First let me point out that I am against abortion in any form but...
Can we all agree that taking away the circumstances of Rape, insest, or in medical crisis for the mother that Abortion is wrong and should be eliminated from our society?
It is my position that I could support a law that eliminates all abortions outside the realm of the above. Could you?
By the way - Today is my birthday - Thank you Mom
Jun 2, 2005
Eliminate Abortion outside the extenuating circumstances
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
50 comments:
I think 80% percent of americans would agree with it. But your pro-abortion group would porbably claina slippery slope.
I agree to a point PA, but allowing a Rape/Incest exception punishes the unborn child for an act that was not his/her doing, and most certainly in WRONG!
See, Daivds comments there are where the Liberal will call slippery slope.
To get 80 percent of Americans these days to agree to anything is nothing short of a miracle! - I'd take it.
Ok Dave - I agree so we find a program and legal structure that will not only punish the parent, guardian or other as well as will support the woman not only through her pregnancy but well beyond...
If we could save 90 percent of these innocent lives by compromising on the least common ground we can - WE MUST! This has gone on way too long
It's not about punishment, PA, it's about finding viable alternatives to having the abortion in the first place. The simple fact is that the unborn child did not ask to be conceived by either the rape or the incest. I noticed in comments on a previous posting, some commenters had a problem with adoption, although I am sure you agree this is an acceptable option. There's another option, and it's called CONTRACEPTION! If you prevent the conception, then there is no reason to debate whether or not to kill the child.
A Concerned Catholic Responds:
Mr.Bowie by contraception I hope you are referring to the "rhythm method". Every sperm and egg is sacred in the eyes of our God.To fornicate and to stop the potential fertilization process is not what Our Savior had in mind for his people. It goes against the Churches teachings.
To DB- Let's recall that we set aside rape, insest and medical crisis as exceptional circumstances - It would be hard to fathum that rape and insest victims would be on constant vigil involving contraception "just in case" they are attacked so I'm not sure where the last part comes into play - My overall statement says that a great majority of us can admit that outside those three exceptional areas that there should be no legal abortion in the US.
To Concerned Catholic - We "catholics" have fought for decades to reverse the travesty of Roe v Wade - This issue has torn at the fabric of the American society like none other in history including the civil war. - It is my position that I can stand confidently in front of the Lord and allow him to pass judgement on me for promoting contraception if the alternative is someone KILLING A FERTILIZED LIFE. Life begins at conception...better it never conceived than snuffed out at its earliest beginnings.
Lets understand something here everyone... and estimated 38,010,378 babies have been killed since 1973 (http://www.euthanasia.com/usstat.html) -
It is my position that no abortion should be legal for any reasoning at all... but we are not going to get there anytime soon and more and more babies are dying. Lets get to common ground and save as many as we possibly can while we work the system to abolish it altogether.
Pa--be careful if you are Catholic and your parish priest has access to this blog. He could, in conscience, deny you Communion. And confession would not allow you reprieve, if you were still intent on future contraception.
To Concerned Catholic: I am but only in part, because the other methods of contraception must be included in this debate. Quite frankly, and I mean no disrespect, the Catholic Church's condemnation on artificial means of birth control is not only archaic, but is totally unrealistic. Even the Catholic Church acknowledges that human life begins at conception, so therefore by preventing the conception, an existing human life is not being destroyed. In Genesis 1:28 we are told: "Then God blessed them, and God said Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living things that moves on the earth." However, I do not believe this passage was meant to be taken so literally.
To PA:The figures you cite are only up to 1998, so by 2005 more than 40 million unborn children have been killed through abortion in the United States. I do agree that a woman does not know when she may be attacked or be subjected to the horror of incest, and so any use of birth control would be impossible, therefore you are correct when you point out that a majority of Americans would support a ban on "legal" abortion within the exceptions you cited.
Finally, Roe v. Wade has been on very shaky ground for quite a long time. Should we ever get a conservative Supreme Court, I believe its fate will be sealed!
From Concerned Catholic:
To Pa: Isn't that changing the rules to fit your needs? It sounds very Democratic to me :) I don't think it is wise to call yourself a Catholic if you are going to "cherry-pick" the rules you want to go by.
To D. Bowie: Isn't the Bible itself archaic? Does that mean you doubt some of the readings therein if it doesn't fit modern-day interpretation? I hope not.
Bowie: as long as we're quoting scripture here what about:
"Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." Jer 1:5
Wouldn't this state that God concept of when life begins is even before ours. Therefore contreception at all is wrong?
Isn't it being hypocritical to take such a strong stance on abortion, that even in cases of rape there shouldn't be abortion, yet saying a hard stance on contraception that goes along with scripture is archaic?
From Concerned Catholic:
To Mr. Shafter:
That is one of my favorite verses. It is so pure in content. You so eloquently stated what I wanted to say.
Concerned Catholic - Let's not judge people here... right? - Our society doesn't allow us to judge right from wrong or at least doesn't allow us to voice it when there's a chance it will offend!
The scope of our discussion really is how do we come to a compromise on the abortion issue so that it can be ended. My belief in contraception or not aside, the goal is to save as many of the (according to dave...) 40 Million as we can as a society. We must eliminate the Abortion on demand option entirely.
On way to do that is to outline what I believe could accurately be said about a majority of Americans...and that is that outside the rape, insest and medical crisis areas - We can agree that abortion for the sake of birth control is wrong and should be illegal. In regards to contraception - I do not believe that there is any standing whatsoever between KILLING A LIFE and preventing one that hasn't started yet. I again stand by my earlier comment that I will stand confidently before the Lord on this one considering the alternative deaths.
I think some of you are forgetting that not everyone in this nation is Catholic...if a certain group of Catholic people believe that abortion is wrong in all cases, there's nothing stopping them from not having an abortion in all cases.
I believe that abortion in the usual form is immoral. At the same time, I believe that children born out of rape are not likely to be loved children. Why should a victim of rape be forced to go through the birth of a child they never wanted?
And the battle against contraception was lost before it even started...
From Catholic to pa:
Odd that you chose to see it as a judgement. It is simply my opinion based on my Catholic upbringing.I'm wasn't speaking to society, but to you specifically.
Catholic: What I think PA is trying to say, which my mom old my dad when she had her tubes tied, we will all stand before God in judgement for our decisions and it is not for you to judge him on what he believes to be right and wrong. Remember:
"First remove the beam that is in your own eye, then you will see clearly how to help your brother remove the little sliver that is in his eye," (Matthew 7:3-5)
On the other hand PA, Caholic does make a good point when he talks about holding certain beliefs that are contrary to the Church. Like the gay supporters in Minnesota, the Church does have the right to withhold the sacrament of the Eucharist from those it believes are living in sin.
Now back to the abortion discussion. I don't think anyone disagrees with PA, accept maybe Bowie a little. But he still hasn't got back to answer my previous posts quesion.
To Concerned and Shaft - When it comes to Abortion I want it stopped and if that means some seeing it as bowing to contraception arguments then so be it.
Just a note to all of us: I wouldn't STAND CONFIDENTLY BEFORE THE LORD in any circumstance. I expect to lower my eyes and ask for forgiveness for all of my failings.
Sorry shaft--Here are my comments. I will try to take them in order:
1. To Concerned Catholic--Scripture is not now nor has it ever been archaic in my judgment, but HUMANE VITAE certainly is. Not only is the Catholic Church's condemnation of all forms of artificial birth control archaic, it is totally unrealistic to the culture in which we live.
2. To Shaft--Your citation of Jer 1:5 is most excellent however I disagree with the interpretation that this would render all forms of contraception wrong. Further the rape/incest exception unfairly condemns the unborn child for irresponsible/illegal actions of others. So I do not believe my strong stand is hypocritical.
3. To PA The exact number of abortions from 1973 to date is 46,023,191. This is according to the National Right to Life Committee (www.nrlc.org), so please don't give ME the credit for these statistics. Quite frankly, PA, I think you hit the heart of this whole debate when you stated that we must put an end to ABORTION ON DEMAND. The unfortunate problem is that in so doing you must remove all exceptions, with the one caviot being saving the life of the mother. There simply is no middle ground on this issue. Once the door is open to exceptions, the list will go on and on and then we will be right back where we started, and I think you will agree that is unacceptable!
Humble: Point well taken - you're correct - the choice of words was poor on my part but I think you can get what I was trying to say.
Bowie: Then what is your interpretation of it? He new us before we were formed. There isn't much mis-interpreting that. Unless you are to say that God does not form souls until conception. Yet the passage does say before the womb.
Shaft: I have re-read Jer 1:5 and the verse reads: "Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you." There is no doubt about this, however, I submit that this does not preclude using contraception. Remember there are those who use the Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Kill, as an indictment against capital punishment, yet Romans 13:4 tells us: "For he is God''s minister for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." Scripture does not address contraception on point, however in Psalm 139:13-14 we are told: "For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise You for I am fearfully and wonderfully made." It is my belief, that Scripture should not be used to rationalize unrealistic or errorenous conclusions.
The reason people use thou shall not kill the proper translation is thou shall not murder. Also most people do not comprehend the difffrence between killing and muder.According to Websters Dictionary:
Kill: to deprive of life
Murder: to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
I am pleased to see you know how the words are used in Scripture and what there meanings were. However, I do not use the dictionary but Strong's Bible Concordance which will translate the words from the original Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New Testament. Nevertheless you are right when this commandment was given kill means to murder, so the use of capital punishment by the State would not fall into that definition. I also agree that most people do not comprehend the diffirence between killing/executing or murder, but I think you may agree that a diffirence does exist.
I agree fully.
Thank you kind fence (sir or madam)
Fence: One comment on the "pick and choose" topic. I don't necessarily think it is a sin to challenge topics of a faith that even the Priests of the faith have conflicting opinions on. I can say the Profession of Faith in my Church without any attacks of conscience. There are no tenents of my religion that I am arguing against in any way. I believe that abortion is wrong however I would entertain the fact that our ability to this point to erraticate it has been something less than successful and my personal feeling is that it is better to eliminate it in stages than to have no success at all. If we as American citizens can agree that abortion as a means of contraception is wrong under any circumstance than we owe it to our future generations to make it legally so. If the solution in doing so is a phased approach I can support that without guilt.
One futher comment: If by identifying "Pick and Choose" you are isolating a comment of mine on Contraception,.. we must define contraception first. One form of contraception is abstenence. According to the Catholic Church, abstenence is the only form which is approved of. However this means of "contraception" prevents the creation of life just as do the others.
To Fence: As intriguing as a debate on organized religions may sound, I would be somewhat reluctant to engage in such an exchange, due to the fact that I am a former Catholic, and therefore, my opinions on certain teachings of the Catholic Church may not be well received. I will only say that there are substantive differences between Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity, and leave it at that (PA's reference to contraception is one example.)
DB: You may or may not be right re: comments being received in one way or another ... however not by me - I respect your right to be a former Catholic :) - Even if you are a renegade! Pagans are people too (just kidding)
PA: my comment was not directed at any specific individual, it was a general statement that some may take offense to my criticism. And just for the record--I like being a renegade-it makes life a bit more interesting!! (ha ha)
Actually, fence, an Evangelical Christian is just another way of saying Born Again. Sorry for the confusion. We use the term Evangelical from time to time because we are to be fulfilling the "Great Commission" (See Matthew 28:19) and be witnesses for Jesus Christ.
And your understanding is very correct!
As do Lutherans and Catholics.
There was an interesting article recently on the AP wire in regards to the re-unification procedings. We agree alot more than we disagree when it comes right down to it and that in the end will be our (sorry for the choice of words) saving grace.
I beg to differ PA. I have never heard a "pure" salvation message preached in ANY Catholic Church, nor have I ever heard any Catholic Priest speak of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Further, a major portion of their teachings surrounds the doing of good works, however Scripture tells us otherwise. See Eph 2:8-9-"For be grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the Gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast."
I'm sure this is going to "honk-off" somebody.
That's unfortunately DB. If you have never heard it then either your Parish Priest was either not a good communicator or was missing out on one of the foundations of faith in Christ. We are all called to a close relationship with God through his son. The works that you speak of are a basic tenet of the Catholic Church and a means by which we show our true alligence and faith in the Lord, however by these works alone we are not 'guaranteed' salvation, we must know and love God. How we can do so without a personal relationship with him on a daily basis is beyond me.
Honk away anyone...that is what a discussion is about.
It is most refreshing to find someone from the Catholic faith that truly understands God's SIMPLE plan of salvation. Unfortunately, there are those in the Catholic faith that are not as knowledgeable as you are about having a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ.
I think you've had a bad experience somewhere along the line - Everyone I know understands this
Perhaps so. It's been so long ago, I just don't remember.
I do not disagree on the last sentence. However I'm not exactly sure where that comes from. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a government official expressing his or her beliefs as evidence as to why they vote or take action on some issue. I have seen no evidence of any present officials doing so today.
I find it much more comforting when my elected officials spend time thanking the creator of our world for guidance. I am a strong believer that the American experiment has gone on as long as it has because of our Judeo-Christian beginnings. The sooner we absolve ourselves of this misconstrued separation from religion that is all the rage - the quicker we will get back to being the America have known and love.
I think your comments take on a bit of an obsessive(or to borrow a common phrase EXTREME) vantagepoint. President Bush didn't invade Afghanistan or Iraq on a mission from God to ride the world of infidels. There is a HUGE diffence between righting a wrong and being hell bent on killing as many people as possible.
I also beg to differ with you on your general assessment of where we live (so to speak). I frankly don't care what goes on outside our borders unless it is a clear danger to our national sovergnty. But no one is forcing anything close to religion on anyone around the world. Assisting fledgling democracy has always been part of our diplomatic initiatives and should continue. While these particular efforts were jumpstarted by false intelligence info - they were not under any circumstances a result of any particular religious initiative.
OK - let me be a bit more specific then,..
Militarily:
In the history of the United States we have always assisted peoples of the world who were being oppressed. (Up until now), most have come to us and asked our assistance prior. - That is what I mean by assisting fledgling democracy.
I am against us going out into the world looking for a fight. I don't believe given the information (wrongly interpreted as it was) that Iraq was such an incident. I definitely place that in the protecting our nation category.
Otherwise I don't care if China doesn't like our culture, or our religion or our chicken nuggets for that matter. We are Americans - we are not chinese americans or african americans or welsh americans or anything else... so as far as I'm concerned I don't care if anything we do offends anyone outside our country -
Your reference by Armstrong to his comments about ...The beliefs of the president and of mainstream America are not necessarily shared by people around the world.... is where I get my irish up - Who gives a flame'n shamrock! -
It's here at home that I'm concerned with - If President Bush went to the chinese and said you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior or I'm we're going to unleash our nukes - then you'd have an argument.
No Iraq wasn't a democacy - but the people there --- given the choice between a ruthless killer and the ability to live free --- chose freedom
Assumption #1 - True,
Assumption #2 - True again
But while true, the assumption that because I haven't "Traveled the World” makes me ignorant doesn't hold water. I list as extremely good friends of mine, people of the following nations:
Egypt, Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Russian, Macedonia, and Mexico -
All of which have lived a significant part of their lives in their homeland before leaving either impoverished or in fear to come to America and all of which feel strongly that we must be the voice of justice. In conversation most, if not all, have voiced their desire to be viewed and treated as simply “an American”.
We are disliked in the world, I make no argument there but your portrayal of the extent of that dislike is misguided. There are areas of the world where we are held in contempt for the same childish reasons that high school kids fight, jealousy. - Most want what we have and cannot get it. Prompting them to resort to act out in violence.
I agree with your statement that it is a global economy - for that I am sad - We used to be the producer of 60 percent of the worlds consumption (outside oil) - most of our communities were supplied directly by local farmers and manufacturers. It is imperative that we get back to that again. We must become a more self-sustaining nation again and thus more investment in our own enterprises is a must.
Until then, it is absolutely not at all necessary for us to buy in to the opinions or positions of the world. We are NOT obligated to affirm their positions to buy their products.
I would like to know when the term "Small-Town USA" became a dirty phrase? - Someone help me out there.
To From the Fence: Allow me to back track this time. From my perspective there are two ways to witnesses to people, and the heavy-handed "beat-em over the head" approach never works, however if a person is asking questions about the Lord and Salvation, one should do everything possible to answer those questions without starting to quote Scripture-that comes later, but only if the person has made a decision to accept Jesus Christ. If they are still unsure, using alot of Scripture may scare the person off. I agree that NO religious belief should be force-fed to anyone, especially through our Government, however, I do not believe that is what President Bush is doing, by publicly displaying his faith, in fact I have great respect for him because he is not ashamed to publicly acknowledge God. I only wish more of our so-called leaders did the same.
I appoligise first, because this may be an overly long post as I have been away for about a week now. But there are things I waould like to throw my two cents into the ring about.
Bowie: First off I would like to hear the story some time of why you left the Catholic Church. Not to argue. I always find it interesting why people come into and leave the Church.
As for saith and works here are a few verses about that taken from James:
I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. James 2:18
You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. James 2:22
For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. James 2:26
P.A.: They say that re-unification is what the unreleased part of fatima is all about.
Fence: There is a right and a wrong. There is only one way to salvation and that is through Jesus Christ. I do believe forcing your religous views on some one else is wrong. There are many ways to preach with out being forceful, some ways are through works.
You can fit most of Europe in the U.S. Israel is the size of my home city, Detroit Michigan. I have been outside of this country, Canada, but still outside. I have travelled the U.S. through work. F' the rest of the world. We should not bow down to other countries.
Here's a question what wouyld the rest of the world do if the U.S decided to start using its own resources and stop importing stuff? Bye Bye world economys.
Post a Comment