Kerry understands separation of Church and State...greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Apparently, you guys think that Christianity should run my life. Guess what? I don't want it to.Now, before you call me "anti-Christian," I feel as though I must tell you that I have absolutely no problem with those that practice Christianity on a personal level. Just as I have no problem with those that practice Buddhism on the same level. Or Hinduism. Islam. Atheism. Taoism.
What I do have a problem with is someone that would vote for a candidate based on how much religion he injects into secular politics.
Let me first address the issue of Kerry's position on the abortion debate.
He's pro-choice.
Now, many people -- and most of you included -- seem to harbor the belief that, because Senator Kerry is pro-choice, he is pro-abortion.
Uh-uh.
Kerry believes that abortion is a matter of the heart -- that it is a personal choice to which all women are entitled.
Personally, the senator is anti-abortion. But he does not allow his religious morality to affect his political mentality. Unlike 'His Unelected Highness King George II,' Kerry understands that -- as a politician -- he represents more than those people who practice his faith. He represents Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Wiccans, and Quakers -- all of whom may not necessarily share his Catholic anti-abortion views.
Thus, it is correct to call the senator "pro-choice," yes; pro-abortion, no. He is following the spirit of the First Amendment in not allowing his religion to dictate the content of his legislation.
In short, Kerry's actions say, "I am a Catholic who does not believe that abortion is the right choice in a pregnancy. But it is just that -- a choice. And, as an American who understands that -- because of the heterogenous melting pot that is America -- the dictates of a single religion cannot possibly embody the moral standards of every one of my fellow citizens, I leave it to them to determine how they stand in terms of social issues."
Nothing wrong with that.
There is something wrong with a Commander-in-Chief that plays the Christianity card constantly, and, in effect, invokes his 'with us or against us' policy on American soil. Bush even went so far as to call the 'wall of separation between church and state' a "bridge" that he wants to "strengthen."
Would you vote for an Islamic president who said the same thing? Or would his version of "godly laws" bother you?
A president's job is not to promote or embody the religious ideals of any religion -- his job is to allow his fellow Americans the choice to practice the ideals of every religion.
He or she should leave the Bible--or the Koran--or the Book of Magick--at home.
America is not a theocracy. It is a democracy where freedom of religion should in itself be held sacrosanct, a republic with legislators whose policies should favor no religion or unfairly limit any religion.
Kerry understands this. Bush does not.
For Americans who believe in the Constitution--who believe in freedom of choice--who believe in freedom of religion--who believe that the president should represent and protect citizens of all religions--the 2004 Presidential Election has yielded only one viable candidate.
That candidate is John Kerry.
Time to go home, Dubya. The ranch is waitin' for ya. Maybe you can find a "bridge" or two to build there.
-- Kyle (kulrystt@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004
In their November 1998 pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life: A Challenge to American Catholics the Bishops of the United States speak of a false pluralism which undermines the moral convictions of Catholics and their obligation to be "leaven in society" through participation in the democratic process.25. Today, Catholics risk cooperating in a false pluralism. Secular society will allow believers to have whatever moral convictions they please - as long as they keep them on the private preserves of their consciences, in their homes and in their churches, and out of the public arena. Democracy is not a substitute for morality. Its value stands - or falls - with the values which it embodies and promotes. Only tireless promotion of the truth about the human person can infuse democracy with the right values. This is what Jesus meant when he asked us to be a leaven in society. American Catholics have long sought to assimilate into U.S. cultural life. But in assimilating, we have too often been digested. We have been changed by our culture too much, and we have changed it not enough. If we are leaven, we must bring to our culture the whole Gospel, which is a Gospel of life and joy. That is our vocation as believers. And there is no better place to start than promoting the beauty and sanctity of human life. Those who would claim to promote the cause of life through violence or the threat of violence contradict this Gospel at its core.
For more information, see this thread.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
By the way, Kerry is about as pro-abortion as you can get. John Kerry is the most aggressive, outspoken pro-abortion presidential candidate this country has ever seen. Planned Parenthood recognizes this. They made their first ever endorsement of a presidential candidate this year, and endorsed Kerry. Kerry's voting record was 100% what Planned Parenthood wanted. No, he advocates the murder of innocent children and cannot be president.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
Kyle has his opinions about Kerry, and we have ours. Precisely because we ARE Christians. If Kyle isn't Christian, it doesn't make his opinion the better one.He says: [We] think that because Senator Kerry is pro- choice he is pro-abortion. --Uh-uh.
Kerry believes abortion is a matter of the heart -- that it is a personal choice to which all women are entitled.''
Women are NOT entitled to kill human beings. Not inside the womb, not outside that same womb. It cannot be a legitimate choice to dispose of a living innocent baby under any circumstance. That baby can be given away, adopted--if the mother doesn't want him/her. THAT'S a matter of the heart, KYLE.
Kyle must think a living embryo isn't human. If that's not so, where was he, KYLE-- brought to this world from? A tree, or a factory? No. Kyle is one embryo-fetus gone to term. He is one of those over whose LIFE Kerry would have someone make CHOICES --You may live, or you must die.
And it's the law of this land. But abortion, an EVIL, is paid for by Christians' tax dollars; to add insult to murder. But, HEY: Separation of Church & State is more important than innocent babies. Lol!
Would the STATE suffer, Kyle-- if the same fetus we're talking about were allowed to LIVE-- (CHOICE: LIVE-) --and placed for adoption? Is this too much to ask YOU, the STATE, and Sen. Kerry? Who seems to think God can be sold for VOTES? Because that's all he's doing. Kerry knows the Catholic faith is PRO-LIFE and always will be.
But he sells the faith he once had, for electioneering. (Pander, in other words.)
It's fine if you have no place in your life for Christ, Kyle. That's your free will, no one can take it away. But you have no right, under any Constitution, to put the offspring of Americans to death. Nor is your free will as free as that.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 16, 2004.
Hi Kyle,You bring up some good points, but I think there is a problem with your approach. If you replace "pro-choice" regarding abortion to "pro-choice" regarding racism or slavery you will understand why the argument that a Christian should keep their religious beliefs separate from their political beliefs is not correct. If Kerry said "I am personally opposed to segregation, but it should be every city's right to make laws that segregate the races," would you vote for the man?
I believe we should apply the same principles to every politician and for every policy we know is evil and that should guide our votes.
Please correct me if I misunderstand you.
-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 16, 2004.
I think you "regulars" here have finally gotten through to me about why abortion should be illegal (not just wrong, not just unfunded by government). Once again- the Church is right, Mark is wrong. It makes me wonder how much more straightening out I need.
-- mark advent (adventm5477@earthlink.net), May 16, 2004.
mark, ive been in your shoes before.when i first came to this forum i was minorly pro-gay rights, and i was wrong. this forum kept me from walking down the path of advocacy for something which is contrary to the will of God. as such, it has proven its worth to me... and i hope it continues to do so for you and me both
-- paul h (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), May 16, 2004.
You guys laid the smack down.Good job. :)
-- Jacob R. (jacobrainey@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
Should Christianity run a person's life?Absolutely.
As a Christian, you believe in God, but also Jesus and the Holy Spirit as "parts" of God.
C.S. Lewis (Note writer, "Mere Christianity" etc.)once said something to the effect that Christiantiy, if false, is the least important thing in the world. If true, the MOST IMPORTANT.
God bless,
-- john placette (jplacette@catholic.org), May 16, 2004.
Apparently, you guys think that Christianity should run my life. Guess what? I don't want it to.{No one is advocating enforced religion, if thats what you mean. However, the Morals of crisyainity aren't really negotiable, and their are pelnty of studies that show that what is advocated is actually in your own best interest. }-Zarove
Now, before you call me "anti-Christian," I feel as though I must tell you that I have absolutely no problem with those that practice Christianity on a personal level. Just as I have no problem with those that practice Buddhism on the same level. Or Hinduism. Islam. Atheism. Taoism.
{Define "Personal level." If you mean " They do their little ceremoneis but don't bother to live within the constriants of the mroals of their religions in oublic", then your a fool. The hole point in religion is to facilitate a better life throuh a changed behaviour, which cnnot occure of you leave it at hime. More later.}- ZaROVE
What I do have a problem with is someone that would vote for a candidate based on how much religion he injects into secular politics.
{That has never been my policy. However, I do have ethical standards based on my religious beelifs that I SHOULD advcate publically.}- Zarove
Let me first address the issue of Kerry's position on the abortion debate.
He's pro-choice.
Now, many people -- and most of you included -- seem to harbor the belief that, because Senator Kerry is pro-choice, he is pro-abortion.
{Chdk the facts mate. Pro-Choice IS pro -Abortion, and only a fool could say otherwise.}-Zarove
Uh-uh.
Kerry believes that abortion is a matter of the heart -- that it is a personal choice to which all women are entitled.
{Murder is not a matter of the heart. we shpidl protect all human life, in any state. we shoudl NOT give women the power to murder their own babies because they happen to not want them.}-Zarove
Personally, the senator is anti-abortion. But he does not allow his religious morality to affect his political mentality.
{Yeah that sort of reasonign works in dilusionville, but in the real world you have probelms with it. You asusme religious mroals afre soemhow different than political morals. In relaity, theirs no such thing as either. morals are not defined wither by poliitcs of religion, but are rather identified by both. And no one in politics advocates legalising Murder under other cerscumstances, yet you are OK with legalised Murder of Infants?This sin't a matte rof religion, many Atheists are anti-Abortion. Its a matter of protecting life, a matter of protecitng a huamn being, and giving him the right to life, livberry, and the pursuit of happiness. A right mothers who abort leave their children without.Instead, they prefer to crush their skulls and such them out a vaccum cleaner.}- Zarove
Unlike 'His Unelected Highness King George II,' Kerry understands that -- as a politician -- he represents more than those people who practice his faith.
{Woudl that include those peopel who are defenceless inside their mothers womb?}-Zarove
He represents Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, Wiccans, and Quakers -- all of whom may not necessarily share his Catholic anti- abortion views.
{I am not Catholic. I just post here. Guess what, I do share the anti- Abortion eiws. So do many Atheists and Agnistics and Buddhists. S do Muslims. Again, you ASSUME that Abortion is considered worng because of the rleigion, you don't think that perhapos its wrong because its the endign of another life that is recgnised by VARIOUS religions.}- Zarove
Thus, it is correct to call the senator "pro-choice," yes; pro- abortion, no.
{If he is pro=Chiice then he is for the allowanc eof Aboriton. Dispite yor attemted claim that we shodjl be pro choice politically to allow peoel the freedom to make their own minds and not force our faith on them, the argument really isnt about that.
The argument agaisnt Aboetion isnt " My rleigion doesnt let me" but rather " Its murder." So I don't really care what religion Kerry is, he supports infanticide, that is clealry wrong. Its NOT strictly a religious issue, and only a fool woudl say it was.}-Zarove
He is following the spirit of the First Amendment in not allowing his religion to dictate the content of his legislation.
{The first amendment is actually NOT designed to prevent religion form rnnign the government. As a republic, candidates are welcomed to brign their rleiious eiws into office so long as they do not impose their religiosu veiws on others. The Firts Amedndment was designed to protect religion, the press, and free assembley, and free speach, FORM Govnemrnet controle. It was not desinged to protect the government form rleigious invvlement.
If you RREAD the statements of the Founding Fathers tyou woudl relaise all of them supported schools using the Bible as a standard text, al of them allowed religiousconcience in desision makign in congress, and all of them supported the overall allowanc eof rleigious beleifs or lack theirofe.
Again, the firts amendment was to assure us that the Governent woudlnt create a state church or take ove rou religious practices or limit our religious freedom, it was not dsinged o secularise our society as it is now so abused ino being.
Unless you want to argue that free speach and freedom of the press where also threats that the Government needed protection form, this arvgulent is absurd.
Here is the firts amendment.Read it carefully, in the same sentence it mentions religion, it mentins the press and free speach. No one argues that those shoudlnt be allowed in publkic sphere or to influence the opulace. Arguing that it as mean tot limit religion form influencifn the populace woudl eman the others must also be duely limited.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
}-Zarove
In short, Kerry's actions say, "I am a Catholic who does not believe that abortion is the right choice in a pregnancy. But it is just that -- a choice. And, as an American who understands that -- because of the heterogenous melting pot that is America -- the dictates of a single religion cannot possibly embody the moral standards of every one of my fellow citizens, I leave it to them to determine how they stand in terms of social issues."
{ Except that, Aboriton sin just wrong because Cahtolic moral standards tell him o base don his religion. Aboriton is worng for the same reason it woudl be wrong for me to take a .22 pistol and kill soemone I meet on the street. Again, you are ASSUMING htis is purely a religious objection to abrotion, when in relaity the objectiom to Abortion is because it is M-U-R-D-E-R, which is NOT purely a rleigious moral ethic.}-Zarove
Nothing wrong with that.
{See above. Why allow Infanticide\?}
There is something wrong with a Commander-in-Chief that plays the Christianity card constantly, and, in effect, invokes his 'with us or against us' policy on American soil.
{Not really, see above. Not only is abortion not purely a rleiigous topic, nor i Chrisyainity the only religion that prohibits it, nor are only rlegious peopel actually agsint aboetion, but likewise, religious concience is not disallowed for public office.}-Zarove
Bush even went so far as to call the 'wall of separation between church and state' a "bridge" that he wants to "strengthen."
{It is a bridge. read the earlu writigns of intent. Tjeir is no seperation of chruch and Stte in the constitution techniclaly, and the firts amendment was desighed to STRENGTHEN the rleigious freedoms we had, not deny us our conceience of religion in oublic grounds. Your own country was founded largley on reliigous freedom to befgin with, and yet now wants religion removed.}-Zarove
Would you vote for an Islamic president who said the same thing? Or would his version of "godly laws" bother you?
{If he was good for the job, or at leas if I though he was, yes. So long as he understands peopels rights to religious freedom, I care not what rleigion he is, or if his religion helps guide him to a moral path.}-Zarove
A president's job is not to promote or embody the religious ideals of any religion -- his job is to allow his fellow Americans the choice to practice the ideals of every religion.
{Coreect, however, he does nto have to set his religion aside and act agaisnt its teachings in order to be effective. in fact, that Muslim presedent woudl be less effective if he fostered a double mind about things, a pivate mroal and a public one. I prefe cnsistance.}-Zarove
He or she should leave the Bible--or the Koran--or the Book of Magick- -at home.
{No, he shoudln't, its called rleigious freedom. So read the Bible, the Koran, or the book of Magic in the white house in the state of the Union for all I care. Just do your job well and ensure everyone else the same rights.}-Zarove
America is not a theocracy.
{No oen ever claiemd it was.}-Zarove
It is a democracy where freedom of religion should in itself be held sacrosanct, a republic with legislators whose policies should favor no religion or unfairly limit any religion.
{Actually its a federal republic, not a democracy. Also, a Government whih favours NO religion is alrgley secular and corrupot, as iwe see them rmoeing things liek Bible clasees and prayers form schools that had had them for decades.
No religion shoudk be unfairly limited, however, makign mora choisine within your own conceince about ehat is righ and worng, no matter hwat your source or inspiration, shoudl not be frowned uppon either.}-Zarove
Kerry understands this. Bush does not.
{Actually you don't understand. Heck, yuo een think Abortion is purely a reliigous issue. what if an Atheist prsedential candidate was agaisnt abortion?}-Zarove
For Americans who believe in the Constitution--who believe in freedom of choice--who believe in freedom of religion--who believe that the president should represent and protect citizens of all religions--the 2004 Presidential Election has yielded only one viable candidate.
{I am a American citesen, but British Born. I beelive int eh constitution to an extent, but it has less emotional impact on me than it does a Yank, to me is a code of laws only.
However, your argumens ar epure foolishness. You asusme that their is no reaosn to object to Abortion eexcpet religious beelif, and htat if we set asid our religious belifs, then we coudl not objec tot aboetion. This ignroes the actual argument agaisnt abortion which is NOT religious, but rather secular. Abortion is Murder of an infant, and htis is not a religious beelif, btu a scientific fact. The embryo is alive, and human. Again, Athiests are even pro-life.
You don't even understand the aboirton argment isnt rleigious and you are tellign us who to vote for based on rleigious freedom?
religious freedom also means the right to excersise your relgiion in publsic office.}-Zarove
That candidate is John Kerry.
{John Kerry spports the infanticide crisis, so no, i won't support him. Nor do I support Hypicrites who cant even follow throuh with their own mroal convictuons.Srrty, charecter des matter.}-Zarove.
Time to go home, Dubya. The ranch is waitin' for ya. Maybe you can find a "bridge" or two to build there.
{Faciciality is not really a good thing, you know.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 16, 2004.
Jacob,
I am sure your heart is in the right place, but our job here is not to smack anyone down. Our job, is the same as the job for all Catholics: find out what our faith is, live it, and proclaim it.In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
That was a very good and well thought out reply Zarove. As usual.
-- Andy S ("aszmere@earthlink.net"), May 16, 2004.
I thought it was a good post Kyle. Your point was a good one-- that America is not governed by religious laws. The question is how much of the abortion debate is religious. Zarove hit the nail on the head when he said that there are even atheists who are anti-abortion. A better argument for seperation of Church and State would probably be gay unions, but that's a topic for another thread.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.
Something tells me it's not just the bible that is swaying your opinion here, but the political wills of corrupt catholic fundamentalists, who wouldn't understand abortion, or the mental ties that come with it, if it swooped down and stole their first born. I really can't figure you out at all, it's like you're just making up reasons not to vote for Kerry, instead of actually putting forth any reasons for voting for Bush. Ok, so you think killing babies is wrong, fair play, but do you not think that killing Iraqis and the poor is equally just as wrong?Bush ORDERED the death of thousands, Kerry did not. If Bush said 'alright men, you have the choice to invade Iraq, it's up to you', THEN you would be able to fairly draw a comparison between the two, but he didn't. Kerry did.
Give me some non-catholic orientated proof that says pro-choice and pro-abortion are one and the same thing. Please.
Another question for you. Many priests have come out against what the Bishop in Colorado said about voting pro-choice and being denied communion. They said separation of Church and state was important and that this Bishop was wrong.
How do you decide what to think when two clergy members disagree? Does it make your head explode?
-- Kyle (kulrystt@hotmail.com), May 17, 2004.
Ironic how a straightforward condemnation of the extermination of innocent babies makes us corrupt and fundamentalist. A very self-serving propostition, IMHO.Is an unborn infant innocent? I think so. Is a Jihadist terrorist innocent? I have doubts; but we are forced into a confrontation with these armed fanatics whether they think they're innocent or not. It's kill or be killed.
Is that too simple, Kyle? Oh; but why ask you? You have no religion. No faith that anybody here would understand. You're the fundamentalist corrupt politician. All that interests you is winning a coming presidential election. Since the opposing candidate is pro-life, you must denigrate the idea. Since the President is a hawkish American, you choose to become a dovish anti- American. So you protest the killing of Saddam's corrupt Republican Guard. But not much protest over murder of the innocent children of American descent. (''Oh, Hell no. I'm not a fundamentalist,'' says Kyle. ''Go ahead, it's not MY baby.'')
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 17, 2004.
Something tells me it's not just the bible that is swaying your opinion here, but the political wills of corrupt catholic fundamentalists, who wouldn't understand abortion, or the mental ties that come with it, if it swooped down and stole their first born.
{Didn;t I say it wsn;t jusr a religious issue? And again, I am not Catholic.
OK, let me spell it out for you. here goes.
Abortion is an issue tat causes objection because it is seen as murder. It is seen as murder because the fetus is a livign Human beign that is wllfully terminated. Clear enough for you? One doens't een have t be Christain to object, and you still haven't answered the bit about Atheists who are pro-life.
And again, I am not Catholic. So I am not swayed by any Cahtolic leader.}-Zarove
I really can't figure you out at all, it's like you're just making up reasons not to vote for Kerry, instead of actually putting forth any reasons for voting for Bush.
{Actually I addressed your fauklty claim that Abortion is a rleigious issue and that we don't have the right to impose our religiius vewis on everyone else. Abortion is about Murder of babies, not about reliigon. I didn't even address votign for Bush because I was too bust telign you that the abortion issue was nto rleiigous.}-Zarove
Ok, so you think killing babies is wrong, fair play, but do you not think that killing Iraqis and the poor is equally just as wrong?
{Depends on the cercumstances. Genericlaly I think killing anyone is w rong. But if someone lunged at me with a knife tryign to kill me and I managed to stop them b neding their life to preserve my own, or if they attacked another and in the course of defendign said other I killed htem, then no.
Likewise, is the Military targetign the poor? Or is that accusation.}- Zarove
Bush ORDERED the death of thousands, Kerry did not.
{Bush ordered a war. Rather or not you agree withthe war is immaterial, the concept is different. Soldiers dyign in a war, thouhg tradgic, is not the same as an innocent baby beign killed for the ocnvenence of the mother.}-Zarove
If Bush said 'alright men, you have the choice to invade Iraq, it's up to you', THEN you would be able to fairly draw a comparison between the two, but he didn't. Kerry did.
{Kerry gave the men a coice ot go to war? Exactly when has any presedent actualy held a vite amoing the soldiers before sendign troops pover?
Oh, I see, you mean Kerry gives the women a choice, and thats freedom which is good. Granted the Bbay gets no say in the matter, but thats OK, since the Baby will be dead soon.}-Zarove
Give me some non-catholic orientated proof that says pro-choice and pro-abortion are one and the same thing. Please.
{I did. Its fairly simple. If you allow someone to murder soemone else, you are equelly responcible for the murder.Abrotion is murder, and shoudl be stopped on that ground.
The womans choice shodl never be extended to cover her right to terminate her own childs life.}-Zarove
Another question for you. Many priests have come out against what the Bishop in Colorado said about voting pro-choice and being denied communion. They said separation of Church and state was important and that this Bishop was wrong.
{This concerns me, or the Abortion issue, how?}-Zarove
How do you decide what to think when two clergy members disagree? Does it make your head explode?
{Uhm...I decid what is mroally right as tot he best of my ability. In thr case of baortion , it is OBVIOSULY wrong. I mean, you are lettign women choose to kill their own children or not!!!}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 17, 2004.
Anti-bush propoganda:''I thought it was a good post Kyle. (It was shameful.) Your point was a good one-- that America is not governed by religious laws.''
Is shooting your wife a crime? Why? Thou shalt not kill is a ''religious law''. It should be changed, to keep state & Church separated. Is child abuse a crime? Then why is killing an unborn child a ''choice''--??? The fetus is a living, innocent child.
Kyle needs a non-catholic version how pro-choice equals pro-abortion. Is there a difference between pro-choice of shooting your neighbor, and pro-murder? I must think if you're pro-the act you are not against the act. Nothing at all to do with your religious faith. --Must one's Church make a law against murder? Isn't the law that already?
You will condone and even promote murder when you call it a legitimate choice. In fact, it's just a liberal misnomer; there's no choice about aborting a living human being. The choice must always be NOT killing him/her. Otherwise, it's simple pro-abortion. Because; if you just don't want to kill him, no one will make you do it. Not me, not the Church, and not any state. YOU have to want to kill. That's what pro- choice is.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 17, 2004.
P.S.
For those selfish and mean-hearted ones who say, ''A woman must have reproductive rights. It's not the state's body, it's her own body; and no one can force her into doing anything with her body.''Here is not only a heartless and evil person. But mistaken, too. It may be the woman's body; but she is responsible to the state; to the LAW--
For whatever she does with her own body. She'll go to prison for selling sex in the street. It's the law. Our society makes laws which deny any woman the right to prostitute herself. Same with drugs. She cannot take illegal drugs, controlled substances. It's a crime. Above all, she cannot do anything criminal with her body. If she uses her mouth to lie on a witness stand, she is committing perjury, a crime. If she drives drunk, her eyes, her foot, her hands, and her brain-- all are guilty of manslaughter or worse; if she should kill another driver on the streets, or a pedestrian.
Therefore, a woman's body is her own. but she can't ''do what pleases her'' with the body. Nor should her baby have to be destroyed by abortion to give her uncontrolled use of her body. Her freedom to the rule of her body is limited by law. It shouldn't be her right to kill her unborn baby. No matter what Kerry, Kyle or Anti-Bush or the state may say about it. Murder is a crime.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 17, 2004.
To Be fair, I don't think AB really supported Abortion in this thread, and I do not recall his support for Abortion in the past.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 17, 2004.
But Kyle, if you do not wish for Christ to run your life then you simply are not a Christian!Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), May 17, 2004.
I think that was the point Gaiul. He also seems ot think that only Christians oppsoe abortion based on reliigosu principles.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 17, 2004.
Is owning other human beings as slaves "a matter of the heart" having nothing at all to do with morality or "faith" or justice and thus not something "political"? Kerry claims that abortion is something which shall not be debated by anyone? Or that if we beg to differ we MUST be irrationally trying to foist our faith on others rather than biology 101?Fact is, nowhere does a human being acquire the right - human and thus civil - to own another human being as though he or she was an animal, and nowhere does a human being - of any society or political system have an innate or civil right to kill their offspring! Thus, abortion is NOT a sectarian, ho hum, issue. It's a human rights' issue. And if Kerry is too stupid (which he is) to see that, then he's too stupid to be President of the United States.
Most liberals can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag when it comes to serious issues.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.
If God gave us the right to choose, why can't the President?God effectively said 'Here is a tree, and here is a garden of paradise. Eat from the tree and lose the paradise, or don't. It's up to you.' Is that not effectively the same as Kerry saying 'If you abort, you'll go to hell. But it's totally your decision, I'm not here to stop people from going to hell.'?
If God thought that we shouldn't have the right to choose to abort or not, he wouldn't have given it to us.
War is murder, it should be stopped on that ground, yet you're more willing to support Bush because your fundamentalist catholic buddies told you to. Think for yourself, Jesus would be proud.
Abortion is not an open and shut moral case. It is not murder, no matter what pro-lifers want to say it is, because you can't murder something that can't be alive on its own. All they can come up with is the "potential for human life" argument. It has merit, I'll grant that, but it doesn't equate to murder.
Look at the laws we have. In most cases of morality-inspired law, over 99% of the people in our society agree that it should be wrong. Murder, stealing, assault, rape... we as a whole society agree that it's wrong. When over 50% of your society is saying something shouldn't be illegal, then as a religious person, you really have to look again and say "wait, is this really Truth, or is it just my truth?" If it's just your truth, make convincing arguments to make it other people's truth, then you can make a law about it. The way to make that argument is not by alienating, manipulating, and intimidating the people on your side of the argument by withholding the one thing that connects you.
-- Kyle (kulrystt@hotmail.com), May 18, 2004.
Kyle,Lots of people can't "live on their own". Can a 1 month old baby? Without the mother feeding it, etc., it would die. In Nature, the only place the baby's food comes from is the mother's milk. Without literally sucking off the mother, a baby would die. What's the difference then between a baby and a fetus 1. they both are alive 2. they both depend 100% on the mother for survival.
The only difference there is is that one is outside the uterus, and one is inside. That's a pretty poor argument to base your morality on, much like saying you can't kill someone outside your house, but if they are IN it, you can shoot them for no reason whatsoever, or just for "fun".
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 18, 2004.
Kyle,
We know abortion's a moral question and nothing but. You can argue that since it's a Church which objects, and you don't learn from churches, that covers you. But a ''choice'' for dealing death to a fetus that's plainly living, and allowing life for another fetus (your own) is quite a moral choice. Why don't we shoot living children? It might seem like a choice, but it's a choice to murder. That's a crime.The Church has no objection to our choosing to leave the Church. Go ahead; give the faith up.
One Republican politician just did that. He quit the Catholic Church, rather than allow anyone to change his opinion of abortion. Something like you're doing.
You deny the faith. OK-- but how can you deny a baby life? Just because you think it's a legitimate ''choice''--? What kind of animal are you? And all the murderous mothers & abortion providers?
Don't split hairs here, in a Catholic forum, trying to justify ''choice''. Get out of this place. Go & vote for abolishing all birth. Your candidate will obtain it for you.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), May 18, 2004.
If God gave us the right to choose, why can't the President?{Neither God nor the president gave us the right to kill pur own children. Read the Bible sometime, their are laws. One of the ten Commandments reads " Thou shalt not Murder."
Again, we are nto given COMPLETE freedom, we have limits, one of thos elimits is that I cant take someone elses life away. why shpudl you be allowed to?}-Zarove
God effectively said 'Here is a tree, and here is a garden of paradise. Eat from the tree and lose the paradise, or don't. It's up to you.' Is that not effectively the same as Kerry saying 'If you abort, you'll go to hell. But it's totally your decision, I'm not here to stop people from going to hell.'?
{You are still harping on rleigion??? Agaiub, woudl this sell with a pro-life atheist? for that matter, you asked for a nonreligious reason to ban abortion, we gave it, why not address that? why look for a religious reaosn to allow Abortion when we alreayd have secular reasons on the table that you don't even address?
Likewise, tis a poor exampel since God gives us the same chpoic ein killign adults. we can and go to Hell, or not. But that doest mean th other people whom we live with shoudl deal with it as our own personal moral choice.Their are temporal consequences as well.}-Zarove
If God thought that we shouldn't have the right to choose to abort or not, he wouldn't have given it to us.
{Yeah and if God thought Murder was wrong he woudlnt have allowed us to nvent a vireety of ways ot kill each other. For htat matter, he woudl ahve made it imposisble for humans to kill one another. Naturlaly, your argument leads to this conclusion. Since humans CAN kill each other, then it must be OK Since God gave us this ability, and thus it must be a God Given right.
Are you relaly that stupid??? And I don't usually insult people, but really the logic here is nonexistant.Follow through with your conclusions here.}-Zarove
War is murder, it should be stopped on that ground, yet you're more willing to support Bush because your fundamentalist catholic buddies told you to. Think for yourself, Jesus would be proud.
{We are thinkign ofr outrselves, you aren't. in fact, you assume becauae we have the ability to abort, God ave us this right. Liekwise, if you are oppsoed to war because its Murder, why on earth are you not opposed to killign a baby?
Oh and Catholcis arent fundamentalists...}-Zarove
Abortion is not an open and shut moral case. It is not murder, no matter what pro-lifers want to say it is, because you can't murder something that can't be alive on its own. All they can come up with is the "potential for human life" argument. It has merit, I'll grant that, but it doesn't equate to murder.
{So when I was on lifesupport in intensive care, it was OK to shut off the machines and let me slowly die. I coudln liv eon m own at the time, so obviously it wudl have been mirder for earlanger to shit off my IV Drip, and the resperator, and just let me die.
Again, this is idiots logic as many people can't liv eon their own, and are still considered to have the right to life. Babies are no different. }-Zarove
Look at the laws we have. In most cases of morality-inspired law, over 99% of the people in our society agree that it should be wrong.
{Argumen by majority? A large part of why its agreed on is becase it has been illegal for a logn time.}-Zarove
Murder, stealing, assault, rape... we as a whole society agree that it's wrong.
{But not always. Rape for instance was allowed by conquerers iN europe till after the time of Christ. Reead the Iliad, they mention rape not in a bad light at all. Rape was when a storng man who had taken your land excersises his right to the spoils, which includes yougn gurls for his pleasure.
It only became recognised by the majoirty that it was wrong after laws where passed and had been passed for centuries.}-Zarove
When over 50% of your society is saying something shouldn't be illegal, then as a religious person, you really have to look again and say "wait, is this really Truth, or is it just my truth?"
{Their is no such thing as personal truth. No matte rhwo you try to pull that "My truth is different form your truth" idiocy, it makes no difference. Either the fetus is alive, or it is not. either it has the righ tot life, or not. These thigns are open and shut, and are not dependant upon the religius beelifs of anyone.
A Biology textbook teaches us that a fetus is alove. science shows us repeatedly hat its a living thing.
This isnt "My personal truth" but a fact of nature that is irrefutable if one looks onto the biological sciences. which you don;t do, and rathe use the argument fornthe majority.
Which reminds me, recent gallop polls do NOT indicate that over 50% of the populace xupports legalised abortion, the numbers are more like 58% opposed. More peopel oppsoe Abortion than are for it. Maybe its time for YOU to re-evaluate YOUR "Personal truth".
And while we are at it, please please pelase sdrop the " You as a religious person" Angle. We already gave you nonreligious reasons for beign oppsoed to abortion that you refuse to even aknowledge.}-Zarove
If it's just your truth, make convincing arguments to make it other people's truth, then you can make a law about it.
{Again, their is no suhc think as personal truth. only a Liberal can even beelive their is. Trith is independant of beleif. Thereofre, Christainity isnt true for me and not for you. it is either true or false dependant upon the realities of its claims.
Likewise, a fetus is either aliive or not alive, dependant upon the facts of biology and course of natrual occurances. it is not subjective, and is not a personal truth.}-Zarove
The way to make that argument is not by alienating, manipulating, and intimidating the people on your side of the argument by withholding the one thing that connects you.
{We aren't. You asekd us to make a nonreligious argumen againt abortion. We did. you ignore it and STILL insist that this is purtely a religious issue. You ignore the fact that mostpeopel are oppsoed to abortion, and yet pretend the majority is for it. You also pretend the majority is always right, and that if the majority favurs soemthign then maybe my oposition to abortion is my personal truth.
You oignore the sicnece f the matter, and the whole reason for beign oppsoed to aboortion, and claim the reaosn is nonexistant and personal and based on subjectivism.
Did you not even take high school biology???
Abortion is Murder, because the fetus is ALIVE, which is not a religiosu conviciton but A SIENTIFIC FACT.
Atheists, agnistics, Buddhists, pagans, all of these beelifs have Pro-Lifers in them. The majority of americans feel it is wrong to abort.
And to still havent explained how kilign a fetus is not murder, excet you subjectively desde that not beign able to live on ones own renders this enough.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 18, 2004.
"Most Americans support Abortion, maybe you shdila sk if your posiiton if the Triuth, or just your truth."well, whatif the revrse is true? Perhaps your pro abortion stand is just YOUR truth, whereas the majprity sees it otherwise?
Not that I always go withthe majoirty, but sincde you brought it up.
http://www.nrlc.org/news/2003/NRL02/osteen.html
http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0417_Americans_Oppose_Mos.html
Need more?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), May 18, 2004.
Instead of everyone bickering all the time about who is pro-choice, pro-life or pro-abortion, why don't we actually spend some time educating people in this country about the choices they are making with their bodies. Maybe if we could get young men and women to have a little more respect for sexual activities, we wouldn't have to discuss this issue.
-- Matt (matt79@nac.net), June 02, 2004.
I think in most cases, abortion is terribly, terribly wrong. But you must keep in mind that if it is outlawed, it will still happen, and it will be a lot riskier and a lot more painful for the baby and the mother. Women throwing themselves down flights of stairs or trying to poke the baby in the womb to death with a coathanger. Before abortion was legalized, this was quite commonplace. If I fathered a child, I would never want him or her to be aborted, but at the same time, that's not a decision I am prepared to make for someone else. It's certainly not a decision the federal government should be making (aren't C0NSERVATIVES supposed to for limited government, anyway?). There are plenty of incentives the government could offer to dissuade people from having abortions, that would reduce the number of aborted babies and still allow people the choice.At some point, people have to be responsible for their own decisions. The government should not be everyone's mommy, telling them what is right and what is wrong. Perhaps conservative anti-abortion campaigns would be better directed at expecting mothers themselves. Convince them on a personal level why abortion is wrong. Then we won't need anti-abortion legislature.
Besides, any federal law banning abortion (short of a constitutional ammendment) is unconstitutional. All powers not specificaly given to the federal goverment are reserved to the states and the people.
"That candidate is John Kerry."
Please. Don't even get me started on what a two-faced sack of crap Kerry is.
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 02, 2004.
The so-called decision to abort a living baby is murder whether a doctor does it or a mother does it to herself and the baby. It's still a ''choice'' to exterminate innocent human beings.You maintain this is better than ''causing pain'' and illegally killing them. Why not legalise all murder? Just say to that drive-by shooter; ''Ready, aim fire. Shoot somebody, it's OK!''
The very fact that abortion was once a criminal offense, MANSLAUGHTER-- tells you it is strictly immoral. Why should it be transformed into ''moral'' because you use cleaner tools and because now you'll pay for it with American tax money? Not only is the mother a murderess; it makes the doctors murderers too. Everyone involved is an accomplice.
That's why Catholics can't dismiss it as inevitable, and just because some judges allowed it. (No one ever voted for it.)
To allow it to continue without protesting is to become complicit. You have to share the blame.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 03, 2004.
Women throwing themselves down flights of stairs or trying to poke the baby in the womb to death with a coathanger. Before abortion was legalized, this was quite commonplace.Yes, it was so common I hear the coathanger industry has never recovered since Roe v. Wade. made abortion "safe and legal."
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 03, 2004.
It's a lot easier to pull some halfway-witty sarcastic remark out of your butt than to debate the issues, isn't it?
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.
Debate is unnessisary. Studies have shown that if semthign is illegal or unsafe, or persieed to be unsafe, fewer peopel do them. Thsi includes abortion.It s a logical falacy to asusme that all of the currently legal abortions woudl contineu in backallys or with coathangers shoudl abortion be made illegal. Most women woudlprefer to bare the child rathe rhan risk their lives, and only a few in percentage woudl venture to such means.
Their is also the psycologial facot of legal meanign moral to many peopels minds. Shodl it be illegal, their woudl be queastion of its morality raised int he midns of others.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 05, 2004.
It's alot easier to promote ludicrous exaggerations out of your butt as fact in order to further your argument than to debate the issues isn't it? Fact is, Harry Blackmun pulled the right to privacy to an abortion out of thin air. Instead of considering the legal merits of the case at hand (Roe v. Wade), he saw an opportunity to strike a blow for social justice as he saw it. He worked backwards, starting with the decision he wanted, and then sought to justify it. This is known as legislation through judicial activism, and it is often done these days to make laws the majority of Americans don't want. I'm sure you understand this because you do understand that all powers not specificaly given to the federal goverment are reserved to the states and the people. There is almost no such thing as state's rights anymore thanks to judicial activism. This is not the way this country was set up. Not even close.
-- Brian Crane (brian.crane@cranemills.com), June 05, 2004.
An Open Question:Does the Catholic Church support legislation that would require parents (mother or father)- under the criminal code - to be a living organ donor (liver (lobe), kidney, bone marrow, or blood) for their child (after birth) if such a transplant was the only way to preserve the life of the child? (The example of the exclusive match is from a case study.)
If yes, please direct me to the official document.
If no, please explain.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 05, 2004.
The Catholic Church teaches that parents have the moral responsibility of caring for the well being of their children.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.
Dear Bill;The whole of Christendom agrees with that moral obligation.
Rather, I am asking if the Catholic Church has or is seeking a law to require action (with the threat of criminal prosecution) on the part of the parents when it involves transplant or transfusion.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 05, 2004.
Rather, I am asking if the Catholic Church has or is seeking a law to require action (with the threat of criminal prosecution) on the part of the parents when it involves transplant or transfusion.Not that I am awaire of. We are still trying to get laws passt to prevent parents from killing their kids.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.
Dear Bill;I have seen your work in the past so I hope you will be able to find something about the Catholic Church's policy on post-birth government required transfusion or transplant by parents.
I'm going to bed so I will catch up later in the week.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 05, 2004.
The queasitin is moot.Soem paretns CANNOT suply organs tot heir children asthey woudl reject them. So if it where a moral obligation, then what if they are obliged to kill thier children by forcign them to take a defective Kidney? One that sint compatable?
sorry fretz, this doesn't relaly reflet well on the abortion argument, and I do beleive you are tryign to make a tentitive link out of spagettio's again...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 05, 2004.
I have seen your work in the past so I hope you will be able to find something about the Catholic Church's policy on post-birth government required transfusion or transplant by parents.My understanding of Catholic moral theology would say it would be a greiveous fault on the parents side if they refuse a transfusion that would save anyones life who they are responsible for (e.g., their child). Transfusions do not require extreme personal risk.
Pope John Paul II stated in 1991 to a group on organ transplants:
"... A person can only donate that of which he can deprive himself without serious danger or harm to his own life or personal identity, and for a just and proportionate reason. It is obvious that vital organs can only be donated after death."#2296 of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH: Organ transplants are in confirmity with the moral law IF the physical and psychological dangers and risks to the donor are proportionate to the good that is sought for the recipient. Organ donation after death is a noble and meritorious act and to be encouraged as an expression of generous solidarity. It is not morally acceptable if the donor or his proxy has not given explicit consent. Moreover, it is not morally admissable to bring about the disabling mutilation or death of a human being, even in order to delay the death of other persons.
So the Church would not be in favor of mandatory organ transplants from the living. I don't know if this answers your question.
As far as I know, as I have stated before, the Church has not made a statement on government laws requiring transfustions or transplants.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 05, 2004.
Dear Zarove;Please read the full post.
"if such a transplant was the only way to preserve the life of the child?"
Can (or should) the state require such a beneficial transplant or transfusion?
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 05, 2004.
Robert, The Church teaches that it is a wonderful act to give ones life for the life of another, but in the Church would not force someone to do that. (see my post above).In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 06, 2004.
Dear Bill;It appears that the pope and the catechism is saying that regardless of the value of the patient (living post birth child), or the high probability of success, or the relatively low mortality of the harvesting procedure (say, under 2%), a transplant or transfusion is only permissible as a “donation” or free choice by the donor parent, regardless of the moral imperative of the parent.
More than that, the decision by the parent is binding (to give or not to give) even after death.
My impression is that the Catholic Church would be against legally enforced harvesting of body products and organs from a compatible donor parent even if it was to protect the life of a post birth child.
If that is a correct reading, then my question is, why? What is the theological, legal, and biological justification not to legally require (under criminal law) a transfusion or non-fatal transplant from a parent to the post-birth child if it is determined to be the only way to save the life of the child?
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 06, 2004.
Robert, read this page, it probably will answer your questions.http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2001- 03/essay.html
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 06, 2004.
Dear Bill;That was a very good article on the issues of transplants and organ salvaging (after death donations). When I served on a bioethics committee at a university hospital, our conversations were often dealing with such issues.
However, I am attempting to get an understanding of the unique obligation (from the Catholic point of view) between a parent and child in such a situation. While moral obligation to seek the well being of the child is clear, it is not as clear as to the codification desired by the Catholic community to enforce those obligations legally.
From what I understand, the child has absolute priority in all things (short of causing the death – within a 1-2% mortality rate) to preserve his present and future life. This includes any and every action by the parent mentally, economically, and bodily needed to insure that nothing (physically, mentally, or economically) prevents the child’s ability to achieve the potential of his life. For a father or mother to fail to give that child (or teen and even perhaps adult child) such priority (particularly a viable organ transplant or transfusion) would leave the parents open to sacramental exclusion and legal sanctions (current or desired by the church).
If I am incorrect about my understanding of the Catholic teaching regarding the priority of children over their parents (morally and legally), please let me know.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 07, 2004.
Parents have an obligation to raise and nurture their children as they grow up. Children have the obligation to respect their parents and eventually to care for their parents as their parents grow old. We are not talking about secular laws here, these are moral obligations. As far as I know, the Catholic Church has not lobbied for secular laws to enforce these moral obligations.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.
Dear Bill,Thanks for your answer. The fact is, the majority of Christians, Catholic and Protestant agree with the moral and ethical principles your cited. I use them when church and community members approach me for advice on the matters.
Allow me to restate what you and others have said here: the Catholic Church believes that the government can force a woman to undergo a 9- month “harvesting” of her biological function from the the earliest months of pregnancy (88.1% of abortions take place in the 1st trimester and another 10.5% taking place by the 21st week [2000 CDC statistics]) yet, the moment after the child is born, neither mother nor father are to be legally (or morally according to the Catholic Church) required to provide any biological harvesting to preserve the life of the child and would be medically safe for the parents. At what point in the third trimester does the child lose it's legal priority? Why would the child have priority in the first two trimesters and not in the 3 or 3.5 or 3.9 trimester?
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 07, 2004.
Allow me to restate what you and others have said here: the Catholic Church believes that the government can force a woman to undergo a 9- month “harvesting” of her biological function from the the earliest months of pregnancy{yeah I knew this was just a trick to use bad logic to get Abortion seen as A-OK. Pregnancy does NOT harvest the womans organs, it is a normal function of her own body, what shes desigend to do, and not somethign that is takedn out of her. Likewiase, 98% of all abortion are for pregnancies that coudl have easily been avided by the same woman we want to "Force" t carry the chidl to term by simpley havign her NOT spread her legs for a little fun. Sorry to be so forward but your argument in favor of abortion wears thin when you use words like force and harvest in a post about pregnency.
The womans body isnt harvested in any way, since its a normal finction of her body. Likewise, we arent forving anyhtign on her , we are protectign the right of life o the chold. YPU claim this is only a potential person, but WE know it, form biological sicnece no less, to be a viable living entity.}-Zarove
(88.1% of abortions take place in the 1st trimester and another 10.5% taking place by the 21st week [2000 CDC statistics])
{Yeah and most murders are ehat of passion murders, tis desnt make it right, does it?}-Zarove
yet, the moment after the child is born, neither mother nor father are to be legally (or morally according to the Catholic Church) required to provide any biological harvesting to preserve the life of the child and would be medically safe for the parents.
{Actualy things on that ;evel ARE advcated by MOST Chruches, if effective, and most parents wodl glady donate evn a Kidney to the child if in need. However, your link is tentative, and again, made out of psagettio's.
The womans organs arent "Harvested" in any way, see, the woman was DESIGNED BIOLOGICALLY to be able to give Birth, thus her organs are functioning as they where designed and NOT coopted in anyw ay shape or form.}-Zarove
At what point in the third trimester does the child lose it's legal priority? Why would the child have priority in the first two trimesters and not in the 3 or 3.5 or 3.9 trimester?
{Who said it did, the Cahtolic churhc also disadvocates late term abortion. And lets be realistic your "Harvestign organs" analogy is thin. It lacs any real substance since organ donation, or blood transfusion, is not identical to a woman carryign a child.}-Zar
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 07, 2004.
Robert,One area of confusion is that no one is forced to use *extraordinary* means to maintain another's life. For example, we all have a moral duty to look out for everyone, but do NOT have the obligation to give our kidneys away. The Church and the law BOTH say that parents' normal "biological functions" must be "harvested" for the benefit of the child right now. You can't abandon a five year- old child, it's illegal and immoral. You are required by law to harvest your breathing, circulation, thought, digestion, musculoskeletal activity, etc. to provide for your child, right now, and in secular law. But you do NOT have the obligation to give your kidneys to your kids, although I'm betting most Christians would.
The Church isn't asking any more, or any less from anyone, than exists under current law, it's just saying that the time life starts that needs this level of care is at conception, and not at formal delivery.
Logically and morally, this makes much more sense, btw. How can you explain the fact that a woman can have an abortion at 9 months, yet others can deliver babies at 8 months? Why are some people, and some not? The babies are the same at 8 months, but some ARE people with rights and some are NOT? That doesn't make any more sense than saying a black man is a slave in some states, but a citizen in others (something the Supreme Court also upheld, btw).
Frank
-- Someone (Chimingin@twocents.cam), June 07, 2004.
Robert, great discussion though... thanks....bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 07, 2004.
Dear Frank;Thanks for the thoughtful response.
The question is, “What is extraordinary?” If safety is the issue, than what or when is it safe enough for the state to legally require a parent (against their will) to do something with their body to preserve the life of a child? You are right, in my most optimistic moments, I want to believe every parent (Christian or not) would do anything for their child.
Allow me an anecdote. When I was born, I was an RH baby, meaning my parents had RH- and RH+ blood types. In those days, the only known treatment was to have the father transfuse blood to the baby. My father made such a transfusion. However, it was voluntary. If he had decided not to make such a transfusion, I would not be writing this entry. The point is, a blood transfusion is much safer than pregnancy yet there was no law (then or now) that would have forced my father to make such a transfusion.
As to the issue of financial child support, it is really a contractual compliance between the parents or other family members who are guardians. If a child is disassociated from the family (put into the system), in most states, there is no further financial requirement from either parent.
Also, you were concerned about the .01% of abortions that are late term. Roe v. Wade indicated that at that point the state does have jurisdiction with specific limits - as verified by CDC statistics - placed on those abortions. (If the law is not followed, obviously that comes under the category of an illegal abortion.) The fact is, the child is in greater risk from the parental decisions if it is born at 30 weeks than if it were still in uterus.
This example is a true one, but I have to change a few of the details for HIPA regulations. A child was born premature at 30 weeks. The child was on a respirator and ngt. Because of incomplete development in the vascular system in the brain, the child began to suffer minor strokes caused by pressure on the brain. While there was no way to determine the damage, the attending physician did not think they would cause more than nominal learning disabilities (obviously, no guarantees) – but the strokes would continue and become fatal if surgery was not done to place a shunt in the brain to relieve pressure.
Because the parents were not convinced that the brain damage would be minimal, they declined to have the surgery. The physician disagreed and appealed their decision to the bioethics board (I was a member). Mine was the sole vote against the parents’ decision. Since the doctors couldn’t assure the parents that there where no more problems for the child, the committee complied with the parents wishes.
As I said, under current law the state has a higher requirement on the mother in the 3rd trimester of her pregnancy than it did upon the parents with a post birth child at 34 (time of death) months gestation time.
Allow me to be clear, I do not think the state has the authority (agreeing with the Catholic Church, as indicated by the documents from Bill) to force an individual to undergo any form of bodily harvesting. I also believe that logically and morally that includes surgical or “natural” extraction of body parts or function that is for the benefit of another person.
I do not believe the slippery slope is towards the increase in abortion (which has been declining in the United States), rather the danger is allowing the government to no longer perceive a limit upon what they can demand from a citizen. Involuntary biological harvesting is beyond the state’s authority.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 08, 2004.
Just because your Boethics board was wrong is no indicatio thast the Moality f Aortion a a Choice is in any way impeded.Likewise, I think the surgeon ought to have been given the go ahead for the surgery, with or withouhte parents cpncent, since it was to save the cholds life.
Just like I dont think a colage girl i personally know ought to have been allowed a "Lega; and safe" abortion when she got frunk and had a party, had casual sex wiht a freidn of hers, and go pregnent.
( Ironiclaly. she cried " But he wore a condomn." Those things don work all the itme...)
point is this, Abortion is murder. YOU claim the fetus is oly a potential person, and the desires of the real person, the mother, shoudl be condierered. But the Biological sicneces have already determined that life as a full human beign begins at the moment of conception. this is when the cell structure is complete and the first signs of life, such as celular mitosis and variosu other proccesses begin.
Anythign that threatens ir ends this life, other than disease, old age, or accedent, withhte exception of endign this life if it attacks another or under state law as punishmenrt for a crime, so lng as said punihsment is within reason of the crime ocmmited, is Immoral.
The fetus has commited no crime, and obviously won't die of old age. disease ma affect it, or a miscarriage of the mother, but the child still has the irght ot life.
Juts like the hculd in your sory ought to have had the surgery neede to save his life.
You speak as if the laws generate morality, or that the eithics board dcided upon morality, and that it isnt an abosolute, and yet you claim to be a reveend? Surley you know that mans decisiosn arent always moral.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 08, 2004.
Murdering children is still murder. It is a-moral and should be a legal crime in all countries. Period. No amount of blabber will erase that fact.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 08, 2004.
Robert,The question is, “What is extraordinary?” If safety is the issue, than what or when is it safe enough for the state to legally require a parent (against their will) to do something with their body to preserve the life of a child? You are right, in my most optimistic moments, I want to believe every parent (Christian or not) would do anything for their child.
O.k., I see what the problem is now. You are seeing the child as being a parasite on the mother (in a sense) and saying they don't have the right to do that. Here's an example: If you pull out a gun and shoot at someone, and they dodge the bullet, pull out their own gun, and shoot YOU, they are not arrested for murder, they were exercising self-defense. Since you started it, they had the right to defend themselves, even if it means killing you, whereas you had NO right to try and kill them.
In the case of abortion, the baby didn't magically appear in the mother's uterus and start feeding off her, if this were the case, you would have a good argument. With conception, the *mother and father* are *responsible* for bringing into existence a new life -- they take the first shot. Once the baby is created, they then have the obligation to take care of it and not let it die. If the baby could be delivered right at conception (and it may be possible someday, who knows) that would be o.k., but until then the mother has the obligation to carry the innocent baby until it can care for itself. Again, the reason is that the parents assumed the responsibility for the potential of conceiving, carrying, and raising the child when they had sexual relataions. They can't just say "I'm not responsible" after the fact any more than someone could fire a gun and say "I'm not responsible" when the bullet hits someone because they weren't holding on to the bullet at the time, and it was out of their control.
30 weeks is pretty early for a delivery. You still haven't answered my question though, how can you logically say that a delivered infant at 39 weeks is any different than a different infant carried to term? I'd like to see some consistency from you, do you believe that BOTH infants should have the right to life, or should a mother be able to kill her delivered 39 week old too, just like she could kill it if it was in utero?
Because the parents were not convinced that the brain damage would be minimal, they declined to have the surgery.
It is their child, they should have the right to do as they see fit, in most cases. What would have happened if they HAD the operation and the child died on the operating table (that happens too in tough cases)? What does the doctor do then, say "sorry"? If the child's life might not be long regardless, who better to make the decision than the parents who have to live on a personal basis with the result?
I also believe that logically and morally that includes surgical or “natural” extraction of body parts or function that is for the benefit of another person.
Pregnancy is a special case. Remember that the mother *chose* to conceive a child, and the real issue is whether or not it should be legal for her to later *choose* to kill it. It is NOT an issue of having something external inflicted on you, like a fly depositing eggs on a wino's leg. In one case, the woman is responsible for her condition, and must live up to it, in the second case the woman is NOT responsible, and can have the maggots removed at will.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 08, 2004.
Dear Frank and Bill,Actually, both mother and fetus/baby (early term) have parity of rights in this discussion. Both are identified as human beings without condition. The equality of mother and fetus paradigm (being against legally coerced harvesting of body parts or functions) is consistent for both mother and baby. What is the Catholic Church’s view of conceiving a child for the purpose of transplant or transfusion for a parent or sibling? I believe it is against that practice as well.
It does appear that the rights of the fetus increase over the mother in the final trimester. However, that is after the mother has already made a choice and commitment to keep the child during the first two trimesters. In a sense (not speaking as a lawyer) a common law contract has been established through the first two trimesters. The court recognizes that “contract” and has placed specific limits on abortion during that final trimester so that contract is not breached.
Again, I turn to the CDC statistics that affirm that very action. About 88% of the abortions take place in the first trimester. That number goes up to 98.6% by the 21st week of gestation. In other words, no “contract or commitment” has been made by the mother to the fetus for a voluntary harvesting of body function for the purpose of a live birth. The 3rd trimester (25thth week and above) accounts for only about 100 abortions in the United States ( in 2000 – (about) 850,000 abortions (.01% +25 weeks) = 85) While CDC statistics did not give cause for those abortions, it matches maternal health emergencies such as pre-eclampsia and prenatal morbidity. In other words, if the abortion did not take place the mother would die, and in most cases the infant was fatally damaged (or already dead).
Frank, in short, your example doesn’t happen, unless of course it was an illegal abortion that does not get recorded. However, that is against the law and exceptions make poor law.
While there are other arguments for a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion (some with which I agree) this paradigm stands firmly on the equal rights of both mother and fetus – even from conception. And I believe it is a stronger position on which to base good law within a diverse community.
Actually, I am encouraged in the strength of this paradigm by your response to it. The only way the fetus gains the right to harvest body function from the mother without her consent is to decrease the rights of the mother by making her “guilty” of something. In this case, it is sex? What did she do wrong? What did she allow to happen? Did she encourage it? In short, it sounds like pregnancy is due punishment for her sin. I think this has more to do with how one views sex than it does regarding civil and criminal law.
While there is no doubt sexual sin, sin is not on the venue of the courts and legislatures. Excommunicate someone who has an abortion if you must. But the government does not have the right to force a person to be harvested for the benefit of another without their consent.
That’s about all I have to say on the subject, any more will be repetition. Thanks Bill and Frank for a very good conversation.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 08, 2004.
Quite correct Robert. The government does not have the right to force a person (in the womb) to be harvested (killed) for the benefit of another (typically the mother and/or father) without their consent.In the VERY RARE case (though pro-abortionists talk as if it happens all the time) where it becomes necessary to let one of the mother and baby die so the other may live, the younger person has the greater right to life, having a greater presumed lifetime ahead of him/her.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 08, 2004.
Dear Frank and Bill, Actually, both mother and fetus/baby (early term) have parity of rights in this discussion. Both are identified as human beings without condition. The equality of mother and fetus paradigm (being against legally coerced harvesting of body parts or functions) is consistent for both mother and baby. What is the Catholic Church’s view of conceiving a child for the purpose of transplant or transfusion for a parent or sibling? I believe it is against that practice as well.{nONEHTELESS YOU HAVENT REALLY SHOWN HOPW PREGNENCY IS COERVES HARVESTIGN OF ANYHTING, LEAST OF ALL SINCE THE WOMAN still HAS ALL HER ORGANS.}-zAROVE
It does appear that the rights of the fetus increase over the mother in the final trimester. However, that is after the mother has already made a choice and commitment to keep the child during the first two trimesters. In a sense (not speaking as a lawyer) a common law contract has been established through the first two trimesters. The court recognizes that “contract” and has placed specific limits on abortion during that final trimester so that contract is not breached.
{So you thnk we shodl reduce human life to a civil contracton rather or not the mother decided the baby was worth life or not?
And if the mother early enugh on decides its not what she wants, she shoudl be allowed ot kill her child? Seems a rathe rone sided argiment since the mother has ALL the sya in it.}-Zarove
Again, I turn to the CDC statistics that affirm that very action. About 88% of the abortions take place in the first trimester. That number goes up to 98.6% by the 21st week of gestation. In other words, no “contract or commitment” has been made by the mother to the fetus for a voluntary harvesting of body function for the purpose of a live birth.
{Again the term "Harvesting of the mothers organs for the prupose of a live Birth" is ridiculous. The mothers organs arent harvested, since they where designed ot do precicely this and NEVER leave the mother A SINGLE TIME, and since thde body was designed to work a certain way, its not relaly harvested at all. Likewise, coersion is just a word you use to cast peopel who are agaisnt abprtion in a bad light, which wont work since we are constantly reminded of the lif of the actual child you are advocatign the mothers right to kill, based on the logic of a covil contract.}-Zarove
The 3rd trimester (25thth week and above) accounts for only about 100 abortions in the United States ( in 2000 – (about) 850,000 abortions (.01% +25 weeks) = 85) While CDC statistics did not give cause for those abortions, it matches maternal health emergencies such as pre-eclampsia and prenatal morbidity. In other words, if the abortion did not take place the mother would die, and in most cases the infant was fatally damaged (or already dead).
{Again, this has what to do wothhte morality or abortion? The mumber killed early on as opposed tot he ratio of those killed later really isnt relevant tot he idea that you are avocatign the alloance of a mother to kill her children.}-Zarove
Frank, in short, your example doesn’t happen, unless of course it was an illegal abortion that does not get recorded. However, that is against the law and exceptions make poor law.
{But everythign I said does happen, but I suppose you ignroe me now, gues I am too stupid and narrow minded to deal with...}-Zarove
While there are other arguments for a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion (some with which I agree) this paradigm stands firmly on the equal rights of both mother and fetus – even from conception. And I believe it is a stronger position on which to base good law within a diverse community.
{Yeah this paradign says that the mother can make a civil contract that means the baby can live if he sint so far along into conception, but of hes too young, the mother has all the right in the world to kill him.
This por abortionargument is nothign but a farce to allow most legal abortions to continue. It is also a farc since the " COntract" is strictly unilateral and the mother is syill givent he right to murder her own child.}-Zarove
Actually, I am encouraged in the strength of this paradigm by your response to it.
{it isnt relaly that stong since you are basiclaly saying a child only has the right to life itf its so many weeks old, and before hten the mpther has the ight to kill it at will...}-Zarove
The only way the fetus gains the right to harvest body function from the mother without her consent is to decrease the rights of the mother by making her “guilty” of something.
{RThis is manipulative language, and a tactic. The mothers bosy is DESIGNED to function the way the baby insde her is causign it to function, and the organs never leave her body, therefore the organs are not harvested. Likewise, she concented when she spread her legs. I know, you will brign up rape, but check the stats, few rape victims in total as far as abortion is concerned, a drop in the bucket.
The mothers rights arent decreased by forbidding aborton, instead we are protecting the rights of a child, and preservign the child's rights to life.}-Zarove
In this case, it is sex? What did she do wrong? What did she allow to happen? Did she encourage it? In short, it sounds like pregnancy is due punishment for her sin.
{No, pregnency is because she had sex, now she must be responcible for the child growinginsde her. Do you relaly advocate a society where we do NOT have responcibility for our actions?
The child must be put to death becaus the molther wanted fun. You completley ignore the fac that abortion is a death sentence an focus on using manipulative language such as " COerce ghe mother to have her organs harvested". This is blatant dishonesty.
The Child did nothign to merit the death penalty, and its not a punishment on the mother if we protect the rights of the child.}- Zarove
I think this has more to do with how one views sex than it does regarding civil and criminal law.
{Thwen you relaly havebt been readign my posts, as its 100% abotthe life of the child, not an intention of punihsign anyone.}-Zarove
While there is no doubt sexual sin, sin is not on the venue of the courts and legislatures.
{Burt murder is...again you basiclaly allow the death penalty for an innocent child because the mother shodlnt be "Punished" for havign had sex...}-Zarove
Excommunicate someone who has an abortion if you must. But the government does not have the right to force a person to be harvested for the benefit of another without their consent.
{Theirs that fun word again, "Harvested", you must be inamered woth it. Pity is makes no snece. The mother sint beign harvested, no prgans leave her bodt, and the parts function as desigend.
In short, they are fiunctioning normally, as they wher eintended to be used.
Likewise, a new life grows inside her.
Nolw, you may want to pretend we are coercign h mother and harvestign her organs, but in reality we are allowing a natural biological function to take olace that allows an infant to live.}- Zarove
That’s about all I have to say on the subject, any more will be repetition. Thanks Bill and Frank for a very good conversation.
{Yeah, and more lies, since the womans body isnt havested. But I didnt get thanked, guess I am not a good vconversationalist.}-Zarove
-- Zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 08, 2004.
Robert,One of the things that I have learned in life is that when someone starts talking all in jargon when they weren't previously, it means they have nothing left of substance to say.
The equality of mother and fetus paradigm (being against legally coerced harvesting of body parts or functions) is consistent for both mother and baby.
When I see stuff like this show up, I know that you've stopped thinking about things. what is it supposed to mean? How many times can you use the word paradigm in one post and expect it to MEAN something? In the end you say here that the mother has a right to kill her baby, and somehow this makes the baby's rights and the mother's equal? Try again sometime.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 08, 2004.
Robert, Mothers don't have the right to murder their children under Catholic theology. If a mother has an abortion in the 1st trimester or the last trimester it is the same, she has committed murder. It doesn't matter how much lawyereese you put on it. Period.-bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 09, 2004.
Frank, Bill, I feel ashamed now. You both accomplished in much shorter posts what I set out to do in a longer one.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3!@JUNO.COM), June 09, 2004.
Dear Steve;I agree, those types of abortions are extremely rare and tend to be unplanned health emergencies.
I am not clear as to your second point. Is it a moral thing for a mother to permit herself to die so the child can live through the birth process? It is heroic. Is it legal for the government to force that decision? No. It stands with the prohibition against forced harvesting (and in this case it would be salvaging – after death) of bodily function.
Dear Frank;
Sorry about the word, paradigm. But when I use the word, model, I think of toy boats.
But, to clarify – the thread began about a specific candidate and his view of government and church authority. We all agree that no one can be forced to have a body part or function harvested against his or her will. This is regardless of age or relationship to the individual whose life depends upon the donor’s decision (parent, sibling, or child). The government does not have the authority to coercively harvest organs, blood, or even breast milk.
If both mother and fetus/child have equal legal standing, the government does not have the authority to force biological harvesting from either. Whether the child is one day after birth or one hour after conception its rights do not supercede the rights of the mother. And the mother’s rights do not supercede the child.
Example: A mother cannot conceive a child in order to provide a kidney (before age of consent) for a sibling. (I have heard of cases where this was done for bone marrow transplants and I believe that should be prohibited as well.)
Likewise the fetus/child cannot force a mother to be harvested of her biological functions (nutrition, hormones, pulmonary and cardiac functions, etc). The exception during the final trimester is due to the implicit contract of a live birth that was acted upon by the mother during the first two trimesters. (The reality is that there are so few third trimester abortions – along with statistics on pregnancy complications - that one can speculate those abortions were not planned or desired by the mother, but done in a medical emergency.)
The death of a fetus/child or a post born child that is the result of the donor/parent not giving consent for the harvesting is the same. In bioethical terms (no jargon), the application of a medical decision for the patient by the patient initiating the action of the doctor can have an adverse effect - but it is not unethical or illegal i.e., surgery may cause death, enough medication to stop the pain of terminal cancer may cause death, deciding not to have surgery may cause death.
In this case, there is no difference in decision or effect for the child when a mother declines to be harvested – either during the first few weeks of gestation or when the child is age 2 in need of a liver lobe(this is a non-fatal transplant). In both cases the child will die. While the reasoning of the mother may not be clear to us, the mother has the right not to be harvested. We have already established that the Catholic Church would not ask the government to intercede and force the mother to produce the liver lobe.
And Bill, you hit it squarely on the head – “Mothers don't have the right to murder their children under Catholic theology.” That is the point exactly. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church and is the discipline under which Catholic women should expect to live. The papal office has been consistent in that teaching.
The identification of abortion as a sin is also the teaching of many Jewish, Orthodox Christian, and Protestant communities – including my own. In all the cases when an individual or family had to deal with an unplanned (and in some cases unwanted) pregnancy and sought me for pastoral direction – all chose to bring their children to full term. It was done with the support of their family, the congregation, and with government aid to help a few of the mothers finish their education and set up a household.
But, the moral authority and trust from which I spoke to those families did not come from the government. And the government oversteps its bounds (at least in the USA) when it sets itself up as a moral authority and seeks to abridge the rights of its citizens because their decisions do not fit the parameters (boarders) of our particular religious communities - whether it is from Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish theology.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 09, 2004.
Robert you ask "Is it a moral thing for a mother to permit herself to die so the child can live through the birth process?"I'll put it another way. Say a mother and child found themselves in mid-ocean with only one tiny liferaft, which can only support one person. If two people try to cling to it, it will sink and they both will die. Would the mother be justified in climbing in herself and pushing the child away to drown? No. She should put the child in the raft. It's not just a matter of being heroic, it's a moral obligation. I admit this is a nicer point than the basic one that Frank, Bill and Zarove are making, that killing someone for reasons less than saving your own life is always clearly wrong.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 09, 2004.
Dear Steve; I agree, those types of abortions are extremely rare and tend to be unplanned health emergencies.{And yet the stats show they dotn acocint for most Abrotiosn either...}-Zarove
I am not clear as to your second point. Is it a moral thing for a mother to permit herself to die so the child can live through the birth process? It is heroic. Is it legal for the government to force that decision? No. It stands with the prohibition against forced harvesting (and in this case it would be salvaging – after death) of bodily function.
{This is lreayd answered...nonetheless its still not harvestign any organs.}-Zarove
Dear Frank;
Sorry about the word, paradigm. But when I use the word, model, I think of toy boats.
{I thinl he meant you rendered the word useless...this sint argment for arguments sake adn you cant swin by gettign the right placement of words.}-Zarove
But, to clarify – the thread began about a specific candidate and his view of government and church authority. We all agree that no one can be forced to have a body part or function harvested against his or her will. This is regardless of age or relationship to the individual whose life depends upon the donor’s decision (parent, sibling, or child). The government does not have the authority to coercively harvest organs, blood, or even breast milk.
{But pregnency IS NOT harvestign organs since th eorgans remain int he woman and ARE USED FOR WHAT THEY ARE DESIGNED FOR.}-Zarove
If both mother and fetus/child have equal legal standing, the government does not have the authority to force biological harvesting from either.
{True, this is why stem Cell researhc is banned. However, pregnency is NOT organ harvesting, since the organs are not removed form the mother and ar ein fact functioning how they where designed to funciton. Just like when I breathe I don harvest my own lungs.}-Zarove
Whether the child is one day after birth or one hour after conception its rights do not supercede the rights of the mother. And the mother’s rights do not supercede the child.
{Yes, on this we agree, however w disagree that the mothers organs are beign harvested sine biology textbooks say they where designed to carry out this spacific function.}-Zarove
Example: A mother cannot conceive a child in order to provide a kidney (before age of consent) for a sibling. (I have heard of cases where this was done for bone marrow transplants and I believe that should be prohibited as well.)
{Again, this is RADICALLY DIFFERENT. Prtegnency is NOT organ harvesting, how many times do I have to say this. The womans bosy is finctionign nromally and how it was made to work...}-Zarove
Likewise the fetus/child cannot force a mother to be harvested of her biological functions (nutrition, hormones, pulmonary and cardiac functions, etc).
{And again, pregnency is not organ harvesting. Why on earth you say it is i beyond me excet you need to to support this untenable argument. Pregnency is a normal biological cfunction which the woman was designed to do. It is not, thereofre, harvestign her organs to hae them, while inside her own body, work the same way they where made to work in the firts polace.}-Zarove
The exception during the final trimester is due to the implicit contract of a live birth that was acted upon by the mother during the first two trimesters.
{Nooooooooo... see, you SAY this is organ harvesting, but in reality, its not, since, as I said before, the woman was made to beocme pregennt and prodice a viable life that cna live on its own, and isnce the organs are functioning how they where desinged ot function, it cannot be called harvesting.
Likewise, you want to end soemone slife based on the mothers conveneince, isnt that a bit sikc since the babys LIFE is now dependant on the mother sunilateral social contract?}-Zarove
(The reality is that there are so few third trimester abortions – along with statistics on pregnancy complications - that one can speculate those abortions were not planned or desired by the mother, but done in a medical emergency.)
{I dotn care about hoiw many third trimester Abrotiosn their are, nor do I care about yor logic, I care abotu three htings.
1: Prive that this is organ harvestign, rather than a weak claim made by a liberal supporter of abortion as a right. prive that a womans naturla biological poroccess of pregnancy is acutally the same as me loosing a Kidny to save soemone else.
2: Prove the baby shoudl be allowed the death sentence because the mother has the right to make or not make a social contract.
3: Show me why this innocent life doesnt deserve lif eif the mother sats so.}-Zarove
The death of a fetus/child or a post born child that is the result of the donor/parent not giving consent for the harvesting is the same.
{Except the fact that pregnency does NOT harvestt he womans organs, rather, the omans organs funcitonwithin the woman based on how they where suppose to. Thus a perfectly normal biological function is executed, callign this organ harvestign akes my digestign my food with my stomac organ harvesting.}-Zarove
In bioethical terms (no jargon), the application of a medical decision for the patient by the patient initiating the action of the doctor can have an adverse effect - but it is not unethical or illegal i.e., surgery may cause death, enough medication to stop the pain of terminal cancer may cause death, deciding not to have surgery may cause death.
{Ok, quic queastion. How many peopel who refuse othave their organs harvested have to hav a surgical proccedeure ? Most cases of organ harvestign zI hear of, the surgery happens when they volunteer to have their organs harvested. prengnency, if assumed ot be organ harvestign, is the only time surgery is performed TO END THE HARVESTING, since without the surgery,the baby isnt killed, er, thwe woman insnt "Harvested".
You still havent shows how pregency is the same as organ harvesting.}-Zarove
In this case, there is no difference in decision or effect for the child when a mother declines to be harvested – either during the first few weeks of gestation or when the child is age 2 in need of a liver lobe(this is a non-fatal transplant).
{Yes their is, a big difference. The difference is the owman who is pregennt is NOT being harvested. her organs arent harvested. her organs work just fine.}-Zarove
In both cases the child will die. While the reasoning of the mother may not be clear to us, the mother has the right not to be harvested.
{I will repeat this. The woman isnt being harvested. pregnency is not organ harvesting. Pregnency is a natural biological function, not suirgical removal of her organs to palce into other people. She was designed to get pregnent and carry chidlren to term. This renders the whole organ harvestign claimsridiculous and absurd.}-Zarove
We have already established that the Catholic Church would not ask the government to intercede and force the mother to produce the liver lobe.
{Yeah we also established that the owman isnt beign harested when pregent since its a natural function of her own body which was desined to commit such a function...}-Zarove
And Bill, you hit it squarely on the head – “Mothers don't have the right to murder their children under Catholic theology.” That is the point exactly. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church and is the discipline under which Catholic women should expect to live. The papal office has been consistent in that teaching.
{Yeah I am not Cahtolic and still hold that all pepel have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursiet of happiness, and I dotn see a clause that says " Unless heir mothers decide they arent worthy of life or it will inconveneince them."}-Zarove
The identification of abortion as a sin is also the teaching of many Jewish, Orthodox Christian, and Protestant communities – including my own. In all the cases when an individual or family had to deal with an unplanned (and in some cases unwanted) pregnancy and sought me for pastoral direction – all chose to bring their children to full term. It was done with the support of their family, the congregation, and with government aid to help a few of the mothers finish their education and set up a household.
{This is good. It still doesnt provide any reaosn why we shodl sport legal aboriton as a choice since its legal infanticide.And I knwo you want me to thin of it as wrongful organ harvesting, btu I cant since, as I said, its a natural biological function.}-Zarove
But, the moral authority and trust from which I spoke to those families did not come from the government. And the government oversteps its bounds (at least in the USA) when it sets itself up as a moral authority and seeks to abridge the rights of its citizens because their decisions do not fit the parameters (boarders) of our particular religious communities - whether it is from Catholic, Protestant, or Jewish theology.
{Again, abortion is no strictly a religious matter, and many Atheists oopose Abortion, on the grounds that no on has the irgh tot take the chidls life. Therefore Abortion , which is legal infanticide, SHOULD be the govenements concern. The Govenrme does not allow other kinds fo Murder, why shoudl this sort of Murder be different?
No, do not claim organ harvestign unless you want o show how naturla bilogical function is the xame thing.}-Zarove
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 09, 2004.
A mother cannot murder her child to save her own life, if that is what you are asking.In Christ, Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 09, 2004.
But a mother can morally undergo any medical procedure required to save her own life, even if it results in the death of her unborn child. For example, an expectant mother who is diagnosed with uterine cancer can have an immediate hysterectomy, even though the child will die in the process. This is not abortion. It is the inadvertent and unavoidable side effect of essential life-saving medical treatment. The Church never requires a woman to risk her own life, even for the sake of her unborn child, though many mothers elect to do so. In some of those cases both mother and child live. In other cases the child lives and the mother dies as a result of her decision to delay her own treatment. Such a decision is heroic, but is never required.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), June 09, 2004.
Robert,We all agree that no one can be forced to have a body part or function harvested against his or her will. This is regardless of age or relationship to the individual whose life depends upon the donor’s decision (parent, sibling, or child). The government does not have the authority to coercively harvest organs, blood, or even breast milk.
The point is we DON'T agree on this. You believe that a biological mother can "harvest" all of a baby's organs, ending their life, whenever she chooses prior to delivery. If you wish to agree that the mother has NO right to inflict harm on the baby prior to delivery, we may just be in agreement.
Likewise the fetus/child cannot force a mother to be harvested of her biological functions (nutrition, hormones, pulmonary and cardiac functions, etc). The exception during the final trimester is due to the implicit contract of a live birth that was acted upon by the mother during the first two trimesters.
Like I said previously, the fetus didn't magically show up in the uterus and make a claim, the mother agreed to care for the baby when she engaged in sexual relations. Since she is responsible for the creation of the baby (along with the father, who must provide for its support), she is responsible for seeing to its well being up until the time it can fend for itself. Again, this is no different than the post-partum laws now, you can't just drop your kids in the middle of the desert because you are tired of them. That would be murder, they are your responsibility. Killing a baby in the womb is also murder, it is also your responsibility -- you created it. The third trimester thing is REALLY a crock. How did you arbitrarily decide that at some given day a contract exists where one didn't before? The contract DOES exist, but it starts at conception.
(The reality is that there are so few third trimester abortions – along with statistics on pregnancy complications - that one can speculate those abortions were not planned or desired by the mother, but done in a medical emergency.)
One could also speculate they were done for profit, killing the baby for maternal gain for use of their organs, but what does speculation do for us? Do you agree then that all third trimester abortions should be *illegal* except in documented medical emergencies? That would be a start, but somehow I bet you'll think that they should remain legal, call me a cynic if you will...
In bioethical terms (no jargon), the application of a medical decision for the patient by the patient initiating the action of the doctor can have an adverse effect - but it is not unethical or illegal i.e., surgery may cause death, enough medication to stop the pain of terminal cancer may cause death, deciding not to have surgery may cause death.
Neither I nor anyone else here ever said that a mother can't take actions necessary to save her life, but by your own *relevance* criteria, that's not really a big cause of abortions, is it? The majority are 100% elective. This being the case, and being concerned with relevence, why bring up a <1% scenario?
In this case, there is no difference in decision or effect for the child when a mother declines to be harvested – either during the first few weeks of gestation or when the child is age 2 in need of a liver lobe(this is a non-fatal transplant).
There is a very big difference between the two. In the case of a two-year old, the mother declines to remove her own liver, this is *passive*, a non-action on her part. In the case of an abortion, the mother *actively* decides to kill the infant, whereas if she did nothing it would be delivered normally. Surely you can see the difference between actively causing a death and allowing one to occur naturally?
“Mothers don't have the right to murder their children under Catholic theology.”
Well, at least I'm in the right church. A church that thinks abortion is A-o.k. isn't much of a church. How do you say robbery or rape is bad if you think allowing a mother to kill her own child is morally acceptable?
But, the moral authority and trust from which I spoke to those families did not come from the government. And the government oversteps its bounds (at least in the USA) when it sets itself up as a moral authority and seeks to abridge the rights of its citizens because their decisions do not fit the parameters (boarders) of our particular religious communities
Letting the baby live is the natural thing to do, as well as the moral one. The government made the "moral" (immoral really) decision to intervene in 1973 when it made it legal to practice abortion, inflicting the views of some people over both natural and moral law.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 10, 2004.
But the difference is Roe Vs. Wade didn't impose on anyone. All it did was allow the choice. The people who thought it was wrong still chose not to have an abortion. It didn't take rights away from anybody (regardless of whether or not it's a right they should have).
-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), June 10, 2004.
Antibush,Roe Vs. Wade didn't impose on anyone. ..... It didn't take rights away from anybody
This is 100% wrong. It imposed, and continues to impose on, millions of babies. I took the rights away from, and continues to take the rights away from, millions of babies.
They are never ASKED if they want to be killed.
They are most definitely killed though, and without their consent. If that isn't taking away someone's rights, what is? What could be more basic than the right to life? If you don't have that, you don't have any other rights either. LOL, you can't be very concerned about your freedom of the press or freedom to assemble if you're dead.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 10, 2004.
Dear Folks, Just to clarify:Yes, third trimester abortions only should be (and statistically are) medical emergencies for either the mother or baby. Those that are not, in all states - I believe, are illegal or disallowed by medical boards.
Yes, this model of equal rights for mother and the fetus/child does strengthen the case agains stem cell harvesting from all but the earliest (if any) cell division. The area of the unused embryo left over from in vitro conceptions would have to be examined since those embryo most likely will not be used to continue the process of pregnancy.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 10, 2004.
Abortion facts and statistics are here. There is no need to guess or assume.In 1994 the CDC reported that in 1993, 1.3% were done after 22 weeks or about 20,000.
For some common misconceptions out there (like the one posted by someone else above, see this page.
Mothers don't murder their kids.
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 10, 2004.
Dear Bill;I was using the CDC statistics from 2000 (about 850,000 abortions total). That year just below 12,000 abortions took place after the 21st week. However, after the 25th week, it was .01% of the total - that is fewer than 100.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 10, 2004.
Fretz you overlooked threee things.1: You overlooked the glarlinlu obviosu factt hat your "Paradigm" is not a mean to relaly show equel rights for mother and fetus.
You asusme that a common law contract exist if its before the third Trimester.
Before then the mother is abke to Abort.
This sint euqel rights since Idpubt a conference is held and the fetus is asked its opinion, rather the mother makes a Unilateral decision to kill her child, and if she doesnt commit murder in the first two trimesters, to you, thats a common law conract and soemhow this magiclaly renders equel rights even thouhg the mother STILL has vested legal rights to commit infanticide prvided the baby isnt so old yet.
2: You relaly didnt explain how the womans organs are harvested since they never leave her bod and function as they where naturally designed to function.
3: You never explaiend why we need a paradigm in thinkign of this at all, I mean relaly, shoudl we just look around till we find a midle of thought thst gives us what we want? or a comprmise? or shoudl we stand firm behind the moral truth God gave us?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 10, 2004.
Please give us a simple answer without obfuscation. You think that at some time well AFTER conception, it becomes wrong to kill a fetus, but before that time it is OK. What age of fetus is this exactly? How many months, weeks, days, hours, minutes, seconds? How is anyone to know when the fetus has reached this totally arbitrary magical age when it suddenly gets equal right to life?
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 10, 2004.
Dear Bill;I reread my last post and realize I may have implied that the .01% statistic came from the CDC. It did not. It came from a report from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecolgy, Pennsylvania Hospital. I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
Steve;
By using the concept of equity rather than giving more or less rights to one party or the other, the time (or deadline) that a common law contract is accepted is open to discussion. And no, having sex is not an implied agreement of the harvesting for the fetus, just as it is not an agreement for harvesting when the child was 2 years old.
Since the vast majority of abortions happen in the first trimester (or 12 to 15 weeks), that would be a reasonable time requirement.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 11, 2004.
Fretz, you ignroed my post. I will repost.Fretz you overlooked threee things. 1: You overlooked the glarlinlu obviosu factt hat your "Paradigm" is not a mean to relaly show equel rights for mother and fetus.
You asusme that a common law contract exist if its before the third Trimester.
Before then the mother is abke to Abort.
This sint euqel rights since Idpubt a conference is held and the fetus is asked its opinion, rather the mother makes a Unilateral decision to kill her child, and if she doesnt commit murder in the first two trimesters, to you, thats a common law conract and soemhow this magiclaly renders equel rights even thouhg the mother STILL has vested legal rights to commit infanticide prvided the baby isnt so old yet.
2: You relaly didnt explain how the womans organs are harvested since they never leave her bod and function as they where naturally designed to function.
3: You never explaiend why we need a paradigm in thinkign of this at all, I mean relaly, shoudl we just look around till we find a midle of thought thst gives us what we want? or a comprmise? or shoudl we stand firm behind the moral truth God gave us?
I do think what I said was reasonable, so why not address me as well?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 11, 2004.
Fretz, you ignored my post. I will repost. Fretz you overlooked three things.
1: You overlooked the glaringly obvious fact that your "Paradigm" is not a mean to really show equal rights for mother and fetus.
You assume that a common law contract exist if its before the third Trimester.
Before then the mother is Able to Abort.
This isn't equel rights since In it a conference isn't held and the fetus is asked its opinion, rather the mother makes a Unilateral decision to kill her child, and if she doesn't commit murder in the first two trimesters, to you, that a common law contract is formed and somehow this magically renders equal rights even though the mother STILL has vested legal rights to commit infanticide provided the baby isn't so old yet.
2: You really didn't explain how the womans organs are harvested since they never leave her body and function as they where naturally designed to function.
3: You never explained why we need a paradigm in thinking of this at all, I mean really, should we just look around till we find a modle of thought this gives us what we want? or a comprise? or should we stand firm behind the moral truth God gave us?
I do think what I said was reasonable, so why not address me as well?
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 11, 2004.
For this person, Zarove, the main problem is that he has no real answer. You are prfectly correct.He might not follow this reasoning either: Pregnancy is not a disease.
-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2004.
(Hellow Gene; I was wondering when you would be getting into this. Welcome to the conversation.)I will try not to repeat myself, but add a few thoughts for (final, I hope) clarification.
Several people in the discussion have questioned if the tissue/organ- harvesting model is appropriate to the issue of abortion. Fair question. It is, if one remembers that the goal of such harvesting is not for the intrinsic value of the organ but for its natural function. The mechanics of moving the organ from one body to the other is not the determining factor of the transplant. Rather, it is the natural function to be accomplished - which is to keep the person in need of the harvested organ/tissue/function alive.
Example: If it were medically possible for a person to use the natural function of another person’s kidney without removing it by cross transfusing blood, the natural function of the kidney would be harvested – and would need the approval of the donor, even if no net loss of blood or tissue took place.
If on the other hand, the donor agreed to make a public/legal commitment to this process for a year, and was able to do so without any complications to his own life, he would be obliged to keep his “contract” with the receiving patient. But, to be clear, the active affirmation of the donor is needed to get this obligation started.
Finally, why use this terminology and reorientation of the present construct? Because, the people who are the leadership in this debate, both pro-life and pro-choice (rather than anti-choice or pro- abortion – each group has the right to their own self identification, like some Catholics prefer not to be called Roman Catholics), have managed to marginalize their positions to unyielding absolutes. Absolutes work in religion (sometimes), they don’t accomplish very much in politics and law except a remarkable divisiveness among the population.
Also, the harvesting model is consistent. As I said, it follows current ethical standards for organ-tissue-function harvesting and salvaging (after death). It strengthens the ethical standards regarding stem cell research and application. And, it acknowledges the central point of both sides: equity in the human rights of the fetus/child and the mother. While those rights are recognized and acted upon differently in specific situations and times of the pregnancy, the mother is never viewed as chattel (a forced human incubator) and the child is never viewed as a non-human entity that is transformed to a human entity some point during the pregnancy.
Granted, the devil is in the details, but if there was less hostility in the debate, both sides may be able to get some good things accomplished, such as reducing the felt need for abortion by women and reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies
This model will not change Bill, Frank, Steve or Zarove’s mind that all abortion is wrong. Nor will it change the confidential patient – doctor medical model supported by the pro-choice side. But, it would give both sides a starting place and language that would encourage civil and legal discourse and accommodation.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 11, 2004.
I will try not to repeat myself, but add a few thoughts for (final, I hope) clarification.{cLARIFICATION WE DON'T NEED. lOGIC WE DO.}-zarove
Several people in the discussion have questioned if the tissue/organ- harvesting model is appropriate to the issue of abortion. Fair question. It is, if one remembers that the goal of such harvesting is not for the intrinsic value of the organ but for its natural function.
{True. HOWEVER, one does not call breahtign "Organ harvesting". My lungs breath just fine. No oen harvested them, and they wotk just dandy.
In the case of a pregnant woman, the same principle applies. Are her organs removed and given to someone else so that the other persons body will have those parts and function? Or are her organs used AS NATURE DESIGNED THEM TO BE USED?
If the former, then its harvesting, if the latter, then its not.
Since women where designed ot get pregnent and caerry babies in their wombs, then the organ harvestign logic is invalid since her organs are doign exaclty what they where designed for, irregardless of what the purpose of organ harvestign is, the reality is that no organs are removed for the woman and given to soemone else,whcih IS the definition of organ harvesting. Instead we see them orperate in the way they where desigend to operate withon the womans own body, therefore its no more organ harvestign than me digestign my food, me breahign with my lungs, me usign my heart to pump my blood, or any other function of my own bodyt which it was naturlaly designed to do.Its only harvestign if my heart is given to someone else.
You may want to say the baby is cooptig the woman, but the baby isnt, the baby is just functioning normally, and aain the owmans body is naturlaly designed TO gestate the baby...}-Zarove
The mechanics of moving the organ from one body to the other is not the determining factor of the transplant. Rather, it is the natural function to be accomplished - which is to keep the person in need of the harvested organ/tissue/function alive.
{Your wrong. Translpanting organs is define as removign the organs form one person to give them to another.
Under your new Liberal " Lets allow abortion" logic, the definition is so absurd that any biological function I have from releaving waste to digestign food is "Harvesting" since I am using the organs in my body in a natural way to do a natural function. No one in their right mind woudl say that my organs have been harvested when I breath with my own lungs.}-Zarove
Example: If it were medically possible for a person to use the natural function of another person’s kidney without removing it by cross transfusing blood, the natural function of the kidney would be harvested – and would need the approval of the donor, even if no net loss of blood or tissue took place.
{See here are two flaws to your logic. 1: This isnt medically possible, so the poin is moot.
2: Tgi is called co-option, not harvesting. Parisites DO often coopt biological funcitosn of their hoist organism, but this is not called harvesting. }-Zarove
If on the other hand, the donor agreed to make a public/legal commitment to this process for a year, and was able to do so without any complications to his own life, he would be obliged to keep his “contract” with the receiving patient. But, to be clear, the active affirmation of the donor is needed to get this obligation started.
{Which is radiclaly different than pregenncy since the woman , by havign sex, agreed t take care of the life she helped generate in her womb. Likewise, her body sint coopted, or harvested, but is rather operatign within the confiens of its own natural, biological design. One does not call normal biological functions cooption or harvesting...}-Zarove
Finally, why use this terminology and reorientation of the present construct? Because, the people who are the leadership in this debate, both pro-life and pro-choice (rather than anti-choice or pro- abortion – each group has the right to their own self identification, like some Catholics prefer not to be called Roman Catholics), have managed to marginalize their positions to unyielding absolutes.
{I marginilise no one. However you are still tryign to make this all abothte woman, when you overlook the baby.}-Zarove
Absolutes work in religion (sometimes), they don’t accomplish very much in politics and law except a remarkable divisiveness among the population.
{Actually abslutes DO work in Poliitcs, and often we MUST hav an absolute. An absolute standard of law is a good thing to have as it PREVENTS confusion and helps maintain a society in which we don have maasses of lawsuits.Also avouds legal lopholes.}-Zarove
Also, the harvesting model is consistent. As I said, it follows current ethical standards for organ-tissue-function harvesting and salvaging (after death).
{yeah...after death...problem is the baby isnt dead till you kill it... Again Pregnency is NOT the same as organ harvesting, and the bioethics of this are totlaly different.}-Zarove
It strengthens the ethical standards regarding stem cell research and application. And, it acknowledges the central point of both sides: equity in the human rights of the fetus/child and the mother.
{By allowign the mother to kill her child, you remove equel rights. I xdotn care how old the child is.}-Zarove
While those rights are recognized and acted upon differently in specific situations and times of the pregnancy, the mother is never viewed as chattel (a forced human incubator) and the child is never viewed as a non-human entity that is transformed to a human entity some point during the pregnancy.
{I never eiwed her as chattle, however the Bbay is till allowed ot be killed for the ocnvience of the mother all on the basis of a contrived analogy that ames no snece, and sorry for the crudity of this post i wa sinterrupted...}-Zarove
Granted, the devil is in the details, but if there was less hostility in the debate, both sides may be able to get some good things accomplished, such as reducing the felt need for abortion by women and reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies
This model will not change Bill, Frank, Steve or Zarove’s mind that all abortion is wrong. Nor will it change the confidential patient – doctor medical model supported by the pro-choice side. But, it would give both sides a starting place and language that would encourage civil and legal discourse and accommodation.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 11, 2004.
Robert, I have the answer but you aren't going to like it: You need to step WAAAAAY back and look at the rule: thou shat not murder is a commandment of God. It isn't a canon law. It is a natural law. Mother's don't murder their children, period.You are making it way more complicated than it needs to be.
Christianity is really simple. It is very hard, but really simple.
In Christ,
Bill
-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), June 11, 2004.
Finally, why use this terminology and reorientation of the present construct?Well, for one thing it lets you discuss something seemingly important, but which is really trivial, thus making you LOOK like you're trying to be objective, but in reality are just sidestepping admiting you aren't really answering people, and REALLY aren't facing the fact that killing a child is wrong.
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 11, 2004.
"Granted, the devil is in the details"Yes & No Robert -the devil is in your argument which is a moral relativistic approach attempting to synthesize a truth removed from ultimate Truth -as Catholics, we simply accept ultimate Truth completely as given...
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 12, 2004.
Dear Zarove;“Instead we see them orperate in the way they where desigend to operate withon the womans own body (my italics), therefore its no more organ harvestign than me digestign my food, me breahign with my lungs, me usign my heart to pump my blood, or any other function of my own bodyt which it was naturlaly designed to do.”
I’m sure it is unintentional, but you are using the same language of the “The woman’s body – woman’s decision” model of the pro-choice side.
As for the rest of you fellows, I expected more. At least Zarove was attempting to deal with the paradigm. While you may all feel very pleased that you are defending the full truth and natural law, the reality is 1\3 of all women between the ages of 15 and 44 undergo abortion. And here is a reality check for you – there is no significant difference among Catholic women in that statistic.
In other words, the message of the Catholic Church has no greater affect on your own believers than other religious and secular communities have on the rest of the population. You do see the irony that you want to have something to say over the life of non-Catholics when your own members don’t agree with you?
This is my final word on the matter for now - You can continue to wrap yourself in your piety and angry words (and things will continue as they have been) or you can hold on to your fundamental belief regarding the sanctity of life and learn to find common ground with those on the other side with the mutual goal of reducing the number of abortions in the United States.
That is a choice you have to make.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 12, 2004.
Robert,For you that which is revelation and or pradigm is given Truth for Catholics...
You have simply repackaged known Truth added some window dressing and attempted to argue that acknowledment of your repackaged facts (more simply put, man has free will and man sins) equates to failure of something other than man...
-common ground on ground away from God is not a good place to be EVEN if occupied by a majority... Truth stands, man chooses to stand with it or against it -there is no compromise...
-tell me something new...
Daniel////
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), June 13, 2004.
Robert, with your talent at giving hundreds of words of obfuscation when asked a simple question, while totally failing to give any kind of comprehensible answer, you would go far as a politician.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 13, 2004.
Dear Zarove; “Instead we see them orperate in the way they where desigend to operate withon the womans own body (my italics), therefore its no more organ harvestign than me digestign my food, me breahign with my lungs, me usign my heart to pump my blood, or any other function of my own bodyt which it was naturlaly designed to do.”I’m sure it is unintentional, but you are using the same language of the “The woman’s body – woman’s decision” model of the pro-choice side.
{No, I am showing how bizzarre your own line of logic is. You claim pregency is organ harvedsting. its not, since the womans body was designed to weork this way. I was not using the same modle of thought as pro-Choice, I was makign a simpel claim of fact that pregnancy is not identicle to organ ahrvesting.
To date you still havent shown how it is identicle, or even similar.}-Zarove
As for the rest of you fellows, I expected more. At least Zarove was attempting to deal with the paradigm.
{I did more than attempt, I compleyly undermined it by pointign out how stupid it was...}-Zarove
While you may all feel very pleased that you are defending the full truth and natural law, the reality is 1\3 of all women between the ages of 15 and 44 undergo abortion.
{This isnt true. This woudl mean that a full 1/3 of pregnencies woudl end in abortion. Heck, the only stat I can find onlien right nwo said that16-25% end in aboertion, that woudl be 1/4, not1/3. And whats worse, they use the dishonest tactic of adding in miscarriages. Miscarriage isnt the same as an intended abortion.
Here is an interestign statement for you to read.
Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion. 47% of women have had at least one abortion by the time they are 45 years old, and 55% have had a previous birth.
2 our of 100 is not 1/3. 33.33333- is 1/3.
Source.
http://www.miplannedparenthood.org/abortion.htm
So no, 1/3 do not abort. Thats a lie fretz.}-Zarove
And here is a reality check for you – there is no significant difference among Catholic women in that statistic.
{The statistuc you fewd us was a lie though. Liekwise, their are Catholic murderers, Catholic bank robbers, Catholci rapists, and Catholic drig runners. This doesnt make it right, nor does it mean the Cahtolic Churhc as a whole relaly endorses any ot this.
more soriuces for your lie. Since this is a reality check, maybe you can prove your statement that 1/3 of all women will undergo an abortion.
http://www.enter.net/~artistlps/katie/pregnancy.html
Even among teens where abortion rates are highest its not 1/3...}- Zarove
In other words, the message of the Catholic Church has no greater affect on your own believers than other religious and secular communities have on the rest of the population.
{I'm not catholic. even so, who cares. Acocrding to you 1/3 of all women betweenthe ages of 15 and 44 abort, and I suppose acocrding to you most peope supprt legal abortion.
DSadly, neither is true, not in relaity anyway.}-Zarove
You do see the irony that you want to have something to say over the life of non-Catholics when your own members don’t agree with you?
{Who said they dont agree?
http://www.lifeway.com/lwc/article_main_page/0,1703,A%253D153806% 2526M%253D50011,00.html
It really seems since more than 50% pf society agrees that abortion is wrong, and more and more are beginnignto agfree on this, that pro- life may actually not be as inviable as you woudl ahve us beeleive.
Maybe in Fretzland, a small minority are pro-life, and most peopel support legal abortion. But then, in Fretzland, 1/3 of all women undergo abortion. In the real world, most wpopel ar eoppsoed to abortion, most women who abort later regret it and become pro life, and most of the population is pro life.
And again, I am not Catholic, and am Pro life. And again, a lot of religions are pro life in their teahcing. And again, even atheists can be pro life, and often are.}-Zarove
This is my final word on the matter for now - You can continue to wrap yourself in your piety and angry words (and things will continue as they have been)
{Peity and angry words I havent uttered. I have presented facts. You have npot. You claim pregnancy is organ ahrvesting. Its not. You claim that 1/3 of women undergo abortion, this is a lie. HYou seem to think most popel are pro-choice, most peipel are actually pro life.
I really dont see hwo you can claim to use Logic when nothign yoy say has intercourse with relaity.}-Zarove
or you can hold on to your fundamental belief regarding the sanctity of life and learn to find common ground with those on the other side with the mutual goal of reducing the number of abortions in the United States.
{Or, we can support the will of the majortiy of Americans, since the majority are pro-life. We can restore the democratic notion of which this nation was foudned, and stop the immoral murder of defenceless babies.
See fretz, most peopel are agaisnt abortion.Abortion is murder. Murder shoudl not be legal, and thats not a rleigious vlaue, and most peoel agree, and abortion sin as frequent as you pretend it to be.}- Zarove
That is a choice you have to make.
{Why dont you choose tellign the truth/ 1/3 of women do NOT expeirnce abortion. Most peipel are NOT pro choice. Abortion is MURDER and SHOULD be illegal on this ground.}-Zarove
-- ZAR (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 13, 2004.
Indeed, the ABortion rate is goiung down, even on this ourdatesd source, oen finds that your 1/3 statistic is false.http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005099.html
Likewise, the numebr of pei;e who have abortions is irrelevant to wither the morality of abortion or the legaliti of it.
-- ZAR (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 13, 2004.
Robert,As for the rest of you fellows, I expected more
The feeling is mutual. IMO, you never even gave a half-hearted attempt to answer anything anyone asked of you, you just go on having a conversation with yourself.
the reality is 1\3 of all women between the ages of 15 and 44 undergo abortion. And here is a reality check for you – there is no significant difference among Catholic women in that statistic.
I find this hard to believe, I really do. Could you show me the data for this statistic? (as far as 1/3 of all women go) I unfortunately wouldn't be suprised in the latter half of your statement, that Catholics are no different than society. Since the 60's the church has had some troubles in that many of the American religious have tried to be accepted by society, rather than stand in contrast to it, and so there's the situation there is today. It wasn't this way before, and won't be in the future, but the church has been around a LONG time, there are cycles to it, and there will be a reformation of this too. In any event, just because all of Sodom decided their behavior was fine, that didn't make it so. If Americans think murder is morally acceptable, they are still wrong as well.
you can hold on to your fundamental belief regarding the sanctity of life and learn to find common ground with those on the other side with the mutual goal of reducing the number of abortions in the United States.
You apparently think abortion is morally acceptable. Why then do you say we have a common ground in reducing abortions? I haven't heard you once say that YOU believe abortion is *wrong*, so why would I believe you care one way or the other about reducing abortion? If you really believe abortion is immoral and must be stopped, why not at least give ONE straight answer on this forum and say so? OTOH, if you're just blowing smoke and don't care if abortions continue, why not at least have the strength of character to say so?
Frank
-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), June 13, 2004.
Frank;I have stated my religious belief and pastoral response to abortion above. As to the statistics:
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2814096.html
Since several Prolife (including Abortionfacts) organizations cite Guttmacher as a source of reliable information, I have used it as well.
The Guttmacher Institute has reported several statistics regarding Catholic women having abortions, from 27% to this article by Stanley K. Henshaw and Kathryn Kost (1994-95). In it, they cite: "When age is controlled, women who have had a live birth are more likely to have an abortion than are those who have never had children. Catholics are as likely as women in the general population to have an abortion, while Protestants are only 69% as likely and Evangelical or born- again Christians are only 39% as likely."
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 14, 2004.
Yes, and someone who killed before is mor elikely to kill again, same thign here. Murderis murder.Also, you didnt support the 1/3 of all women betweent he ages of 15 and 44 abort thing...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUO.COM), June 14, 2004.
Dear Zarove;This is why I tend not to include you in my responses. You obviously haven’t read the article. If you want to be in an adult conversation plan to do the work.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 14, 2004.
I did read the article. Problem is I supplied three seperate articles for criss inspection. You supplied 1 article. Besides, it isnt exaclty in yourt favour here.Putting me down doesnt chnage the fact that your "paradign" is condomed infantacide.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 14, 2004.
also, your own article didnt say 33.3% ( 1/3) of women between 15 and 44 expeirnce abortion.I did read it...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 14, 2004.
Zarove;Try this:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/sfaa/new_york.html
"National Background and Context
Abortion is a common experience: At current rates, about one in three American women will have had an abortion by the time she reaches age 45. Moreover, a broad cross section of U.S. women have abortions. 56% of women having abortions are in their 20s; 61% have one or more children; 67% have never married; 57% are economically disadvantaged; 88% live in a metropolitan area; and 78% report a religious affiliation. No racial or ethnic group makes up a majority: 41% of women obtaining abortions are white non-Hispanic, 32% are black non- Hispanic, 20% are Hispanic and 7% are of other racial backgrounds."
Is that clear enough?
-- Robert Fretz (Pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 14, 2004.
Srill wasnt on your origoonal article. Thus making the crack about adult conversatiosn was uncalled for, and as a pastor you ought have known better.Also, most stats I know of the number hovers around 20 % to 10%.
the new article says 1 in 3, this does nto mean that I shoidl beleive 1/3rd actually have an abortion, on the basis of an artiucle here, which doesnt represent the majority of articles one can find.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 14, 2004.
Robert, I have tried to reduce your tortured reasoning into simple English. This seems to be your argument:Most abortions are committed when the fetus is 12 to 15 weeks old. Therefore if a mother chooses to let the fetus live past this age, she has entered and implied contract with the fetus to carry it to full term and raise it to adulthood. Therefore once the mother has allowed the fetus to live past 15 weeks, to abort it would be wrong because it would break her “contract”. However if a mother aborts her fetus at the stage when most abortions occur, then that is not wrong because she has not entered a “contract”.
In other words, if she aborts at the usual time, that fact in itself shows that abortion of her fetus is OK. If she chooses not to abort at the usual time, then that fact in itself shows that to abort in her case is not OK.
This is called “arguing in a circle”. It proves nothing, but is merely a way of avoiding the issue.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), June 14, 2004.
Zarove;I do not need to vet the AGI. As for the second article, I included it for its simplicity.
Good night.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 14, 2004.
Steve,That is a fair but incomplete summary. It is not circular because of the initial premise. Please remember it is a construct based on the consistent ethical standard regarding a person’s consent and obligation to her child (before and after birth) when it involves one’s body (function and organs) and the personhood (rights) of the fetus - giving both mother and child equity.
I am an optimist. If both sides had some common ethical and legal language beyond “murderers” and “religious fascist terrorists” I believe more could be accomplished to reduce the perceived need for abortion.
-- Robert Fretz (pastorfretz@oldstonechurchonline.org), June 15, 2004.
Wxcept you are asking peopel to compromise on a moral issue. Abortion IS Murder, and we CAN'T call anyhtign a contracty or jiustufy it in any way, lest we dcondon murder.I really don't see how your line of reasoning really does anyhtign but ask us to stop clalign it murder and allow it under certain coditions.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), June 15, 2004.
In the VERY RARE case (though pro-abortionists talk as if it happens all the time) where it becomes necessary to let one of the mother and baby die so the other may live, the younger person has the greater right to life, having a greater presumed lifetime ahead of him/her.Steve,
Can you refer me to authentic teaching on this 'younger person' right to life thing you espouse?
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 28, 2004.
There is no medical condition whereby abortion (as opposed to c- section delivery) is needed to "save the life of the mother". Not in our modern technologically advanced nation where 20 week old babies can be born at 1lb weight and still survive.
-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 28, 2004.
incorrect, joe, a baby which roots in the fallopian tube will both die and kill the mother. that is the one case where, in my mind, taking a medicine which, as a side effect, may kill the baby, is morally permissable.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 28, 2004.
Danny boy, apparently if you were on a sinking ship you would elbow past the women and children to get into a lifeboat and save your own life. You don't need an officially proclaimed Church doctrine (though I'm sure there are many)to tell you that's wrong.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 28, 2004.
There are two fairly common medical conditions where the life of an unborn child may morally be sacrificed to save the life of the mother. The first is ectopic pregnancy, mentioned by paul h above. In this case the ONLY moral course of action is to remove the fetus, because the fetus has zero change of survival with or without the surgery, and the mother's life is in grave danger if the fetus is not removed. The other common scenario is uterine cancer. In this the unborn child may not be in direct danger, and may be born healthy if the mother chooses to carry the child to term. However, such a delay in cancer treatment poses a serious risk to the life of the mother, increasing the chances that the cancer will spread to other parts of her body. In such cases the mother may choose immediate surgery, even though the unborn child will die as a direct but unwilled and unavoidable consequence of the surgery. This would be a completely moral decision. No person is morally bound to place his/her own life in grave danger for the benefit of any other person. Some mothers make the heroic free decision to delay their cancer treatment and carry the baby to term. Sometimes there is a happy ending, with mother and baby both coming through healthy. Other times such a decision gives the gift of life to the child at the cost of the mother's life.
-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), December 28, 2004.
actually, steve, he's right. in cases like those it is entirely up to the mother as to whether or not she wishes to expend her life giving birth to her child. In no case is an active abortion acceptable, but a passive abortion (one in which the mother takes medicine, but the SIDE EFFECT is the loss of the baby's life) is a different story altogether. we are not required to give up our lives for another, though the church commends those who do. in fact, when i was in rome, they cannonized a saint for giving her life so that her baby might live.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 28, 2004.
Paul and Paul, I was not suggesting that anyone is ever REQUIRED to give up his life for another. All I said was that the younger person has, if anything, a greater “right” to life than the older person, in the extremely rare case where a choice must be made (by a third person) between one life or the other. (This is morally different from the cases which you two have mentioned, where we are dealing only with the CHANCE that one of them will die.)
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 28, 2004.
"..Danny boy, apparently if you were on a sinking ship you would elbow past the women and children to get into a lifeboat and save your own life."Steve are sure you arn't drinking some of that methadone you hand out to junkies for a living?
Its' wrong in "little Stevies world" to accupuncture, but its ok to let someone get high on methadone???
-- - (David@excite.com), December 28, 2004.
David, I’ll just assume for a moment that you seriously believe what you said. Oral methadone given for treatment of drug addiction gives a person little or no “high”, but is given to reduce the addict’s craving for heroin and other drugs. Unlike acupuncture, it has been proven to be effective. Perhaps instead of me giving the addicts methadone you would rather they kept burgling houses (like yours?) so they can buy heroin? The Holy See has praised health workers treating drug addiction. I’m sorry you disagree. And I don’t “hand methadone to junkies for a living”; my salary is paid by the State, regardless of what I do or don’t hand out. Oh and it’s not necessarily morally “wrong” to use acupuncture, just ignorant and wasteful.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 28, 2004.
Accupuncture isnt inorant and wasteful, it is a proven trearment. Heck, my doctors after I wa sshot recocmended it as aprt of my treatment, and I went form a wheelchair to a walker t a cane in less than three months...
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 28, 2004.
"Oral methadone given for treatment of drug addiction gives a person little or no “high”.."Thats why its sold on the drug corners because it" gives little or no high"? LOL The junkies have you fooled Stevie boy.
"Unlike acupuncture, it has been proven to be effective. Perhaps instead of me giving the addicts methadone you would rather they kept burgling houses (like yours?) .."
Oh I see, agree to get them high, or be threatened with burglary?
Stevie boy will hand you a fix of methadone(and get a paycheck for it)- but how dare you get acupuncture?
-- - (David@excite.com), December 29, 2004.
Steve, I still await this profound teaching. Can you refer me to authentic teaching on this 'younger person' right to life thing you espouse?Producing nothing may suggest you have your foot in your mouth again. Maybe you can correct yourself if needed?
-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 29, 2004.
LOL! Danny boy, the fact that as far as you know you haven’t read a Church document specifically endorsing something, does NOT mean that the Church says it is wrong. You seem to have both feet in your mouth up to the knees.Zarove, read the “Should I take medicine?” thread. Acupuncture is NOT a proven treatment. Even if it was the ONLY treatment you received, (rather than “part of” a range of treatments including effective ones) that would not prove that it worked. Main reasons: a totally non objective sample, sample size far too small (one), no control group. Unfortunately some genuine doctors quack acupuncture, but this fact does not mean that acupuncture is proven medicine. I'm sorry to hear you got shot, and surprised it didn't make you move back to England.
Davey boy, may I ask what are your qualifications in pharmacology that you consider yourself an expert on the pharmacology of methadone? If the “junkies” have me “fooled”, they have also fooled just about every government in the world, who implement methadone programs because they are the proven most effective treatment yet found for opiate addiction. And before you start foaming at the mouth again about “liberals”, I better inform you that the methadone programs in the US were introduced by your old buddy Richard M Nixon.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 29, 2004.
Do you relaly think my insurance company woidl cover it bsed on it beign quackery? medical testign hasbeen dome om acucpuncture...Its ahrdly a base sample of one.
-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), December 29, 2004.
Zarove, yes unfortunately there are many cases of insurance companies covering quackery. Insurance companies sell the products which the public demands. They are governed by commercial considerations, not medical or scientific ones. And when you adduce as your sole evidence ”I used acupuncture and now I’m cured”, yes that is a sample of one, and a subjective and "post hoc" one at that. Yes many medical tests have been done on acupuncture, but none of them has managed to prove that acupuncture cures anything.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 29, 2004.
All I said was that the younger person has, if anything, a greater “right” to life than the older person, in the extremely rare case where a choice must be made (by a third person) between one life or the otherno one has a right to life above any other, steve, nor is there any man qualified to judge a person's right to life. the death penalty exists solely as a protectorate of society and others, not a statement of mans right to judge the value of life. there is no case in which a doctor can or even should be able to determine the relative values of the lives involved... they are all infinitely priceless.
-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), December 29, 2004.
Correct Paul, but I was talking about the extremely rare case where someone (usually a doctor) has only the alternatives “do something which will kill A but save B”, “do something which will kill B but save A” or “do nothing and both will die”. A and B both have the same INHERENT right to life, but where one is far younger the inevitable choice should be made in his/her favor, especially where he/she is the very epitome of innocence, an unborn child.
-- Steve (55555@aol.com), December 29, 2004.