Monday, August 25, 2008
|
|
Statement of Bishops Chaput and Conley On Speaker Pelosi's Abortion Whopper
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
5:20 PM
|
|
Bravo to the two senior Catholics in Denver. Now if Speaker Pelosi's bishop in San Francisco was just as blunt, the damage done by the Speaker's deception on Meet The Press yesterday would be minimized. For a complete account of what Archbishop Chaput --and the Roman Catholic Church-- believes, read his brand new book, Render Unto Caesar. The full text of today's statement:
ON THE SEPARATION OF SENSE AND STATE
A CLARIFICATION FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE CHURCH
IN NORTHERN COLORADO
To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:
Catholic public leaders inconvenienced by the abortion debate tend to take a hard line in talking about the "separation of Church and state." But their idea of separation often seems to work one way. In fact, some officials also seem comfortable in the role of theologian. And that warrants some interest, not as a "political" issue, but as a matter of accuracy and justice.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is a gifted public servant of strong convictions and many professional skills. Regrettably, knowledge of Catholic history and teaching does not seem to be one of them.
Interviewed on Meet the Press August 24, Speaker Pelosi was asked when human life begins. She said the following:
"I would say that as an ardent, practicing Catholic, this is an issue that I have studied for a long time.And what I know is over the centuries, the doctors of the church have not been able to make that definition. . . St. Augustine said at three months. We don't know. The point is, is that it shouldn't have an impact on the woman's right to choose."
Since Speaker Pelosi has, in her words, studied the issue "for a long time," she must know very well one of the premier works on the subject, Jesuit John Connery's Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective (Loyola, 1977). Here's how Connery concludes his study:
"The Christian tradition from the earliest days reveals a firm antiabortion attitude . . . The condemnation of abortion did not depend on and was not limited in any way by theories regarding the time of fetal animation. Even during the many centuries when Church penal and penitential practice was based on the theory of delayed animation, the condemnation of abortion was never affected by it. Whatever one would want to hold about the time of animation, or when the fetus became a human being in the strict sense of the term, abortion from the time of conception was considered wrong, and the time of animation was never looked on as a moral dividing line between permissible and impermissible abortion."
Or to put it in the blunter words of the great Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
"Destruction of the embryo in the mother's womb is a violation of the right to live which God has
bestowed on this nascent life. To raise the question whether we are here concerned already with a human being or not is merely to confuse the issue. The simple fact is that God certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deliberately deprived of his life. And that is nothing but murder."
Ardent, practicing Catholics will quickly learn from the historical record that from apostolic times, the Christian tradition overwhelmingly held that abortion was grievously evil. In the absence of modern medical knowledge, some of the Early Fathers held that abortion was homicide; others that it was tantamount to homicide; and various scholars theorized about when and how the unborn child might be animated or "ensouled." But none diminished the unique evil of abortion as an attack on life itself, and the early Church closely associated abortion with infanticide. In short, from the beginning, the believing Christian community held that abortion was always, gravely wrong.
Of course, we now know with biological certainty exactly when human life begins. Thus, today's religious alibis for abortion and a so-called "right to choose" are nothing more than that - alibis that break radically with historic Christian and Catholic belief.
Abortion kills an unborn, developing human life. It is always gravely evil, and so are the evasions employed to justify it. Catholics who make excuses for it - whether they're famous or not - fool only themselves and abuse the fidelity of those Catholics who do sincerely seek to follow the Gospel and live their Catholic faith.
The duty of the Church and other religious communities is moral witness. The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth. A proper understanding of the "separation of Church and state" does not imply a separation of faith from political life. But of course, it's always important to know what our faith actually teaches.
Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver
James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver
|
|
briggsy wrote.
Hands off the penal code, you penal code grabbers.
Arch says.
The penile code is not up for grabs Briggsy. It has to be enticed gently through the legislature and then through the courts. I am sure there are laws on the books already for penile code grabbers. Just like murderers, the participation of the act of abortion should be punishable by the death penalty with no clemency. |
|
dudley writes: Tuesday, August, 26, 2008 1:53 PM
Obama and women. YES!
Tell you what.. why don't you righties make the election hinge on Roe v. Wade, the law of the land. Good idea. That will bring out women voting like you never imagined; they are already the majority. I see no chance for McCain, especially with Romney or Pawlenty on board, but go ahead and make it a BIG issue.
Arch says"
Dudley. There are more women against the killing of babies than for. Your imagination is running away with you. (Gallop poll, only 28 percent of Americans consider themselves pro choice) From the free republic. Let me advocate a national referendum this election to have on the ballot, the yes or no box for the continuing legality of Abortion on demand. Let us see how that would come out or are you too scared to even attempt it my friend? |
|
|
Tell you what.. why don't you righties make the election hinge on Roe v. Wade, the law of the land. Good idea. That will bring out women voting like you never imagined; they are already the majority. I see no chance for McCain, especially with Romney or Pawlenty on board, but go ahead and make it a BIG issue. |
|
per year out of having their abortions (in the U.S.).
That's your task.
*Not* tampering with the law's expression of crime and punishment.
Hands off the penal code, you penal code grabbers. |
|
|
Nancy Pelosi needs to re-read (read?) the Roe decision, again. The majority opinion recognized that the position of the Catholic Church is certain: "[T]he existence of life from the moment of conception...is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church." And while she's at it, the great and powerful speaker should read Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe, in which abortion on demand--during the entire term of pregnancy--is, unfortunately, the law of the land. After she finishes reading, she then should tender her resignation. |
|
#3: "Where society as a whole draws the line": If you're acknowledging that society as a whole has to draw a line somewhere, then you must acknowledge doing so may put limits on those whose personal beliefs may say it's OK to cross that line (as, for example, those who thought owning slaves was morally OK). But your original argument in this discussion asks us not to "limit the freedom of those who disagree". I'd say you're being inconsistent, if not hypocritical. I think you need to retract your first argument, and never use it again against pro-lifers. When it comes to abortion, the "freedom of choice" argument is totally 100% bogus.
|
|
#2: "both practical and bearable to implement": Would you say that, if abolishing slavery would have had a more devastating economic effect on Southerners and would have been unbearable to them, that we shouldn't have abolished it? Innate, unalienable rights, by definition, can't be weighed against what is merely "bearable" or "practical" to some other group. And the right not to be killed is the most innate right of all.
|
|
(note: Margare is me, on a different computer...)
I'm going to respond in several pieces, since I'm not sure how much I can put into one entry...
#1: "Regarding the Supreme court wisely balancing competing rights": The Roe v. Wade decision was not wisely decided; the sweeping "right" to abortion was granted mostly because one judge had a girlfriend who died trying to abort her own pregnancy. No matter how much sympathy we may have for the judge and the woman, deciding a case based on one personal life experience is *not* deciding wisely.
|
|
(note: Margare is me, on a different computer...)
I'm going to respond to the last argument in several parts since I'm not sure how much I can type into one entry...
#1: Regarding the Supreme court "wisely balancing competing rights": The Roe v. Wade decision was not wisely decided; the sweeping "right" to abortion was granted mostly because one judge had a girlfriend who died trying to abort her own pregnancy. No matter how much sympathy we may have for the judge and the woman, deciding a case based on one personal life experience is *not* deciding wisely.
|
|
However:
*When* life begins is not the end of conversation regarding *where* the line gets drawn. |
|
We "DO" need change.
These type of "thoughtful" comments from Pelosi and her ilk are just staggering......staggering at their obvious beliefs in how stupid they think the American people are.
Her conclusions after years of struggling with abortion brings her to as a wrong of a conclusion (false in this case) as Joe Bidens solutions to problems throughout his time in office....ALL WRONG and not just wrong but the direct opposite of what have been proven correct solutions.
As far as Pelosi goes, I honestly have come to the conclusion that she is just dumb, besides her outragous abortion comments, she also believes that natural gas is not a fossil fuel as she mentioned the other day...not once but three times, she eluded to the fact that she is unaware that natural gas is a fossil fuel.
I have never been more conviced of the fact that this country does need "change"....change in the way of incompetent and/or inexperianced people holding high office.
Not so much "Go Mcain" as it is "Hell NO!!! to Obama/Pelosi types?
Vote Mcain. |
|
|
I'm neither a Catholic or Evangelical. I keep wondering IF it is remotely quantifiable how stump-stupid you and Nancy are, at least, pretending to be. Now, FOCUS like a Laser Beam, Dear: When that pesky sperm invades that rascally egg--ya with me, Babycakes--and they do a victory dance, high-five and split into more cells... THAT'S when LIFE begins. Do you think you can find me a Physiology Professor who says different? NOT a chance. |
|
Read it and think again briggsy. Your poll was spinned.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2024509/posts |
|
|
|
|
Briggsy. Roe vs Wade is the modern day Dred scott decision. and from gallop polling, only 28 percent of Americans consider themselves pro choice. A far cry from the center of American society. |
|
Briggsy writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 11:09 PM
arch, see my 7:47 post.
The other values I mention therein, which the law seeks to uphold, may be meaningless to you.
But I assert that they are not meaningless to women.
Nor are they meaningless to the political center of this nation.
Keeping knees together and remaining virgin until marriage are not an acceptable substitute for the zone of personal dominion established by Roe v. Wade.
It's fine to counsel those rules as voluntary lifestyle boundaries.
But attempting to conform the penal code to that standard is what the Taliban does.
You know how women are treated by those guys.
Arch says"
I see no difference between the Taliban and the abortionist and consenting mother. Both worship the power of their religion over the individual right to life of every human being and take the evil action necessary to retain that power. This is not what the founders of our nation had in mind when they ratified the constitution and I jest you not! |
|
|
|
talking about, for sure.
Where society as a whole draws the line.
That's why Supreme Court appointments are important.
To wisely balance competing rights and fashion limitations which are both practical and bearable to implement.
|
|
The other values I mention therein, which the law seeks to uphold, may be meaningless to you.
But I assert that they are not meaningless to women.
Nor are they meaningless to the political center of this nation.
Keeping knees together and remaining virgin until marriage are not an acceptable substitute for the zone of personal dominion established by Roe v. Wade.
It's fine to counsel those rules as voluntary lifestyle boundaries.
But attempting to conform the penal code to that standard is what the Taliban does.
You know how women are treated by those guys.
|
|
|
Suppose in 1857 we were arguing over whether slaves should be granted human rights, and I suggested that we weigh their rights against the potential economic good to society and plantation owners of slavery. Would you argue that the good to society is insufficient to justify taking away their rights? Or would you reject the whole calculation because slaves are human and have INNATE human rights---they are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights", someone once said---? Hopefully the latter. While of course I have much more sympathy for pregnant women than plantation owners, the principle is still the same: to argue that we need to consider the good of women before deciding whether the unborn have rights is to assert, as a premise, that the unborn HAVE NO INNATE RIGHTS. And a lot of us believe they do. You apparently think they don't, we think they do. The main point is, society AS A WHOLE must decide one way or the other; we can't simply be "tolerant" of everyone's beliefs without first deciding that one belief, that they have no innate rights, is the official one. That's why "freedom to disagree" is not a legitimate issue in this argument. |
|
Briggsy writes: Monday, August, 25, 2008 9:09 PM
It's just so easy to forget about the women, isn't it?
Arch says"
Briggsy. Don't the women have an absolutely free choice before the conception of new life? How are they slaves when they can freely choose to keep their knees together without duress? What is so wrong with the virgin until marriage dogma practiced for so many centuries? Are not free women responsible for their own well being as well as the innocent human life that would be destroyed? |
|
I never bet on the election, but..in this case, I might make an exception (looks around furtively)..yes..got any money, Neo m'boy?
(taps ash from cigar, winks at camera) |
|
Catholics aren't supposed to use condoms and IUDs.
In fact, condoms were unlawful in certain states, like Connecticut, precisely because of religious influence over the legislature.
That's what the Griswold opinion was all about.
Griswold was the leading privacy case which eventually led to Roe and is cited in Roe as precedent. |
|
Is what your guys are. GAWD, I luv the Biden choice. Like an answer to neoconservative prayer.
40+ States, Kid. If McJuan changes his ANWR 'thinking' AND chooses Sarah Palin for Veep, it'll be 45 states.
Obama & Slow-Joe...THANK YOU, Gawd!! |
|
slaves in your analogy:
The women whose bodies you would make into incubators for the state.
It's just so easy to forget about the women, isn't it? |
|
on that Trojan when his wife-girlfriend is at 9-months..? 3-months..? Ohhh, you mean he does it BEFORE the deed, because he & she KNOW that if they don't, there's a high risk of a New Life beginning Ba-Da-Bing, like Dat?? Seems simple enough for even those deeply-deep thinkers like Bammy and Pelousy to grasp.
Sooooooooo...A Gal takes that pill or has an IUD in order for life NOT to begin...when...?? Oh, that very night?? Or, she does the after-the-deed "wash," ASAP post-deed, because...Ohhh, you mean cuz she KNOWS there's a high chance of LIFE beginning that night?? Okie-Doakie.
Soooooooooooo...Today's sophisticated technology can measure heartbeats at about 10-days after conception...AND, that's NOT Human Life?? Uh-Huh.
|
|
by moving the debate to where it has always belonged: the area of morality.
By not only moving it to wehre it belongs, but doing so in a typically ignorant fashion, she has stepped into the losing side.
One can pretend that it is a matter of civil rights, but the entire concept of civil rights rests on morality.
Rights cannot be secured in an amoral society. And that is what Pelosi and the rest of the aboriton extremists have imposed.
while this may not be the beginning of the end of unregulated abortion, it is certainly the end of the beginning- the era of unlimited Roe v. Wade. |
|
|
There is no doubt Mother Pelosi is just trying to save the world. I’ve heard that eighty percent of this country believes in God. You cannot believe in creation as described in the Bible and vote for the Democratic Party. Christians can’t support abortion…period. There is only one way to get to heaven…period. There is no other reason needed to vote for John McCain…period. |
|
The argument about "limiting the freedom of those who disagree" just plain doesn't work when it comes to abortion. I used to think that way until I tried to think of an analogy and realized our history already provides one. A century and a half ago, some people believed that slaves were humans who deserved human rights, and others believed they were property. We could have decided to respect everybody's right to their own beliefs, but doing so would have been equivalent to an official decree that slaves were less than human, because humans' rights are protected by the government and we would have refused to protect them. Fortunately, we made the opposite decision, and I've never heard our country being criticized for intolerance of anyone's beliefs for doing so.
|
|
is a contrivance of jurisprudence intended to balance fetal life against other values which the law seeks to uphold.
Namely:
Society should not treat women merely as host animals-- at least not during the first trimester, per Roe; and
Medical procedures are a private matter between patient and physician-- at least during the first trimester, per Roe.
It's a lot like the age of consent really. One day before you reach it makes all the difference with respect to rights, prohibitions and consequences.
Pro-lifers should embrace Roe as the best compromise available. |
|
|
|
LOL!
I guess Botox Nancy P-Lousy is a lousy liar! |
|
The Democrat(ick)s have not only shown themselves to be callously in favor of the murder of millions of tiny, helpless babies, but also big liars.
Of course, if one is to condone the unthinkable, abortion, then what is the big deal about a lie or two? |
|
Guess "Botox Nancy" believes she can dictate the Catholic Churches doctrines!
Oh & Dudley, no this election isn't about the Church...so, you need to fill Pelosi in on this piece of important information! It's about America & keeping America a Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisable with liberty & justice for all. Something that the socialist left rejects to the core! |
|
"I see a decisive Obama win, heading us, as a country, in the right direction, something no conservative has ever done, and certainly no neoconservative."
It is better for a fool to keep quiet, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt. |
|
|
But this election is by no means about Church, is it? It's about State, always will be. Looking good! I see a decisive Obama win, heading us, as a country, in the right direction, something no conservative has ever done, and certainly no neoconservative. Say goodbye, Arch. |
|
and when I was young, the family next to us was Catholic. I remember the oldest daughter secretly showing me her mother's birth control pills and telling me in teenaged scandelized tones how her mother was going against the Church.
THIS IS WHAT I THINK: I think that years ago, many Catholics talked themselves into accepting that it was OK to go against the church in birth control, and were convinced in the '70s into thinking that abortion was just removing useless blobs of tissue.
I think that many are unaware of the sciences of the Cell, embryology, fetal development, and DNA.
I don't want to talk the Church out of their stand on Birth Control, but they need to seperate out these two issues in order to raise the awareness of the little human beings that are snuffed out by the millions. Of the two, Abortion is clearly the graver sin, and needs to be emphasized as such. |
|
We believe in the Evil Spirit of Pro-Choice, the taker of Life,
which proceeds from defeating the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
As a result of supporting the legalization
of Partial Birth Abortions,
Barack Obama is worshiped and glorified by NRAL
(National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League)
He has spoken through the Prophets of the liberal MSM.
We believe in the wholly speculative Gaia Hypothesis accepting
its ecological dogma named after the Greek Earth Goddess
and await for America to be sacrificed economically by the
implementation of the Kyoto Protocol preached by our
proselytizing Apostles who worship at the altar of the
Universal Church of the UN.
Although secular, this movement is practiced with religious like fervor for its fundamental
tenets apply to the fear of Man Made Global Warming
which is not grounded in the
Scientific Method but accepted as faith
based on the wholly subjective consensus
of the "world's leading experts".
We acknowledge the skyrocketing cost of fossil fuels as the redemptive baptism
needed for the forgiveness of
our Carbon emitting sins.
We look for the resurrection of a Liberal Supreme Court
to legislate from the bench
perpetuating the number of dead children legalized by its Roe v. Wade decision
and for US self governance to decline via the "Global tests" proposed
by the UN dominated Life of the World to come.
Amen.
http://powdertracks.blogtownhall.com/2008/08/24/nicene_vs_o bscene_creed_of_barack_obama.thtml |
|
BO to Rick Warren: "I believe in Roe v. Wade"
Lead to the penning of the Obscene Creed of Barack Obama and the Democrats:
We believe in the One Man,
the Candidate of Almighty Change,
the hero of Roe v. Wade,
We believe in one Nominee, Barack Obama,
the only American son of a Luo Tribesman,
Candidate from Community Organizer, Lightweight Christian from the Illinois State
Senate, weaned on Chicago Machine Politics
and in GD America Reverend Wright's Trinity Church of Christ,
true World Citizen of US birth,
brainwashed, Globalist, one in thought with Alinsky the Father of US Marxism
through Saul all Democrats were molded,
for US voters and for our salvation,
he came across from Hawaii,
by the power of a generous Spirit his dad received a scholarship in America where
he was born of the secular humanist Ann Dunham, and became a Politician.
For our sake, he was verbally crucified under Hillary Clinton,
he suffered, his campaign almost died nearly being buried
during the early contests,
in the Third Primary, held in South Carolina, he rose again,
in fulfillment of the Main Stream Media Scriptures
he ascended to the Nomination of our Democrat Party,
and is seated far to the left hand of abortion promoting
liberal "Catholic" Joe Biden his VP.
He will come again in glory as President to Judge whether the living unborn and
wounded babies of botched abortions should be condemned to death,
and his Presidential term will end the Pro-Life movement and serve
to further decimate the black population of America.
|
|
Doing what is supposed to do. For years politicians been able getting away with their spin, and picking and choosing certain phrases and half truths.
Mrs. Pelosi, spewed and mislead the biggest lie, on Catholic Church teaching on Human Right of a Person.
Quite sad and heart-breaking that a Catholic does not know the teaching and morals of their own church.
This is a failure on behalf of our leaders in the church. And it is about time, that bishops, priests, the whole church becomes active and let the mass know about Apostolic Catholic Church teaching on Abortion, that termination of human life, is evil. |
|
Hi Guys,
If you like debating politics, religion, economics etc check out http://www.engageforum.com
|
|
In addition to Augustine’s unfortunate dependence on the Septuagint, we must also point out that, regarding the question of how or when ensoulment occurs, Augustine pleads ignorance, and wonders if this is an area in which he will never find the true answer. In his treatise on The Soul and Its Origin, he writes:
Will you, my dearest brother, be able to teach me, or any one else, whence human beings at their birth are ensouled, when you still know not how it is that their life is so sustained by food, that they are certain to die if the aliment is withdrawn for a while? Or will you be able to
teach me, or any one else, whence men obtain their souls, when you are still actually ignorant whence bags, when inflated, get the filling? My only wish, as you are ignorant whence souls have their origin, is, that I may on my side know whether such knowledge is attainable by me in this present life. If this be one of the things which are too high for us, and which we are forbidden to seek out or search into, then we have good grounds for fearing lest we should sin, not by our ignorance of it, but our quest after it. For we ought not to suppose that a subject, to fall under the category of the things which are too high for us, must appertain to the nature of God, and not to our own. (The Soul and Its Origin, Bk VI, Ch 5, 4)
Other Fathers saw little distinction between the formed and unformed fetus. For example, Basil writes:
Let her that procures abortion undergo ten years' penance, whether the embryo were perfectly formed, or not (Canon 2); But the man, or woman, is a murderer that gives a philtrum, if the man that takes it die upon it; so are they who take medicines to procure abortion (Canon 8).
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1 973.htm |
|
First, thank you for your honesty. Most libs try to equivocate over when life begins, etc. etc.
But, don't you see high danger in your position that abortion laws are justified because the state has no compelling interest in the life of the unborn? What other groups will the state someday have no interest in protecting? The elderly? Gays? The Jews?
This country was founded on the basis of individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
If a baby in the womb is an inconvenience to the mother, she may destry it. If your house is blocking my view, may I burn it down? |
|
St. Augustine was encumbered by the Grek Bible he studied. He was 1 man that was wrong about when Ensoulment Took Place. Leave it to Ardent Pro-Abortionist Pelosi to CHERRY PICK the Church Fathers!
" What is not readily known or even admitted is that views of this sort were based on a faulty Septuagint Greek translation, which was not the inspired text of Scripture. In common practice, if a biblical exegete knows that the Septuagint differs radically from the Hebrew text, he must defer in making any doctrinal conclusions based on the Septuagint text. Augustine, since he didn’t know Hebrew, often based his interpretations solely on the Septuagint and had thus made similar exegetical errors elsewhere in his writings.
To illustrate the point, the LXX of Exodus 21:22-23 reads:
“And if two men strive and smite a woman with child, and her child be born imperfectly formed, he shall be forced to pay a penalty…But if it be perfectly formed, he shall give life for life.”
The Hebrew reads:
“And when men fight and they strike a pregnant woman and her child comes forth and there is no injury surely he shall be fined…But if injury occurs, you shall give life for life.”
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1 973.htm
|
|
though I have nothing but respect for the Church's writings on moral issues. Nobody, but *nobody*, writes as thoroughly or as convincingly as a well-grounded Catholic priest, whatever his rank. Way to go, Reverend!
Nancy Pelosi ought to be reprimanded for her lies and denied Communion if she does not repent; if she is as ardent a Catholic as she claims, she should not only know her Church's doctrines but should gladly embrace them, rather than trying to mislead others both within and without the fold for political expediency's sake. Shame on her. |
|
Below is some references for Church Murder Mother Pelosi's regarding St. Augustine comments. It is obvious that Pelosi is working overtime to bolster/rationalize her Pro-Abortion position which makes her sin all the bigger! This is Specious Nancy! St. Augustine did not know when the "ensoulment"(his concept) of the baby occurs and did speak about possibly a 3 month period but that is beside the point as the Catholic Church has spoken and defined this issue in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, St. Augustine's analysis was hampered by using the Greek Version aka Septuagint of the Bible as he did not speak Hebrew and a verse in Exodus that was poorly interpreted clouded the issue of "Ensoulment" for him. Additionally, St. Augustine who lived ~ 2000 years ago did not know medicine and did not have 3 D Ultrasound nor were 1 pound babies able to be saved outside the womb then. Here are links for Background on this Info.
http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/1 973.htm
Well said Archbishop Chaput!!!!
Cheers, Doc
|
|
"Exactly so. If that's what your faith
holds.
Just don't try to hijack American statute to limit the freedom of those who disagree or who weigh the importance of religious truth differently."
With all due respect Briggsy, it isn't just a matter of "if that's what your faith holds". Science also universally recognizes that life begins at conception. HUMAN life. When the woman first learns of her pregnancy, what does the doctor say..."you're going to have a baby". The doctor doesn't say you are going to have a car. The doctor doesn't say that you currently have a microscopic lump of cells. The evidence demonstrates that human life starts very early on indeed.
The only question then becomes when is that life worthy of protection. The only reason religion should be brought into the mix is when the discussion ultimately will move to when does the soul enter the body. This is a matter of faith and opinions do vary. But since one cannot know for certain, I would posit that we as a civilized society must err on the side of extreme caution if we are going to champion ourselves as protectors of the sanctity of life. |
|
|
MYOBelief..think, Roe v. Wade, and move on. |
|
|
The primary issue here with Speaker Pelosi is not her public abortion position; it is, rather, that she is apparently attempting to mislead fence sitting catholics. This is DEEPLY offensive to me and I feel persecuted and hurt by her attempt. She knows very well there is no debate about this issue for most practicing christians. When I go to Adoration at 1 AM tomorrow morning I will pray she repents for this attempt to mislead. She states she is "ardent, practicing" catholic; therefore, she should know after some reflection the hurt she has caused and an apology would serve as penance to cleanse her soul. |
|
as Emeril would say. I love it when the church holds its politician's feet to the fire. Either you're a practicing Catholic or you're an abortion supporting politician - you can't be both and pass the smell test. And Briggs, truth is truth in any dimension regardless of post-modern political correctness.
"The duty of the state and its officials is to serve the common good, which is always rooted in moral truth."
This is straight from Romans 13 and the line that HAS to hurt any politico such as San Fran Nanny trying to have her cake and eat it too when it comes to moral truth. If she is "an ardent, practicing Catholic," she lied, lied, lied about what "her" church believes. Yeow! She'll be in the Confessional for months!! |
|
holds.
Just don't try to hijack American statute to limit the freedom of those who disagree or who weigh the importance of religious truth differently. |
|
|
|