from abortion and to compare the two, I think, clouds the sinister reality of abortion.

When George Bush sent troops to Iraq he was not thinking, oh yeah! I'm going to kill some babies. When Clinton vetoed the partial birth abortion ban he may have been thinking "kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out".

[Laudate_Dominum]

My primary argument for abortion choice is that there are some instances when such an unfortunate choice may have to be made for the greater good. Some find this horrifying, but I find it no more horrifying than the doctrine of just war or the (rarely) just use of capital punishment.

That doesn't sound like an argument for abortion "choice". Just war and things like that rest upon the fact that there is no other choice! And death is not chosen, it's a sad consequence. There is no circumstance where someone is justified in choosing to have an abortion. The extreme case of where the baby and mother will die if nothing is done does not justify choosing to kill the baby. It justified doing everything possible to save both the mother and the babies life but sometimes it's not possible to save the babies life (like in ectopic pregnancies) but the point is it's not an act of killing a baby, it's an act of trying to save lives and the death of the baby is a sad, unavoidable consequence. Just war, properly understood, is like this too. It's a defensive thing, not offensive, it's not a choice of killing people, it's an unavoidable choice to save lives and defend the common good that, because of the nature of war, costs lives. And civilian casualties are not justifiable, it's supposed to be people who willingly offer to risk their lives for the just cause, not an innocent baby who's mom decides that she wants to finish college before she has a baby so this, her first child, must be destroyed.

And murdering people is never a valid means of solving one's problems.

That's the problem here is that abortion is legal in our country for any or no reason! That should bother you regardless of whether you think there are situations when it's justified. And since you think it's ok to kill for certain reasons, tell me, what about infanticide? What's the difference between a mother slaying her child in the womb because she feels she can't afford to support a child and a mother slaying her newborn infant because she feels it's a hassle?

[Laudate_Dominum]

don't think abortion is okay all the time, but I think there are times when it may be okay.

What are these circumstances of yours that justify abortion? It's hard to discuss if you aren't clear. By definition abortion is direct and intentional killing of an unborn child. I hold that there are no circumstances that justify this. Just war, self-defense, and the ectopic pregnancy thing are not direct, intentional killing, these are examples of the principle of double-effect. That's the main difference as I see it.

[PatrickRitaMichael]

Because it removes a human being who is contributing to society, and it diminishes the dignity of all life to arbitrarily take away even one life. When even one murder is okay, then the dignity of all life is diminished until even more murders are okay. Thus, it destroys the social fabric.

does that mean that it is okay to kill people who are NOT contributing to society?

[Speech]

I'm hereby putting everyone on notice that I won't be responding on this thread after this post.

Laudate_Dominum writes:

What are these circumstances of yours that justify abortion? It's hard to discuss if you aren't clear. By definition abortion is direct and intentional killing of an unborn child. I hold that there are no circumstances that justify this. Just war, self-defense, and the ectopic pregnancy thing are not direct, intentional killing, these are examples of the principle of double-effect. That's the main difference as I see it.

I believe that abortion is justified when the life or health of the mother is at risk, and in cases of rape and/or incest. Just war and self-defense are indeed direct, intentional killing. You are directly killing, and (especially in war) you intend to kill. The difference may lie in intention. In premeditated murder, the murderer wants to kill the victim for malicious reasons. In self-defense, the person wants to kill the attacker to protect himself/herself. Both of these are direct, intentional killing, but the intent is different. There can be different intentions in abortion, as well.

PatrickRitaMichael writes:

does that mean that it is okay to kill people who are NOT contributing to society?

There's no such thing as a person who doesn't contribute to society.