• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pope to US Speaker Pelosi: Reject abortion support

Good times to be had throwing stones till the Bishops started visiting local parishes, walking the pews, and attempting to find out who is having premarital sex, who is on birth control, who got divorced, who is gay, who masturbated last night, who had an abortion, etc. Pretty soon there's no congregation left. Problem solved.

As a Eucharistic Minister (or Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion if you prefer) I have always been taught that I may not deny Communion to anyone that comes forward and requests it. Even if for example, I know they are of a different religion. The only person that can do that is the Priest and then only at the direction of the Bishop. The decision whether to take Communion or not is generally left to the discretion of the Communicant. Each person should examine their conscience prior to mass and honestly consider what sins lie in their hearts and upon their souls.
 
And you expected me to be ..... dishonest?
Well...
based on your words embolded here;

You ignore the wonderful things the Catholic Church has done for nearly two thousand years as well as the fact that if everyone lived by the teachings of the Faith, there would be far fewer problems in the world than there are now.
and even though I disagree with this statement as a whole it seemed as though you would have replied differently.
So your honesty of including other faiths was refreshing.




I am not sure as I have not encountered any. I have been able to work together with in mutual respect faithful members of MANY faiths. Of course, I look at it from the perspective of a Catholic and while I may not agree with the religious faith of others, I respect them so long as they respect mine.
So be it.
I wish it worked this way in real life as a whole, but the tenets of some faiths do not allow the existence of other faiths on an equal basis.


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

As far as I am concerned, most who are anti-choice, have come to this based on beliefs that if are not straight from, then rooted in the religious teachings.
Not at all unacceptable, but ...
(keep in mind that we are talking about the Catholicism and abortion.)
When it comes to voting, it is in sense, forcing one view point on others that do not agree.
Nothing in those religious teachings say you should force people to abide by what the church teaches if they do not believe, does it?
If a person's faith says they can impose/force it's values/beliefs upon others that don't believe, fine. Vote to your hearts out to try and make abortion illegal.
But I do not think catholicism advocates this.

If it doesn't, or if it specifically forbids forcing others to follow the beliefs of your faith, then voting to force others to follow what your beliefs are is wrong. The person should stay out of it and let others do as they choose.
It is up to G_d to judge.
I also believe that G_d will harshly judge those who try to impose/force their own religious values/beliefs on others, even if by voting.
 
Well...
based on your words embolded here;


and even though I disagree with this statement as a whole it seemed as though you would have replied differently.
So your honesty of including other faiths was refreshing.

I think I have a history on these boards of being open-minded toward those with different beliefs (including religious) than my own.

So be it.
I wish it worked this way in real life as a whole, but the tenets of some faiths do not allow the existence of other faiths on an equal basis.


PErhaps, but I Can't speak for those faiths. I can only speak from the point of Catholicism as I have been taught it and from my study of the Faith. Popes for quite some time have taught that Catholics should work with members of other faiths in areas where our beliefs and goals converge. There is no contradition between Christianity and working with others for the common good.


As far as I am concerned, most who are anti-choice, have come to this based on beliefs that if are not straight from, then rooted in the religious teachings.

If you are referring to abortion, it isn't a matter of being "anti-choice" or "pro-death", it is a matter that for many people of DIFFERENT faiths, abortion is the murder of an unborn child.

Not at all unacceptable, but ...
(keep in mind that we are talking about the Catholicism and abortion.)
When it comes to voting, it is in sense, forcing one view point on others that do not agree.

Keep in mind that not only Catholicism believes abortion of murder. Any law is a moral imposition on others. We have laws against murder, rape, and many other things? Are those moral impositions? Of course they are, but there is near universal agreement on those. What makes abortion different? More people think it is a "right" but a religious person (of many different faiths) would have to ask where one gets a "right" to murder an unborn child. This isn't Catholicism vs. other faiths, this is a matter of many faiths vs. those who don't have a religious faith.

Nothing in those religious teachings say you should force people to abide by what the church teaches if they do not believe, does it?

However, we do have an obligation to do what we can to protect innocent human life.

If a person's faith says they can impose/force it's values/beliefs upon others that don't believe, fine. Vote to your hearts out to try and make abortion illegal.

It isn't a matter of imposing our faith, it is a matter or protecting a human life.

But I do not think catholicism advocates this.

It does in cases of human life and its sanctity.

If it doesn't, or if it specifically forbids forcing others to follow the beliefs of your faith, then voting to force others to follow what your beliefs are is wrong. The person should stay out of it and let others do as they choose.

We are not to force our faith on others, but on the other hand, we are talking about the protection of innocent human life.

It is up to G_d to judge.
I also believe that G_d will harshly judge those who try to impose/force their own religious values/beliefs on others, even if by voting.

In general, I believe this is a valid point. However, it is those who advocate the murder of innocent, defenseless human beings who are going to be judged. However, remember that we all fall short of the glory of God and we all need to be brought to repetance.
 
PErhaps, but I Can't speak for those faiths. I can only speak from the point of Catholicism as I have been taught it and from my study of the Faith.
When they are clear and unambiguous, you most definitely can comment on the tenets of another faith.

Btw, just so you know, when I read the underlined portion above, I read arrogance. As opposed to perhaps, 'my Faith' or 'the faith'.
Not that you are trying to convey such, only that is what I read.
Granted, it would come across as being more arrogant if you used 'The Faith', but as used, I still read arrogance.




Popes for quite some time have taught that Catholics should work with members of other faiths in areas where our beliefs and goals converge. There is no contradition between Christianity and working with others for the common good.
I disagree.
The common good you are speaking of is rooted in faith and not necessarily what is "common good".
If it were proven that abortion affords this country more "common good" than the outlawing of abortion, then there would be a clear contradiction in stated position.




If you are referring to abortion, it isn't a matter of being "anti-choice" or "pro-death", it is a matter that for many people of DIFFERENT faiths, abortion is the murder of an unborn child.
Only through misinterpretation of the Bible.



Keep in mind that not only Catholicism believes abortion of murder. Any law is a moral imposition on others. We have laws against murder, rape, and many other things? Are those moral impositions? Of course they are, but there is near universal agreement on those. What makes abortion different? More people think it is a "right" but a religious person (of many different faiths) would have to ask where one gets a "right" to murder an unborn child. This isn't Catholicism vs. other faiths, this is a matter of many faiths vs. those who don't have a religious faith.
No, it is not.
It is a difference of opinion of which religion should stay out of.




However, we do have an obligation to do what we can to protect innocent human life.
Only through misinterpretation of the Bible can this argument be used against abortion.


It isn't a matter of imposing our faith, it is a matter or protecting a human life.
It is a matter of imposing your faith/beliefs, a faith and belief, regarding abortion that is based on misinterpretations of the Bible.


It does in cases of human life and its sanctity.
Only through misinterpretation of the Bible can this argument be used against abortion.


We are not to force our faith on others, but on the other hand, we are talking about the protection of innocent human life.
You are not supposed to, but that is exactly what you are doing and are using misinterpretations of the Bible to support this view.



In general, I believe this is a valid point. However, it is those who advocate the murder of innocent, defenseless human beings who are going to be judged. However, remember that we all fall short of the glory of God and we all need to be brought to repetance.
No!
If there is any judging going on after death, both will be judged.
In regards to abortion, since the Bible clearly indicates that it isn't murder as you are advocating, those forcing their beliefs on others, even by voting for what they believe is the "common good", would be judged more harshly.




... it is those who advocate the murder of innocent, defenseless human beings who are going to be judged.
Yep, like Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and those involved in *911.

* That is if Allah is the one and same G_d and really doesn't advocate what they did.
 
If she claims to be Catholic, what is she doing in a Gay Pride parade?

She was probably there at the invitation of her priest.

Lookit people, there's two things going on here.

Pelosi was elected by a constituency that thinks it's okay to murder babies.

Pelosi has chosen to be a member of a church that says it's not okay to murder babies.

Pelosi has the freedom to support either position.

The people that elect her have the freedom to support her based on her positions.

The Church has the freedom to say "Nancy, you voted to kill more babies. We can't grant you communion or penance for that sin until you've repented from that sin. Nor do we consider you a member of our congregation until such repentance has been shown. Please leave."

That last part is the one that gives the people that want the babies murdered so much trouble. They've no qualms against babbling incessanly and insanely about a woman's "body", a woman's "choice", even though it's the baby's body being murdered, and the baby's got no choice....but let a little church impose some rules and expect the people who want to be in that church to conform, and suddenly these people are all over the place screaming about "separation of church and state" and other things they can't understand.

The state can't impose on the church. The "wall of separation" is clearly a one-way mirror, because the church has the freedom to tell it's miscreants to behave, no matter who they are.

The church should publicly ex-communicate all pro-abortion politicians (and priests and nuns).

If Nancy can't obey the orders of the Catholic church, she's not a catholic. That's not hard to understand, is it?

I mean, let's put it a different way. Say Nancy joined a soccer team. But she insisted on catching the ball with her hands and throwing it, but she's not the goalie. How many of you people complaining about the church would demand she be kept on that soccer team? Hmmmm?
 
Last edited:
Pelosi was elected by a constituency that thinks it's okay to murder babies.
No.
A more accurate description would be: She was elected by a constituency with a majority that believes abortion is ok and isn't murder.




That last part is the one that gives the people that want the babies murdered so much trouble. They've no qualms against babbling incessanly and insanely about a woman's "body", a woman's "choice", even though it's the baby's body being murdered, and the baby's got no choice....but let a little church impose some rules and expect the people who want to be in that church to conform, and suddenly these people are all over the place screaming about "separation of church and state" and other things they can't understand.
Wow!
The only uproar is in the Catholic Church trying to usurp control of an elected official over that of it's constituency.
If you don't have a problem with that, then something is seriously wrong.




If Nancy can't obey the orders of the Catholic church, she's not a catholic. That's not hard to understand, is it?

Not at all hard to understand.
Yet I do not believe the Church has any authority even within it's own church to declare abortion wrong/murder, or anything else other than how the Bible regards an unborn. Doing so is an abuse of power.




I mean, let's put it a different way. Say Nancy joined a soccer team. But she insisted on catching the ball with her hands and throwing it, but she's not the goalie. How many of you people complaining about the church would demand she be kept on that soccer team? Hmmmm?
Hmmmm, is right.
An analogy that has no bearing on said subject.
 
No.
A more accurate description would be: She was elected by a constituency with a majority that believes abortion is ok and isn't murder.

The MOST accurate description of people that can vote for Pelosi isn't allowed on this board.

An accurate description of their belief about abortion is that they're wrong.

They voted for Pelosi, so it can't come as a surprise.

Do you think it's just dandy for a woman to murder her baby?

I don't.

That's because I'm not wrong.

Wow!
The only uproar is in the Catholic Church trying to usurp control of an elected official over that of it's constituency.
If you don't have a problem with that, then something is seriously wrong.

I have no problem with that.

Religion is bunk.

If Pelosi really really is a Catholic, then she has to ACT like one. Jesus didn't like the Hypocrites, the people who prayed most piously in public.

I don't like hypocrites either. Catholicism teaches not only that abortion is murder, but that every sperm is sacred and that birth control is reprehensible therefore. Since Pelosi doesn't have 17 kids, as my grandmother did, she's either a lesbian...and thus not a catholic, she's cutting her husband off, and thus not a catholic, or she practiced some form of contraceptive birth control or other forms of sex that don't run the risk of sperm meeting egg, and thus not catholic, or she's sterile or very infertile.

The chances of that latter are fairly slim.

Given her public behaviors, Nancy's just a hypocrite.

Fits.

She's a Democrat.

But ALL politicians have to make a choice between what their faith is, and what their political interests are. If the two don't lay on the same path, they shouldn't claim to be a member of a religion when they don't obey the religion.

That's not difficult, is it?

I don't hold that Mohammed is Allah's profit, so I don't claim to be a muslim.

Pelosi doesn't hold to the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope...why should her claims to be a catholic be accepted?


Not at all hard to understand.


No. Not hard to understand at all.

If she walks instead of dribbling, she's off the basketball team.


Yet I do not believe the Church has any authority even within it's own church to declare abortion wrong/murder, or anything else other than how the Bible regards an unborn. Doing so is an abuse of power.

OF COURSE the Church has the authority to define it's moral boundaries for it's members....it's what the church exists to do.

"Abuse of power"? That's funny. The Church will claim to draw it's power from God, and who are you to say otherwise? It's not a political body, you know.

(That there isn't any god isn't relevant to this discussion, I'm discussing the viewpoint of the church.)

Hmmmm, is right.
An analogy that has no bearing on said subject.

Oh it CAN'T POSSIBLY have any bearing.

Because it's precise, it fits, and you can't refute it.

So naturally you have to say it's imprecise and inapplicable.
 
Last edited:
That's because I'm not wrong.
No.
You are wrong because you are stating an opinion that has no factual basis (without caveats) as fact.
It is not murder in our society.




But ALL politicians have to make a choice between what their faith is, and what their political interests are. If the two don't lay on the same path, they shouldn't claim to be a member of a religion when they don't obey the religion.
The Church in this regards should make exceptions because it would be foolish of them to try and force their viewpoint, through a member of their Church, on a voting public who hold an opposite view. That is just wrong.
As far as I am concerned a Catholic who intends to disregard their constituency and vote on issues based on their catholic beliefs, need not run for, or hold, any public office, unless elected on that platform.




Pelosi doesn't hold to the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope...why should her claims to be a catholic be accepted?
Please show me where the Bible says the Pope is infallible.



"Abuse of power"? That's funny. The Church will claim to draw it's power from God, and who are you to say otherwise?
Not at all funny.
The Catholic church is making up rules that the Bible doesn't support.
Can they do it? Sure they can. Is it right? Nope! Not one bit.
That is an abuse of power.




It's not a political body, you know.
Not a democratic one, but in it's own right, it is.



Oh it CAN'T POSSIBLY have any bearing.

Because it's precise, it fits, and you can't refute it.

So naturally you have to say it's imprecise and inapplicable.
I said it isn't, because it isn't.
To equate a sporting team in a sporting event where the outcome of a players conduct of not following the rules and greatly effects the outcome of who wins or looses is "imprecise and inapplicable".
This isn't a game or a sporting event, is it?
The fans didn't elect the player to represent them, did they?
What Pelosi does or doesn't doas an elected official doesn't equate in a win or a loss like it does in a sporting event, does it?
Yes, your analogy/comparison has no bearing on said subject.

But hey, since you used it the sporting team analogy - most players are not kicked of the team for not following the rules. Get the drift why your analogy doesn't have any bearing?


Hey, it's not like I don't understand what you are trying to convey... rules are rules.
 
Pelosi can choose NOT to be Catholic if it cramps her political style.:cool:

Ahhhh...but it doesn't. She likes the "uninformed Catholic voter" who sees her photo-op at the cathedral and thinks ..."oh...she's one of us!" :moodytwits.
 
Please show me where the Bible says the Pope is infallible.
It's IRRELEVANT. The Catholic Church holds it to be true and she claims to be Catholic but basically tells the pope to stuff-it. She claims to be Catholic, but repeatedly demonstrates she doesn't believe what the Catholic religion teaches.
 
Last edited:
But hey, since you used it the sporting team analogy - most players are not kicked of the team for not following the rules.

No--they get kicked off for not listening to the coach.:cool:
 
As somebody who opposes Catholicism I would love to pick on Felicity and play on her difference from Pelosi and both of them claiming to be Catholics. But then I would fall into my own trap. If Pelosi is a Catholic; and Wright and Obama are Christians, - then who is Felicity and who am I?


That’s why I have to stick side by side with my enemy Felicity. If she looses, then I loose. I wish she would be able to stand by me in the same way…


YouTube - John Lennon stand by me
 
It's IRRELEVANT. The Catholic Church holds it to be true and she claims to be Catholic but basically tells the pope to stuff-it. She claims to be Catholic, but repeatedly demonstrates she doesn't believe what the Catholic religion teaches.
If it is irrelevant (and there is no need to scream), then there was no reason to mention it in the first place.
But since it was, then we all know that the Bible says no such thing.

Imho, for any religion that is based on the Bible to advocate something the Bible doesn't say, is, well, ridiculous.
It also speaks volumes to me as to the accuracy of any claim of being the one true faith, let alone an accurate faith in the message the Bible conveys.



No--they get kicked off for not listening to the coach.
Seldomly, if at all, especially for one infraction.
Which further illustrates the point that it was a bad analogy/comparison.
 
(and there is no need to scream),
:rofl THAT'S funny coming from a guy who makes other posters have to do extra formatting to reply to his posts because he's such a "coolguy.":rofl

But you'd been told repeatedly, and will be again...


If it is irrelevant then there was no reason to mention it in the first place.
But since it was, then we all know that the Bible says no such thing.[/quote] That doesn't even make sense. :confused:

Imho, for any religion that is based on the Bible to advocate something the Bible doesn't say, is, well, ridiculous.
If you do hold the Bible as an authority, upon what authority do you consider the books of the Bible to be the word of God, rather than the myriad other "gospel" texts with historical significance?

Further--there is Biblical evidence of an authoritative hierarchical Church protected by the Holy Spirit. I'd be happy to supply that for you, but it's actually not relevant to the speaker's current stupidity.


It also speaks volumes to me as to the accuracy of any claim of being the one true faith, let alone an accurate faith in the message the Bible conveys.

Hey, coolguy...why not "the Gospel of Thomas" hmmmmmm?:doh


Seldomly, if at all, especially for one infraction.
Which further illustrates the point that it was a bad analogy/comparison.

Speaker Pelosi has not been excommunicated by the Vatican....yet;).
 
When they are clear and unambiguous, you most definitely can comment on the tenets of another faith.

Btw, just so you know, when I read the underlined portion above, I read arrogance. As opposed to perhaps, 'my Faith' or 'the faith'.
Not that you are trying to convey such, only that is what I read.
Granted, it would come across as being more arrogant if you used 'The Faith', but as used, I still read arrogance.

I can't be blamed for what you read. "The Faith" in my quote was a clear reference to Catholicism. That you read anything other than that indicated that it is YOU with the problem, not me.

I disagree.
The common good you are speaking of is rooted in faith and not necessarily what is "common good".
If it were proven that abortion affords this country more "common good" than the outlawing of abortion, then there would be a clear contradiction in stated position.

The promotion of a culture of death is NOT a "common good." Besides, in the realm of social science, so not use the word "prove" as there is very little that can indeed be proven in a scientific sense. The proper terminology is "show."

Only through misinterpretation of the Bible.

You say this on several occasions in your post. Please make a point, or do you simply say this with no evidence to support it?

No, it is not.
It is a difference of opinion of which religion should stay out of.

People have religious faith and those values are shaped by that faith. However, we are talking about the ending of a human life. We have an obligation as a society and as members of that society to put a stop to it.

Only through misinterpretation of the Bible can this argument be used against abortion.

Again, show us - don't just make such a statement.

It is a matter of imposing your faith/beliefs, a faith and belief, regarding abortion that is based on misinterpretations of the Bible.

ALL laws are a measure of the values of the society that are being imposed on some people who do not accept those beliefs. There is a small number of people who believe it is ok to kill other people, but the values of the majority of members of society imposes a prohibition on such activities. ALL laws involve such values.

Only through misinterpretation of the Bible can this argument be used against abortion.

You are sounding like a broken record.

You are not supposed to, but that is exactly what you are doing and are using misinterpretations of the Bible to support this view.

Broken record with no citation.

No!
If there is any judging going on after death, both will be judged.
In regards to abortion, since the Bible clearly indicates that it isn't murder as you are advocating, those forcing their beliefs on others, even by voting for what they believe is the "common good", would be judged more harshly.


All of us will be judged. However, those who accept Jesus as their personal Savior will be saved.

Yep, like Timothy McVeigh, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold and those involved in *911.

* That is if Allah is the one and same G_d and really doesn't advocate what they did.
[/QUOTE]

They, along with many others - including those who perform and enable abortions.
 
If Nancy can't obey the orders of the Catholic church, she's not a catholic. That's not hard to understand, is it?

This is the only part of your post I don't agree with. Once baptized a Catholic, always a Catholic - even if not confirmed or excommunicated. At least this is what I have been taught about the position of the Church regarding on who is a Catholic.
 
Imho, for any religion that is based on the Bible to advocate something the Bible doesn't say, is, well, ridiculous.
It also speaks volumes to me as to the accuracy of any claim of being the one true faith, let alone an accurate faith in the message the Bible conveys.[/I][/FONT][/SIZE]

Unlike some Protestant sects, the Catholic Church realizes that you can't LIMIT the story of God to a book, which is by definition limited, and knows that the story of Salvation did not end in the first century A.D.
 
This is the only part of your post I don't agree with. Once baptized a Catholic, always a Catholic - even if not confirmed or excommunicated. At least this is what I have been taught about the position of the Church regarding on who is a Catholic.

One can publically renounce his/her Catholicism, and another occassion is excommunication latae sententiae:

CCC

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
 
One can publically renounce his/her Catholicism, and another occassion is excommunication latae sententiae:

CCC

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.

Cooperation of Adultery is also against the church's teachings, so if Catholics don't fight to make adultery illegal, they should all be excommunicated right?
 
Cooperation of Adultery is also against the church's teachings, so if Catholics don't fight to make adultery illegal, they should all be excommunicated right?

What? That doesn't even make sense.:roll: Something being a sin doesn't make it something that would incur excommunication--everyone is a sinner. Ms. Pelosi formally cooperates with abortion by her public words and deeds.

The Church also recognizes a difference in degree when it comes to moral wrongs. Killing children...that's a big no-no.;)
 
What? That doesn't even make sense.:roll: Something being a sin doesn't make it something that would incur excommunication--everyone is a sinner. Ms. Pelosi formally cooperates with abortion by her public words and deeds.

The Church also recognizes a difference in degree when it comes to moral wrongs. Killing children...that's a big no-no.;)

Cooperation of a sin, is against church teaches. By allowing adultery to be legal, any Catholic that does not fight it is cooperating with it.

A sin is a sin.
 
Cooperation of a sin, is against church teaches. By allowing adultery to be legal, any Catholic that does not fight it is cooperating with it.
Committing adultery would be sin. Aiding your BFF to commit adultury would be a sin. Promoting adultery would be a sin.

A sin is a sin.
Sin is NOT sin. All sins are not equal. See 1 John 5: 16-18.
 
That doesn't even make sense. :confused:
Sorry you are confused.
Pelosi isn't following the rules so to say, and as the Bible is the rule book so to say, then the Church isn't following it either, but makes up rules as it deems fit. Hypocrisy.



If you do hold the Bible as an authority, upon what authority do you consider the books of the Bible to be the word of God, rather than the myriad other "gospel" texts with historical significance?
Why don't you tell me.


Further--there is Biblical evidence of an authoritative hierarchical Church protected by the Holy Spirit. I'd be happy to supply that for you, but it's actually not relevant to the speaker's current stupidity.
Please, supply away.


Hey, coolguy...why not "the Gospel of Thomas" hmmmmmm?:doh
You tell me.


Speaker Pelosi has not been excommunicated by the Vatican....yet;).
Which just further shows why it was a bad analogy.


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I can't be blamed for what you read. "The Faith" in my quote was a clear reference to Catholicism. That you read anything other than that indicated that it is YOU with the problem, not me.
I thought as much.
It is arrogant.
Sorry you can't see that.



The promotion of a culture of death is NOT a "common good."
You choose to call it a culture of death. That is nothing more than opinion. A biased one at that.
And not at all accurate.
But like said, if it could be proven that abortion was better for society, etc...



People have religious faith and those values are shaped by that faith. However, we are talking about the ending of a human life. We have an obligation as a society and as members of that society to put a stop to it.
We are speaking about abortion, so no, you do not. Especially not when you are supporting a religious view over that of the free will of the people and the exercise thereof.

If there comes a time when the planet is over populated for the amount of resources, the obligation as a society and as members of that society will be to limit said births. Forced abortion would be used as a tool to keep the birth rate where it was deemed necessary.

The only time one could use 'obligation' and 'common good' in regards to outlawing abortion, is if there is a need to increase the population.
We have no such need.



ALL laws are a measure of the values of the society that are being imposed on some people who do not accept those beliefs. There is a small number of people who believe it is ok to kill other people, but the values of the majority of members of society imposes a prohibition on such activities. ALL laws involve such values.
I agree.
Yet since this discussion is, in as much, about the act of abortion, it isn't an act of killing other people.



All of us will be judged. However, those who accept Jesus as their personal Savior will be saved.
Nothing more than an unsupportable belief.


- including those who perform and enable abortions.
An unsupportable position.


Unlike some Protestant sects, the Catholic Church realizes that you can't LIMIT the story of God to a book, which is by definition limited, and knows that the story of Salvation did not end in the first century A.D.
Yeah, they made it up. Understood.
Like I said: "... for any religion that is based on the Bible to advocate something the Bible doesn't say, is, well, ridiculous."



You say this on several occasions in your post. Please make a point, or do you simply say this with no evidence to support it?
and
Again, show us - don't just make such a statement.
and
You are sounding like a broken record.
and
Broken record with no citation.
It is common knowledge that the Bible contradictory and has been, not only mistranslated but misinterpreted.
Why would I need to cite what is common knowledge?


Or perhaps are you saying that you do not know what the Bible says regarding a fetus or what it says regarding when life begins?

If so, here.
You should already know that the Bible considers life at breath.

What the Bible says regarding a fetus.
Exodus 21:22-25
22 If men quarrel, and one strike a woman with child, and she miscarry indeed, but live herself: he shall be answerable for so much damage as the woman's husband shall require, and as arbiters shall award. 23 But if her death ensue thereupon, he shall render life for life. 24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
That is pretty clear and unequivocal.
A fetus is not treated as life and therefore none of your business if a woman choose to have one.
 
Committing adultery would be sin. Aiding your BFF to commit adultury would be a sin. Promoting adultery would be a sin.

By not making adultery illegal, you are cooperating with that sin. THAT is against church teachings. No way out of that one.
 
Back
Top Bottom