I remember reading an article from Self magazine a few years back (2008-9 I believe) about what the author consistently called “multi-fetal reduction surgery.”  To this day I remember that at one point it stated, matter-of-factly, how there are no clear statistics on how many fetuses are removed in these “reductions” per year since “doctors aren’t required to keep track of them.”  (I actually have the exact quote written down somewhere and wish I could find it.)  Yes, you did read that correctly.

It’s astonishing that there are untold numbers of babies killed through abortion that we don’t even know about.

I’m glad these women shared their stories as well because we have to rip the veneer of civility off abortion and make people see what it really is.  But there is something especially cold-blooded about their words and actions. Speaking of “getting rid” of one of them, or two of them; “with a shot of potassium chloride you could eliminate one or more.”  Those are chilling words.  That is an empty and depraved heart if you ask me.  What those women did was calculated and heinous. You’re right—it is the logical conclusion of “choice” thinking.

When I read the line about the women who posted on an internet forum that she aborted her son in a male-female twins pregnancy because she already had a son, I felt sick. I am blessed to have a twin brother and I wouldn’t be who I am today without him. He was my best friend growing up and still remains my closest sibling (out of 8) today. I feel sad for the little girl who will never know her twin brother.

I wonder what the children that were “selected” to be kept will think when they find out what their parents have done.  I can only imagine the pain this will cause them.  I don’t envy these parents when they try to explain that they “selected” to kill their children because it was the most convenient option.

“I realize that almost everyone who supports abortion does so out of good intentions; all the pro-choice people I know are compassionate folks who are trying to do the right thing.”

I have never read more sappy drivel in my life.  Their intentions are not good.  They are absorbed with self and are willing to murder an innocent.  Pro-choice people are not compassionate.  They advocate the slaughter of innocent children.  It might make you “feel” good to give them a pass, but making the pro-abortion position sound all warm and fuzzy doesn’t save innocent lives.  In fact, it endangers them, which makes YOU complicit.

Roll that one around for awhile.

I went to the NYT page and sorted the comments into “most recommended” order, and was immensely cheered to see that the vast majority of NYT readers (NYT READERS!!!) were horrified by these procedures.  I think the cracks in the abortion apologist facade get bigger and bigger when people are forced to face their discomfort, forced to acknowledge that no matter how much they try to rationalize abortion, when they think about it from different angles they can’t get away from a nagging sense of wrongness.  I’ve seen this happen when I’ve gently asked pro-choice friends why, if a fetus is not human and holds no value, they feel grief when they themselves or their friends suffer miscarriages.  Why bother celebrating a pregnancy or attending a baby shower or cooing over an ultrasound picture if it’s just a blob of tissue?  When the opportunity is there, softly bringing up these issues (“Well, if it’s all about the mother being able to do whatever she wants, then it should be totally fine for her to abort a baby that she knows has blue eyes when she wanted brown, right?  Right?”) can bring the unreflective pro-choice mind to face what it knows deep down. 

And miracles like this happen:  this is cut-and-pasted from one woman’s comment on the NYT article:

this story is definitely putting my pro-choice attitudes to the test

Great article Jen. Thank you!

k@Erika Evan’s comment above—wow. Your image of “cracks in the abortion apologist facade” is right on, especially when their logical conclusions are fully revealed in stories like these. What a searing example of the power of the truth.

And thank you, Jennifer, for acknowledging that so many advocates of abortion are acting out of good, albeit severely misplaced, intentions. Look at Abby Johnson before she left her job at Planned Parenthood—she truly believed she was helping women who were struggling through one of the most difficult times in their life. At a moms group I was part of for a while, there were a couple midwives—truly caring women who loved children, sought to help women bring their babies into the world in the most natural and caring way possible, and obviously well-educated about human embryology—who are very pro-choice and supporters of Planned Parenthood. I couldn’t figure out this disconnect until I thought of what spurred Margaret Sanger to start espousing contraception and women’s access to abortion in the first place: her horror on behalf of women living in poverty with a dozen mouths to feed and no support system. To be clear, I honestly wonder if “misguided compassion” is even too nice a description for what followed in Sanger’s racism-tinged legacy, but I can see now that in these women’s minds, “helping” women have access to contraception and abortion goes hand in hand with their healing profession. Will they open their eyes and mind to the disconnect between their intentions and the reality of abortion? That’s up to their own, God-given intellect and freedom.

On the other hand, I can’t see how comments like Jason’s above in any way help the pro-life cause. In the end, they just fall into another ideology: that this is the way I perceive people who think differently than me, and nothing exists out of that paradigm. Is abortion black and white? Yes, it is always morally evil. Are people’s hearts black and white? Not even close. And we won’t change hearts by assuming they are.

Thank you for this excellent article.  A few days ago, I came across an article about an early home test for fetal gender, which of course leads to fear of gender selection, already common in places like India and China.  This is another area where we can gently press people—and I think it’s particularly important for women who think of themselves as feminists to consider why the idea of mass abortions of girls babies is so disturbing to them.  There’s a serious disconnect in pro-choice thinking—as a former pro-choice advocate I know whereof I speak.  It took a lot of forums like this one, articles like the one you mentioned, and it took a really long time—but water wears away stone, and eventually I couldn;t ignore all the dripping.  Keep up the good work.

Right on, Jen.

@Jason

Jen isn’t trying to water down the horror of abortion or give people a pass, she’s trying to acknowledge that many pro-choice people truly think that supporting abortion rights is compassionate to women. She isn’t saying that what they support isn’t abhorrent, and she even acknowledges that their compassion and reason are misguided. I happen to agree with her, knowing many such people myself. Even some of the most virulent supporters of abortion have only been deluded into thinking it’s compassionate. Do you really think the Register would hire a writer who secretly has no problem with abortion?

Jen, good piece as always, and thank you for showing us a new and hopefully effective way to reach out to the pro-choicers and show them the true atrocity of what they mistakenly think is love and compassion.

I feel sad for the little girl who will never know her twin brother.

I feel sad for the little girl who will one day find out that her mother voluntarily had her twin brother killed.  Imagine the guilt that little girl will feel, the anger towards her mother and the horror that it could just as easily have been the other way around…Her twin brother could be mourning her loss.

I worked as a labor and delivery nurse at a high risk center for 20 years.  While I refused to participate in these procedures, they were regularly on the schedule.  One older, single woman had used in vitro fertilization to become pregnant.  She had a healthy triplet gestation going.  She didn’t want triplets.  She had “selective reduction.”  The doctor killed two of the babies, both girls.  A boy was left alive.  This woman didn’t want a boy.  She insisted the doctor kill him, too, so she could start over.  True story.

Jen, this article is amazing. The NY Times article is just unbelievable. And while I understand that people are desperate to have babies sometimes, the IVF process is far too regularly abused, and that’s why it’s wrong. A society where children are disposable is what has resulted from pro choice agenda and it’s so sickening to me.

Just know that this article is changing hearts. Wonderfully worded. Love the logic of the Intellectual Honesty. Big conversations on my FB page about this all.

THERESE:

That’s got to be one of the most sickening stories I’ve heard in a long while.  And here there are women who struggle and struggle to conceive just one child…

I realize that almost everyone who supports SLAVERY does so out of good intentions; all the pro-SLAVERY people I know are compassionate folks who are trying to do the right thing. But, as I’ve said before, I think that their misguided compassion leads them to overlook some critical facts, and that this is brought into relief when you really think through all the implications of saying that BLACKS ARE NOT FULLY human. I hope they read those articles linked above, and listen to the stories of ...

From your blog of 3 1/2 years ago:

“It made me realize that my pro-choice viewpoints were putting me in the position of deciding who was and was not human, and whose lives were worth living.”

It’s hard to argue with that statement.  It just doesn’t seem right that someone could weigh the costs and benefits of bringing a fetus to term and decide that the costs outweigh the benefits.  After all, human life is “priceless”.  Well, not quite priceless.  Those who cause harm to human life often pay some costs.  And companies who are negligent often pay high costs.  But “priceless” is not quite accurate.  What are the chances that you will cause harm by driving a car today?  Your insurance company (wait - a lot of people don’t carry insurance) hopes that the chances are small.  But life is full of trade-offs between costs and benefits.

“putting me in the position of deciding”

Well, YOU are not really being “put in the position of deciding”.  The mother (and father?) are deciding.  You are merely expressing your opinion.  Unless you take action to prevent the decision.  But it seems that actually taking action would be futile, so you are content with merely expressing your opinion.  Others have taken “action” and those actions have resulted in harm.

Your title for your opinion is:

“What Pro-Choice Intellectual Honesty Looks Like”

But it does not seem to me that that title properly reflects what you have written.  “Intellectual honesty” requires that one consider the actual laws of this society and then choose whether or not to obey or disobey those laws and whether or not to work to try to change or prevent change to those laws.

As I’m sure you are aware, our Republican state legislature passed a new law that attempts to make those who must make this choice think twice before making that choice and our Governor signed that law and will run for President with that law as one of his accomplishments.  Now that’s taking action as best they/he can.  It remains to be seen if that action has any effect on his candidacy or the actual rate of abortion in this state.

Cost/benefit analysis is often difficult.  Single-parent families are ... (fill in proper statistics here - but a lot of the statistics are pretty negative).

You have chosen to highlight what I would suspect is a very rare occurrence - reduction of multiple births.  My opinion - the “costs” of a multiple birth are much higher than the cost of a single birth.  Obviously the parents are weighing such a cost in their decision.

“It’s worth noting that babies at that age can clench their fists ...”

Yes.  The new Texas law will attempt to use such an emotional appeal to try to reduce the number of abortions in Texas.  But the cost/benefit analysis also must include the “costs” of caring for the child for the next 18 years or more.  Will the parent be able to care for the child or will the state become responsible for caring for the child?  Or will there merely be a 50/50 split as far as monetary costs are concerned?  The Republicans are all for reducing the cost of government.  Does that include reducing the costs of health care for women and children in poverty?

Your purely emotional appeal does not seem to have the “intellectual honesty” of a proper cost/benefit analysis.  Apparently the benefits are infinite and the costs are not allowed to be considered.  Reality is not that simple.

Mike McCants,

The new Texas law will attempt to use such an emotional appeal to try to reduce the number of abortions in Texas.

God forbid we use arguments from emotion when debating about whether or not a human beings life is worth something.  What you call emotions, we call conscience.  No.  One should not base moral decisions on emotions.  But that doesn’t mean we cannot use our consciences.  Plus, pointing out that an in utero child can clench his fists is not appealing to emotions.  It is a fact…you know, empirical evidence that can be repeated and measured?  You should be familiar with that. 

Cost analysis is great when determining the worth of bananas…human beings?  Not so much.  But thanks for playing our game.

i do not read much about abortions because it hurts my heart however i do pray every nite for an end to abortion and for the conversion of all supporters..i hope this helps…and thank you for this article it gives me a energy to pray harder….the more intense the situation the more intense our prayers.

I learned only recently of the possibility of embryo adoption.  Couples who have embryos left over after IVF can opt to have the embryos adopted.  I’m sure the Church is considering it’s stance on this issue…  considering it’s position on IVF and petri dish conceptions in the first place… but I certainly like the idea.  Better than having the embryos destroyed.

I know of a couple who did IVF… and while I don’t approve of that… they were responsible and took only the risks they were willing to accept the consequences of (number of embryos implanted.)
I am over 40 and have not yet been married.  If I were to find a husband soon, I would consider adopting their embryos if in my advanced age, I were not able to conceive.

Alternatively,  I think it’s irresponsible and disgusting for an IVF couple couple to implant more embryos than they are willing to support through to birth.  They do so to avoid the expense of another implantation if this one doesn’t take!  Putting money before life?  How selfish and ugly.

Another commenter before me said he would assume that “multi-fetal reduction surgery” doesn’t happen often.  Oh please… it’s been happening for years.  Just imagine how many in a year —- oh, the tragedy!

How on earth is noting facts about gestational development an “emotional appeal”??  Back to the logic and rhetoric classroom for thee, Mike, because that is clearly logos, not pathos.  There are a few more logical/grammatical/thinking errors in your post, e.g., the object of the verb when Jen was discussed the issue of “deciding”; the discussion of the colloquialism “priceless” in relation to litigation, which was confused; your understanding of whether fetal reduction is “rare” (since it’s unreported, who knows?), is citing facts without evidence; and your understanding of the relationship between abortion and economics—again, sorry, but unsupported by the facts.

Indeed, there was a whole lot of emotion in that post from someone who claims to dislike emotional appeals.  Just saying.

“arguments from emotion”

Of course everyone uses emotions to try to influence a discussion/decision.  Consider a single mother who already has two young children.  I appeal to both the financial and emotional cost of having a third child.  One emotion is “happiness”.  Another is “sorrow”.  Having to weigh happiness and sorrow should be difficult.  Your religion simply forbids the choice.

“human being’s life”

Of course that is an emotional appeal to a fetus as a human being.  You need to change the law.

“What you call emotions, we call conscience.”

A conscience is used to help choose between right and wrong.  Emotions might influence such a decision, but the decision itself should be “rational”.  But your religion has the position that such a decision must always go a certain way and that is it never “rational” to make the other choice.

“pointing out that an in utero child can clench his fists is not appealing to emotions”

Sorry if I was not clear.  The new Texas law requires that the parent be shown that fetus in utero using ultrasound before the parent is allowed to make a decision.  My opinion is that the law is trying to appeal to the parent’s emotions.

“Not so much.”

I noticed that your statement was not an absolute “not at all”.

“But thanks for playing our game.”

The “game of life” is also called “reality”.  Your religion has chosen an “absolutist” position on this subject.  Reality is not that simple.

Mike,

But your religion has the position that such a decision must always go a certain way and that is it never “rational” to make the other choice.

Duh!  Of course killing another human being is always irrational if said human beings only “crime” is existing.  That is not my “religions” view.  That’s reality.  If couples can’t afford children, then the answer is to avoid creating them.  Not to kill them and change their definition.  You can call them fetuses, you can call them umbrellas…it doesn’t change what they ARE it only changes what you call them.  They are human beings.  Now you might be comfortable with telling yourself lies and rationalizing their untimely deaths, but that doesn’t make it true.  It just makes you deluded. 

Life begins at fertilization.  Science says so.  Common sense says so.  That’s reality.  And it IS that simple.

“killing another human being is always irrational if said human beings only “crime” is existing”

The law does not recognize a fetus as a “human being”.  That’s reality.  It is that simple.

From the original statement:

“The entire pro-choice position rests on the idea that these “fetuses” are not human beings; they’re merely clumps of tissue, with no rights of their own.”

The anti-abortion position rests on the idea that a fetus is a human being with all the rights and privileges thereof.  So when it comes to “hard choices” of the life of the mother versus the life of the fetus, who decides?  A “partial” fetus that will require large expenditures of time and money by the “state” for a meager existence?  Who decides?

Obviously this debate has been ongoing for many decades.  We have “What makes a person special?” and “People are worth the Resources” in the very recent past.  Calculations of cost and benefit are not easy, but they must be done.  That is reality.

Dear Lord , this is one reason I pray every day ; Jesus have Mercy on us!!!!

Mike,

If you’re already using quotation marks, the inner quotation marks should be of the singular sort—you know, ’ instead of “.  Additionally, it would be helpful to clarify what is intended insofar as meaning when you place words in quotation marks; e.g., is “We have ‘what makes a person special’. . .” etc., a reference to slogan, a thought, or an inner voice, perhaps? And I must agree that you seem to not know the difference between appeals to emotion and other types of appeals.

The law does not recognize a fetus as a “human being”.  That’s reality.  It is that simple.

And I care what the law recognizes, why?  You might be comfortable letting the law dictate morality to you, but I don’t give a rat’s antelope what the law says.  The law also once said that women and blacks could be owned.  Now it says uborn children can be ripped apart in their mothers womb (provided of course, the head doesn’t come out first).  It also said that colored people had to drink from their own water fountains and use their own bathrooms.  The day I let the law dictate morality to me is the day I curl up and die.

A “partial” fetus that will require large expenditures of time and money by the “state” for a meager existence?

What in the name of all that is Holy, is a PARTIAL FETUS?

Calculations of cost and benefit are not easy, but they must be done.

Again, if you were selling used tires, that would be a great model to live by.  But these are HUMAN BEINGS.  Just the fact that you can speak of people in terms of cost and benefit tells me all I need to know.  Are you even human or were you put together in a factory?  If so, they forgot your heart!  Should we weigh the cost and benefit of all the kindergartners in the world?  Get rid of the ones that aren’t performing up to snuff?  Crazy talk!

Ah, the slippery slope of calling those who support a woman’s right to choose to abort their children compassionate. Jennifer, I want to thank you for writing about just another method women who have blighted consciences choose to kill their unborn children. But I agree with Jason. One does not have to be born under a rock to know that killing is immoral and against the civil law. God has imprinted the moral law in everyone’s hearts by breathing life into the human person. Many women (and men) go with their feelings and when feelings are all that are used to inform what is right and what is wrong then we open ourselves up to license which is the misuse of the moral law. Compassion is not true compassion unless it is informed by the truth. Holy Mother Church is always right. All people must inform themselves of God’s laws. Our conscience tells us so. The Bible tells us so. Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium tell us so. Most of those women who are for “choice” willingly buy into feminism theories of life, not Godly doctrine. They choose to be informed by mortals and not by the moral law. Is it their own fault for not informing their consciences before making moral decisions? You bet it is. The slippery slope, Jennifer, would lead us to believe that Margaret Sanger was compassionate. “Warm and fuzzy” which you are buying into does make you complicit, as harsh as it sounds. It is not truth and charity to tell these pro-choicers that they are not pro-abortionists. The truth is not soft. It is hard fact and until these people whom you say are compassionate put God above their egos and their sexual license they will be under the iniquity, that state of lawlessness that God has allowed them to live in until they repent and give their hearts and minds to God.

‘what makes a person special’ is a reference to a previous Jennifer column.

“And I care what the law recognizes, why?”

The law is part of “reality”.

“let the law dictate morality”

Lots of things influence “morality”.  It would seem that expressing an opinion on the decades-old debate attracts some negative comments.  Surprise!  Not.

“PARTIAL FETUS”

Apparently the correct phrase is “defective fetus”.

“these are HUMAN BEINGS”

I heard you the first time and repeated your comment above.  Of course my reply was that the law does not recognize them as such.

“Are you even human”

No, this is an Eliza program.  Fooled you.

“weigh the cost and benefit of all the kindergartners”

Certainly not the ones dying in Somalia.  If we did, we would likely conclude that their costs outweigh their benefits.  If we concluded otherwise, we would likely try another invasion and we know how that last attempt turned out.  Blackhawk down!  Or we could try to reason with the Islamic? warlords.

“God has imprinted the moral law in everyone’s hearts”

Riiiight.  Now about that Supreme Court decision 38 years ago ...

“Holy Mother Church is always right.”

You are entitled to your opinion.  And when you impose a theocracy, your opinion will have the force of law.

“they will be under the iniquity”

Oh, no.  Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

From Wikipedia: “The abortion debate refers to discussion and controversy surrounding the moral and legal status of abortion. The two main groups involved in the abortion debate are the pro-choice movement and the pro-life movement. Each movement has, with varying results, sought to influence public opinion and to attain legal support for its position.” ... “Any discussion of the putative personhood of the fetus will be complicated by the current legal status of children.” ... “In Roe v Wade, the Court decided that the state has an “important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life” from the point of viability on, but that prior to viability, the woman’s fundamental rights are more compelling than that of the state.”

It would seem that expressing an opinion on the decades-old debate attracts some negative comments.

Exactly.  Decades old.  Which means that in the history of humankind this debate is a trend, a novelty, a passing phase.  The Hippocratic Oath was written in the 5th century.  That’s how long ago it was understood and honored, that taking an innocent human life was wrong.  I don’t need a 21st century debate to discredit an ancient understanding.

No one is debating that the law is part of our temporal reality.  So what?  It has nothing to do with what is right or wrong.  It has to do with what will be accepted by a society.  As Chesterton says “Man does not disagree on which things are evil.  He disagrees on which evils we will accept”

Of course my reply was that the law does not recognize them as such.

So what?  They didn’t recognize blacks or Jews or women as “fully human” at different times either.  That does not prove that the law was right, it only proves that the law existed.  And the law was wrong.  As I said, I don’t give a rat’s applesauce what the law recognizes.  There are people who do “the right thing” because they are afraid of punishment. There are those who do “the right thing” because the law tells them to.  And there are those who do “the right thing” because it IS the right thing. 

There is a hierarchy of morality.  Those of us on here arguing for Pro Life are answering to Universal morality.  That which is TRUE not that which is DICTATED.  We don’t need anyone to tell us what is right and wrong.  Laws are for those who don’t know the difference between right and wrong.  Like you.  Your version of morality is like that of parent and child.  You need someone to tell you what to do.

http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA 8300/theories/kohlberg.html

And when you impose a theocracy, your opinion will have the force of law.

See?  There it is again.  The FORCE of law.  We don’t have our morality “Forced” on us.  We choose it freely.

The problem is that you look at the law and say “That will be my morality”.  We look at morality and hope that the law will reflect it.

Seriously, quoting Roe V Wade to prove that abortion is moral is like pointing to the Communist Manifesto to prove that communism is good. You’ve got to raise your standards!

Of course a rational person considers killing another human an absolute wrong. If one does away with this fundamental law, then there would be no constraints on murder at all! What’s to stop someone from killing me because my existence interfere’s with their ability to get a raise at work, for instance? Or what’s to stop a mother from killing her three children because the man she desired hates kids? The pro choice argument argues, fundamentally, that a woman has the right to destroy a person she willingly helped to create in her womb! How is this different from the woman who kills her twelve year old mouthy daughter? Logically, there is no difference.

Thank you, Jennifer, for helping jump start my heart again on this horrible act of abortion.  I used to be very involved in the pro life movement but haven’t even prayed at a clinic in a long time. 

I remember hearing that abortion flourishes in the dark.  I really wonder if every person who actually supported abortion saw what it truly was- saw the woman who walked in and all her emotions (who so very often doesn’t WANT an abortion but sees it as an only way “out”), saw the actual baby reacting to the abortion on the ultrasound, and saw the bloody body parts removed piece by piece and put together again so as to make sure “nothing was left” in the uterus to cause an infection. . . and see how it changes a woman’s life forever.  How would that change them?

But it’s in the dark.  How will people ever really know?

As a side note, I don’t see how attacking Jen for saying that a lot of abortion rights supporters are so under the guise of compassion. Please read all she said and don’t jump on 2 words. And She never said anything about Margaret Sanger. I know what she means- I have wonderful, loving, caring people in my life that are pro choice.  Honestly, most of these supporters are for theory and ideology. They don’t really know what it is. A lot of people don’t even understand it is murder. They have been told time and again that life doesn’t start at conception. Just becasue God has written natural law in our hearts doesn’t mean that a corrupt society can’t influence or hinder that!  Attacking all pro choice people doesnt’ change anything.  Just keep using logic and love. 

Good post.

Just wanted to apologize for the horrible grammar and syntax. It’s super late at night. lol

Once we’ve started down the slippery slope of accepting abortion,  ANYTHING is deemed acceptable. I hope that readers will seriously consider that this is the direct result of giving people the right to “choose”.

Life is about making choices and living with the consequences of those choices.

“Those of us on here arguing for Pro Life are answering to Universal morality.”

That’s a good “sound bite”.  But the counter-argument is that there is no such thing as “universal morality”.  There are “hard choices” and “easy choices” and anyone who claims that there is a “universal morality” that makes all choices into “easy choices” is just deluded.

“We don’t need anyone to tell us what is right and wrong.”

Riiiight.  Children don’t need parents.  Societies don’t need laws.  Perhaps you should read the link that you referenced.  Religious fanatics don’t need anything but their special book!

“Laws are for those who don’t know the difference between right and wrong.”

Yet another good “sound bite”.  I’m soooo impressed.  Not.

“You need someone to tell you what to do.”

It would seem that you are prepared to tell someone “what to do”.  You wish to tell someone who makes a choice and accepts the consequences that they are not allowed to make that choice.  So you wish to tell a lot of people “what to do”.  And they will not do what you want them to do unless you pass and enforce a law requiring them to give up that choice.

“ONLY ABOUT 25% OF PERSONS EVER GROW TO LEVEL SIX, THE MAJORITY REMAINING AT LEVEL FOUR.”

Apparently a society of humans is not perfect.  So having laws is required.

“The FORCE of law.  We don’t have our morality “Forced” on us.”

Those at “level 4” do need laws.  So in some sense their morality is “forced” on them.

“We choose it [morality] freely.”

Your use of “we” seems too broad.

“The problem is that you look at the law and say “That will be my morality”.”

Of course that makes really good sense in most day-to-day situations.  But then we come to what might be considered “hard choices”.

“We look at morality and hope that the law will reflect it.”

Yet another good “sound bite”.  But obviously abortion is a “hard choice” in some situations.  And the law currently does not reflect that.  The current law makes abortion an “easy choice” in most situations.  And since the law does not currently reflect your morality, what do you do?  Write columns and comments for 0.00002% of the US population?  Elect the crazy one from Minnesota?

“quoting Roe V Wade to prove that abortion is moral”

Well, thank you very much for mis-reading my thoughts.  Next you might ask if I am human.  Oh, you already did.

Now let’s go on to assisted suicide.  It’s such an “easy choice” to require someone to live in pain until they starve to death or on a “feeding tube” for decades!  So of course there needs to be a law against assisted suicide to help people make that “easy choice”.  Or else it’s a “hard choice” and there are different laws in different places.

Presidents declare war with or without the assent of Congress.  It’s such an “easy choice” to send our troops to “invade” another country.  And so your “universal morality” does or does not carefully define a “Just War”.

And, of course, there is the fundamental requirement of a penal system (including the death penalty in some places!) which is required to ... to ... well at least keep people who are likely to commit crimes in the future away from society for 1 or 5 or 20 years or a lifetime.  Such “easy choices”.

The scientific fact of the matter is that by approximately 10 weeks gestation, when the term fetus comes into play, the “fetus” has all of its human body parts.  These body parts will continue to grow and develop for the next 30 weeks inside the womb and the next approximately 20 years OUTSIDE of the womb. 

So, if a fetus is just a “blob” of cells that it is ok to kill, then the logical correspondence is that I am just a “blob” of cells as well.  If it is ok to kill a fetus because it is not a fully developed human, than it should be perfectly fine to kill any person under the age of 20. 

I don’t need my faith to tell me these things.  Science and logic work fine, thank you.  But isn’t it funny how science and logic have confirmed things (via advanced ultrasound technique and extensive neurological studies) that the Church has been telling us along?

We are so lost.  These people in this article needed prayer.  They believe that they are the only ones who care for these children.  They don’t believe that God will provide the emotional and financial support they need if they believe.  Obviously they don’t believe and to me that is so sad.  I agree with most that although sad this article is great in that it will change the hearts of many.

I agree with Jason at 3:16pm. There is nothing compassionate about abortion, misguided or otherwise.

Since my daughter’s twin died at 5 weeks old, I have “met” many women (online)suffering from losing one or more multiples.  There have been many times when it was hard for me to be compassionate to those who were “artificially” put in this situation.  It is near impossible to be compassionate when mothers who have “selectively reduced” want to be supported in grief the same as the rest of us. I know they are experiencing grief and guilt the same way I do but it is different.  My loss was not my choice.  This is such a poignant article and I wish I could post it for those moms to consider since some will do it again and again.

wow. i’m pro choice and feel the same way and i think it lies in that, for me, i’ve always considered a woman who chooses abortion doing so because she feels she has no other choice. It is a difficult decision and it can be traumatic and heartbreaking. Often there is guilt, sometimes there is solemn relief. However, it has always been my belief that if these women could go back and avoid the pregnancy they would. The women mentioned in this article WANTED a child, pushed for child.. although many abortions in the end can be deemed selfish (not all, given that some of these aborted children would have grown in poverty and dysfunction), the act of killing a twin seems rooted in complete selfishness and lacks a sense of remorse or conscience.

Julia, you do bring up the most damning part of this, treating children as objects to be bought, sold, created, or destroyed.  And people dismiss the the Church’s teachings against in vitro and other fertility procedures that separate procreation from the marriage act, but again the Church’s wisdom prevails when situations like this occur.

Mike McCants - Abortion isn’t a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue.

See http://secularprolife.org

We all seem to dance around this issue and have been for many years abortion is it right or is it wrong? When is it ok? When is not? Don’t get me wrong I’m Catholic alot of us here if not all of us are. I’m also in health care. The thing of it is this we live in a country where there are 150 million women and 1700 OB/GYN’S that perform abortions Late term early term. Potassium Chloride is just the latest in a long form of ways that we have come up with to kill our children before there born. If we don’t do that then we dialate the cervix and yank baby out crushing his/her skull in the process.The problem is this I’m not saying that women who start their careers late don’t deserve to have children. But what these women don’t understand because in thier desperation to have a baby because they waited so long or because they have problems concieving is that WHEN YOU ARE PUMPED FULL OF HORMONES THAT MAKE MULTIPLE EGGS DROP AT ONCE you are at increased risk of having multiples as me and my family and a lot of others like to call them (MY sister has two sets of twins) I do think that if you are going to decide to pump your body full of hormones YOU NEED TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER THE FACT YOU MAY BECOME PREGNANT WITH MORE THAN ONE CHILD! If that is something you dont want or cant do than maybe you need to seek another way to have children. It is true that selective reduction is the logical exdtension to pro choice thinking the reason I think it bothers everyone so much is that they worry about the kids left behind or maybe it’s the idea they go into a fertility procedure wanting a baby so badly that they get thier times two or three and they question if its ok to kill one and not the other. Now let make this clear if someone comes into the office I will give them thier options ALL of them because part of my job is patient education. It’s also not my place to judge them and I don’t what I will say is this these women are so desperate to have a baby concieve more than they bargain for and then think it’s ok to just get rid of the others like pieces of a luggage set. IF they were somebody I love I would argue that maybe god is giving you a complete luggage set for a reason. The thing about it though is do we really want these women bringing children into the world they don’t want? I’m in no way suggesting that selective reduction is ok but if they don’t want these children in the first place maybe you need to find an alternate way to have a child. I believe everyone has the right to have a child of thier own I’m just saying if its come to the point that you need fertility treatments to get that child and your not up for multiples than maybe it’s gods way of saying “Gosh maybe you should adopt” My wife and I are going to start having kids soon we have to make sure that she’s capable of having kids first because she has something called Polycythemia Vera and if it were not ok for her to have twins but one child considering thier such a high percentage of twins in her family (her dad was a twin and her sister has twins) I would think long and hard and maybe say “Aisha lets adopt.” Because I could never bring a child into the world knowing that his/her brother or sister were not with us. I think sometimes we get so caught up with having kids because we feel incomplete without them or because we waited so long and our conscience is bothering us because of it that we don’t consider the full ramifications of the decision were making. I say were in that last sentence because everone is so focused on the women granted it’s thier bodies that hold said child but that dosen’t excuse dad from this descion or the ramifications either. Just food for thought.

“If one does away with this fundamental law, then there would be no constraints on murder at all!”

What a stupid thing to say!

“If it is ok to kill a fetus because it is not a fully developed human, than it should be perfectly fine to kill any person under the age of 20.”

What a stupid thing to say!

“They don’t believe that God will provide the emotional and financial support they need if they believe.”

Is some god providing for the starving children in Somalia?  What is the challenge of having a 14-month-old and newborn twins when your husband is deployed in Iraq?  Is some god going to provide an extra 15K for full-time daily paid support?  Is your mother-in-law going to quit her job and travel across the country and live in your apartment with your three kids for the next year?

“Obviously they don’t believe and to me that is so sad.”

“Belief” is going to provide food, clothing, shelter, proper attention to each child and two college educations?  I don’t think so.

“it will change the hearts of many.”

The NY Times article is about a fairly atypical situation.  As the article tells, every person in this situation faces a very difficult decision.  The NY Times article seems very even-handed to me.  It does not seem to be written to influence the decision one way or the other.

“the act of killing a twin seems rooted in complete selfishness and lacks a sense of remorse or conscience.”

From the Times: “She and her husband worked out this moral calculation on their own, and they intend to never tell anyone about it. Jenny is certain that no one, not even her closest friends, would understand, and she doesn’t want to be the object of their curiosity or feel the sting of their judgement.”  Your opinion seems incorrect to me.

“treating children as objects to be bought, sold, created, or destroyed.”

The law does not recognize a fetus as a child.

“And people dismiss the the Church’s teachings against in vitro fertilization”

Infertility is a problem and IVF is a solution.  It’s irrational to be against IVF.  It’s also irrational to be against contraception and apparently 90+% of Catholics agree.

“the Church’s wisdom prevails”

What a silly thing to say!

“Abortion isn’t a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue.”

Then change the law to give a fetus human rights.  But it’s been 38 years since Roe v Wade, so it does not seem to me that the law is likely to change in the near future.

Mike McCants,

The reason a lot of Catholics use birth control and support IVF is because a) they’ve been fed a lot of misinformation about “the wonders” of birth control from the secular world (I refer you to Dr. Miriam Grossman’s website for all of the scientifically incorrect information given to kids in sex education classes), and b) they were never taught the reasons why the church is against artificial birth control and IVF and premarital sex, etc.  The arguments are actually really, really logical, but the require a comment to long-term gratification instead of short-term gratification.

The fact of the matter is that people do think they have the moral right to treat children as objects to be bought, sold, created, or destroyed, just because they have a legal one. Other wise why would they go through IVF in the first place?  It is a process whose entire purpose is to create a child.  Just because the law doesn’t recognize it has a child until it magically passes outside the mother’s body (except of course unless the pregnant mother is murdered or in the case of a late term abortion where the child happens to still be alive when it comes out, which really makes it subjective definition), doesn’t mean that it is not in fact a child.

We are well aware of what the law says and doesn’t say.  But just because something isn’t against the law, that doesn’t mean that it’s morally right.  Talk about someone being silly.

“misinformation about “the wonders” of birth control”

I’m not supposed to laugh when I read this?  Of course birth control is a “wonder”!  Do you wish to return to the good old days of birth control failures and illegal abortions?  What is your proposed solution?  Is it laughably contrary to human nature?  Has “human nature” been changed by easy access to birth control?  Of course it has.  What are you going to do about the “new” human nature?

“kids in sex education”

Well, you have wandered fairly far from the original topic.  Are you for it or against it?  :-)

“they were never taught the reasons why the church is against ...”

Do you mean the Catholic Church?  What about Protestant churches?  Why is one church against birth control and another church is not?  It couldn’t be because there’s a Pope at the head of one of them?  And a Pope is never allowed to change his mind?  Except maybe after 400 years a Pope can admit that Galileo was correct?

“The arguments are actually really, really logical”

So you say.  Why should I believe you?  The best I can judge the “argument” is “the authority says that a fetus is a human being as soon as there is conception”.  The courts failed to accept that.  A lot of people fail to accept that.  If that is the argument, is that logical?  The why do people reject that argument?  What are you going to do about it?

“they require a commitment to long-term gratification instead of short-term gratification” [changed to what I thought you meant to say]

And basic human nature is or is not oriented towards short-term gratification?  Most people have an IQ of 100 or less!  How logical is it to have such arguments?  How practical is it to have an average person accept such arguments?

And that applies to having a child or children using IVF in what way?  Seems backwards to me - having a child is a long-term commitment.  And IVF is hardly a short-term gratification compared to that long-term commitment.  My opinion is that this moral judgement is simply wrong.  And when they awarded the Nobel Prize to the doctor last year, the Pope expressed his disapproval.  The award “went against all Christian teaching on procreation.”  Who gave him the authority to decide right and wrong on the Novel Prize or IVF?

“the moral right to treat children as objects”

There you go again - using the word “children” when the correct word seems to be “fetus”.  It would seem that you think that it is “easy” for a potential mother to make a certain decision.  Perhaps sometimes it is easy.  Perhaps sometimes it is not so easy.  Who has the “authority” to judge what is right and wrong in every particular case?

“Otherwise why would they go through IVF in the first place?  It is a process whose entire purpose is to create a child.”

This pair of sentences seems confused to me.  Was there a point here?

“Just because the law doesn’t recognize it has a child ... doesn’t mean that it is not in fact a child.”

What authority allows you to make this decision?  Why should a Pope have the authority to make this decision?  It seems to me that you are declaring that your opinion is correct simply by fiat.

“But just because something isn’t against the law, that doesn’t mean that it’s morally right.”

I do not believe that I have actually taken that position.  I said that some decisions are not easy decisions.  It seems to me that the NY Times article shows that to be true.  These are not easy decisions for these mothers.  That they wish to keep their decision secret indicates that they are certainly under pressure to make a different decision.

So who gets to be the “authority” on “what is morally right”?  Who appointed you?  Who appointed the Pope?  Why do so many people make decisions contrary to your opinions?  Do these people have a “conscience”?  [See Wikipedia on Catholic teaching about conscience!]

A different person:  “Those of us on here arguing for Pro Life are answering to Universal morality.  That which is TRUE not that which is DICTATED.”

Of course I previously rejected such a statement.  It’s just a claim to moral authority which I do not believe is justified.  And it seems clear to me that those who make this claim do wish to dictate their moral authority over others.

So, the Pope has an opinion.  The Catholic Church has a “teaching”.  And the opinion/teaching is ignored by a lot of people.  That’s reality.  What can you possibly do about it?  Deplore such a situation?  Change the law?  Give time and energy and money to try to change people’s opinions?  Go ahead.  I’m not stopping you.  I’m just pointing out that “reality” seems to indicate that you are on the “losing side”.

Mike McC,

Do you wish to return to the good old days of birth control failures and illegal abortions?

As opposed to the good new days of birth control failure and legal abortions?  You are too funny.

What are you going to do about the “new” human nature?

New Human Nature?  Seriously?  You mean it’s only recently that people have been obsessed with Sexuality?  That means that either Birth Control has brought on this new obsession, (which clearly shows that B.C. was NOT a good thing) OR you are wrong and Human Nature has ALWAYS been such that we like a good roll in the hay.  I go with A. and B.  Human Nature has not changed one iota.  The only birth control did was promote the illusion that sex can be had whenever with whomever with no consequences.  But of course, that is a lie.  Everything has consequences.  So no we take our little pills, tell ourselves that promiscuity is natural and good, and end up killing half of our unborn babies and spreading countless sexually transmitted diseases…all the while touting the wonders of consequence free sex and the birth control pill!  Viva insanity!

Why is one church against birth control and another church is not?

Because one church is man made and one is Divinely instituted. ( Birth Control itself was ILLEGAL. Which, you know, according to you, morally WRONG? up until the advent of the pill.)  And because the Catholic Church is based on Truth and the Protestant Faith is based on falsehoods.

There you go again - using the word “children” when the correct word seems to be “fetus”.

Oh for the love of…Fetus does not speak to the question WHAT IS IT, but only answers IN WHAT STAGE OF LIFE IS IT.  ALL mammals are called fetus at a certain stage of their development.  That’s like saying we shouldn’t call them children when the correct term is infant.

Fetus mean “YOUNG ONE”.  There are dog fetuses (also know as unborn puppies), cat fetuses (you know, kittens) and human fetuses (also known as unborn babies).  HUMAN.  FETUSES.  The “what” question…“What is it?” is answered with HUMAN.  It is HUMAN.  The “what stage of life is it in?” is answered with “The fetal stage”.  You, I presume (although from reading the way you comment, I have my doubts) are in the ADULT stage of life.  Are you an adult orangutan (I wonder….never mind)?  An adult turtle?  No.  You are a HUMAN BEING in the adult STAGE.  Unborn babies are HUMAN BEINGS in the fetal STAGE.  Capiche?

Mike M,

What authority allows you to make this decision?

Ummmmm…science?

I do not believe that I have actually taken that position.

Yes you have.  Repeatedly and consistently. 

So who gets to be the “authority” on “what is morally right”?  Who appointed you?

If you have been paying even the least bit of attention to what we have all been saying for the last few months, you’d understand that NO ONE decides what’s right.  We discover, acknowledge what is right.  But we have no authority, none of us, to “decide” what is right.  “Moral”  rights, just are.  That is our entire argument.  You believe that people “decide” what is right and wrong…moral relativism, and we believe that we acknowledge what IS right and what IS wrong and act accordingly.  Morality dictate OUR behavior, we don’t dictate morality.

Who appointed the Pope?

God.  The same guy that authored morality. 

Why do so many people make decisions contrary to your opinions?

Because they are selfish and egotistical.  Because they have decided that what they want is more important than what is “good”.  Because, like you, they think THEY are the authors of morality.  Because they are weak.  Because they let their baser nature dictate their behavior.

Do these people have a “conscience”?

Everyone has a conscience.  Whether that conscience is working improperly due to lack of exercise is a different story.  Just as some people’s brain do not function properly due to disease or injury or genetics, so too some people’s consciences have been damaged due to neglect.  Sit in the mud long enough and you don’t even realize how filthy you are.  Virtue is the habit of choosing and doing “good”.  Habits are made with practice.  Can’t form a habit if you don’t perform the deed repeatedly.  You know, like you have a habit of insulting everyone when you don’t have a rational argument.  That would be called a vice.  The habit of performing poorly. 

Of course I previously rejected such a statement.  It’s just a claim to moral authority which I do not believe is justified.  And it seems clear to me that those who make this claim do wish to dictate their moral authority over others.

That’s because you lack the simple understanding of what morality is.  And because you don’t read what people write.  How can we possibly claim moral authority when we have repeatedly stated that morality is something that exists outside of us.  We might have the upper hand on recognizing what is moral and right, but that is hardly the same thing as inventing what is moral and right.  I can look at the Mona Lisa and sa “Isn’t that beautiful”.  Doesn’t mean I created the Mona Lisa and it doesn’t mean I have authority over declaring it beautiful.  It means it IS beautiful and I RECOGNIZE it’s beauty.  This is the fundamental point you keep missing.

I’m just pointing out that “reality” seems to indicate that you are on the “losing side”.

And therein lies your problem.  You live in the world of “seems to be” instead of the world of “actually is”.  First, more Americans are pro life than pro choice.  Second, opinions don’t matter when it comes to morality.  Abortion IS wrong, no matter what it might “seem” in our present culture.  Third, in the “END” we will all have to answer to the true author of morality and then we shall see who is on the “losing” side.  The world you “see” is not reality my friend.  It is the “unseen” world you need to concern yourself with.  In that world, I think you’ll be unpleasantly surprised to see just who is on the “losing” side of the equation.  There’s still time.  Come into the light.

“God.  The same guy that authored morality.”

I don’t think I’m going to waste any more time with this nonsense.

Mike M,

You mean you have no counterarguments…other than the “you guys are stupid” fall back?  Pity.  You might have learned something.  Truth is, if you really believe it’s nonsense, I’m left wondering why you wasted any time at all on it.  Maybe a need to stir up trouble?  Can’t think of any other reason…

“I realize that almost everyone who supports abortion does so out of good intentions; all the pro-choice people I know are compassionate folks who are trying to do the right thing.

I suppose I disagree with this sentence. I think that those who support abortion do so out of a sort of self-imposed ignorance.

“The only [thing] birth control did ...”

I would have thought that you would have heard the phrase “family planning” at some time in the last 10 years.  Apparently most members of the One True Religion have heard of it.

“some people’s consciences have been damaged due to neglect.”

Hilarious.

“you lack the simple understanding of what morality is”

Thanks for your condescension.

“we have repeatedly stated that morality is something that exists outside of us.”

Yes, but repeatedly repeating an unsupported assertion does not make it true.

““Moral” rights, just are.”

Hilarious unsupported assertion.

“That is our entire argument.”

But, of course, it is not an argument.

“It is the “unseen” world you need to concern yourself with.”

Bacteria can be dangerous?  Ghost Hunters International actually found something?  Bigfoot is responsible for some missing campers?  Can you be more specific about what I should be on the lookout for that is “unseen”?  Hilarious.

“I think you’ll be unpleasantly surprised”

I’m putting you in my will with the proviso that I have to come back withing 3 days after I’m dead to admit that you deserve to inherit.

“You mean you have no counterarguments”

It’s hard the “argue” with a religious fanatic of the One True Religion who has such an impressive array of unsupported assertions.

“You might have learned something.”

From the unsupported assertions that you have repeated for the last 10 years that I have heard 1000 times before?  I’m not that gullible.

“why you wasted any time at all on it.”

My checklist was not complete.

“Can’t think of any other reason”

Since it is quite obvious that you are not in the slightest interested in learning something for me.  You’ve heard it all and ignored it all 1000 times in the last 10 years.

“the Catholic Church is based on Truth and the Protestant Faith is based on falsehoods.”

“we will all have to answer to the true author of morality”

Now my checklist is complete.  But I had to give up on your failure to use “atheist” or “Hitler”.  They were in the other topic where the title was “reasoning with atheists provided that they assume that a god exists”.  Hilarious.

“self-imposed ignorance”

That’s ok.  We have the religious fanatics of the One True Religion to teach us.  And since they don’t use contraception, ... - oops, actually most of them do use contraception.  Never mind.  Well, they have failed to teach us.  Maybe they will try to pass some laws in an attempt to “deter” us.  Yes, I see that they have.

The book had the title “The God Delusion”.  Does my mentioning that help you make another check mark on your checklist?

I am once again stymied by your grasp of the English Language.  You say you quit, I say it’s probably because you have no counter arguments and can only fall back on the empty insults, which entices you back so you can give your NEW counterarguments.

You know, like these brilliant counterpoints.

“Hilarious”
“Hilarious”
and let’s not forget this bomb of originality…
“Hilarious”.

Wallace Shawn could take lessons from you!  INCONCEIVABLE!

read it if you have time

Copied from an 8/18 post at “Why Evolution Is True:

  According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “[t]hose actions which conform with [nature’s] tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral” and “[a]ctions are wrong if, though subserving the satisfaction of some particular need or tendency, they are at the same time incompatible with that rational harmonious subordination of the lower to the higher which reason should maintain among our conflicting tendencies and desires”.

So this is your “morality is obvious to everyone”.  Hilarious.

The rationalizations of human beings are often very hilarious.  Of course “the devil made me do it” comes to mind.  But “I did it because it is required by my religion” also comes to mind.  Pray to Mecca five times a day?  Which way is Mecca from here?  Oh wait.  You can laugh at another silly religion, but you can’t laugh at your own religion.

“I am once again stymied by your grasp of the English Language.”

Hilarious come back.  I do not believe that your failure is my fault.

“you have no counter arguments”

There can be no reasonable arguments against a belief that was not reached through the use of reason.  Faith is, by definition, that which is believed without any “evidence”.  Of course you claim to have your reasons, but I label them rationalizations.

You wrote: “Those of us on here arguing for Pro Life are answering to Universal morality.”

And I simply laugh at you.  What’s so hard to understand about that?

One check box that did not explicitly get checked is the “respect” check box.  You have never explicitly demanded “respect” for your beliefs.  Of course I have given you “hilarious”, not respect.  So after you have repeated yourself 10 times, you have kind of run out of ideas?

“you’d understand that NO ONE decides what’s right.”

Everyone is supposed to have a conscience.  But they can’t decide what’s right and wrong if their conscience has “been damaged due to neglect.”  Hilarious.  I’m not very stymied by your crazy use of the English language.  I simply mock it as ridiculous.

“Maybe a need to stir up trouble?”

How can I possibly “stir up trouble”.  Your faith is secure.  “Evidence” is simply ignored.  As is “lack of evidence”.  Absence of evidence really is evidence of absence in many situations.  Bigfoot, alien abductions - lots of “evidence”.  By all sorts of “reputable” people.  And pictures and videos and ...  Let’s examine the evidence at Lourdes!  Five million pilgrims and tourists every year!  Let’s declare Mother Teresa a saint!  And she has the required two miracles after death!  Hilarious!

http://www.praydivinemercy.com/

“The entire pro-choice position rests on the idea that these “fetuses” are not human beings; they’re merely clumps of tissue, with no rights of their own.”

For some people, yes, but I believe many pro-choice folks take a more nuanced position. Personally, I do not identify as either pro-life or pro-choice. I incline toward the classical Jewish interpretation that a fetus occupies the status of ‘potential life’ - it is neither a clump of tissues nor exactly the same as a born person. As a potential life, abortions should not be undertaken lightly, but in certain situations - the life of the mother, perhaps extreme mental distress, cases of rape and incest - an abortion is a moral choice, and the life of the mother takes precedent. Yes, an abortion involves death. It is a tragedy - but sometimes a necessary one.

As a Catholic, I am aware that you have different views and a different theological underpinning, but please do not paint all of our views with the same broad brush.

Shoshana,

The “classical Jewish interpretation” is wrong! And by the way, is it an ethnic Jewish position you are referring to, or an Orthodox Jewish position you are referring to? Because Orthodox Jews don’t seem to agree with your position. Your own scrpitures don’t support that a fetus is a “status of ‘potential life’.” So, please do not distort - or insult - classical Jewish interpretation. NOTHING is scripture - Old Testament or New Testament - would EVER agree with you. There are many LIBERAL Jews as there are LIBERAL Catholics.
In fact, the Catholic Church goes even a step further in calling the prevention of conception even WORSE than abortion. In abortion, you are killing an innocent life. In contraceptive acts, you are not even ALLOWING a life to be exist. In the Old Testament, there was a man called Onan who was smited by God because he tried to prevent his wife from conceiving. It’s a sin the Catholic Church calls “onanism.”
Abortion is NEVER a “necessary” decision. If it is morally wrong, then it’s morally wrong ALL the time - even in cases of rape and incest. The child is also innocent in cases or rape and incest. There’s a famous Catholic saint, St. Gianna Molla, who gave her life because they told her that her child in the womb would die if she carried it to term. So, they either had to save the mother, or save the child. She opted to the let the child live and for her life to be given for the life of her child. And that’s the model we follow as Catholics: The life of Christ, who, by the way, was Jewish. He was the model of PERFECT Judasim!

As a sibling of two aborted children, it definitely took me a long time to come to terms with the deaths of my older siblings.  Survivor guilt among children from mothers with previous abortions is actually a documented psychological condition and I can say that growing up in a “pro-choice” household didn’t help matters either.  Women who have abortions and tell their later surviving children about their lost siblings think they are doing their children a favor- letting them know how much they were “wanted.”  Instead of making me feel special as my mother had hoped, it made me feel sick as I could have just as easily been one of those unwanted children.  I think this, more than anything, is driving the current trend among my generation (children of the 80’s) towards a more pro-life attitude in general.  I pray for the children in these families- they will have a long road to recovery from their grief and anger over their siblings’ death and will have a hard road to forgiving their own mother for what she had done.

Rafael, I am referring to the position taken by the rabbis of the Talmud that the life of the mother takes precedent over the life of the fetus,  so all measures must be taken so save the life of the mother. (Outside cases of immediate death of the mother, there are differences of interpretation, including among Orthodox rabbis). Just like Catholics, we read scripture through the lens of tradition; we are not fundamentalists or “Scripturalists.”

The only possible reference to abortion in the Hebrew Bible from Exodus 21:22, which says that if a man accidentally causes a woman to miscarry, it is not murder; if the woman dies, it is murder, and he must be killed. This suggests that the fetus is *not* viewed as identical to “human life.” The Septuagint reads differently, however, and this may explain some of the difference within Christian tradition vis a vis Judaism.

I am an observant Conservative Jew. From the perspective of Judaism, St. Gianna Molla’s choice is not the ethical ideal, though of course, free will ultimately rests with human beings. Our traditions differ on this point.

Shoshana,

I appreciate your response. I’m not quite sure the passage you’re citing clearly justifies that a person is allowed to commit an abortion, or that the fetus is not a life. I don’t follow that logic according to your scriptural interpretation. I will agree with you that our traditions DO differ on certain issues of morality. For starters, in Genesis it says clearly, “Be fruitful and multiply.” In one of the other books, G_d says, “I knew you in the womb.” This clearly shows that the “fetus” in the womb is a life!!! I’m sure there are other Old Testament scriptures that I can site that speak to the life of a mother in the womb. So, how can this be a contradiction?

As you have stated, there are different interpretations even among Orthodox Jews. In fact, there is a Rabbi who is a STAUNCH advocate for the right to life and stands side-by-side with the Catholic and non-Catholic Christians in matters of pro-life - even in cases of incest and rape. What is true is true, no matter what a faith believes. If science has clearly shown that a fetus is a life, then it’s irrelevant what a faith teaches. All the major players in the Pro-Choice crowd had conceded the point that a fetus is a life. What they say now is that it’s not a “human being,” which makes no sense.

As for your statement on ethics and free will, a person has an obligation to form their conscience. So, if they act freely with a malinformed conscience, then they have comitted error. Ethics come from morals, so Gianna Molla’s choice IS the ethical ideal because it is based on a moral choice. And morals are what help one distinguish between right and wrong. You cannot seperate ethics and morals.
Abortion is always wrong, no excpetions. If a life in the womb is “accidently” lost because they were trying to save the mother, then that’s not an abortion. What IS wrong is to deliberately kill a baby - not a fetus - in order to save the mother.

@ Rafael - Thanks for the thoughtful response. I realize that the “Our traditions differ on this point” was placed confusingly. I didn’t mean that our traditions differed regarding free will in this case, simply that in Catholicism St. Gianna’s death for the sake of her child is the ethical ideal; in Judaism, it is not. Some might view it as going “above and beyond” the commandment and as a form of martyrdom; others I know of would actually view her choice to die as ethically incorrect. I am in the “falls under a person’s free will” camp on that particular issue. :)

As for the Scriptural interpretation, I don’t have time to go through all the quotes in the HB, suffice it to say that the rabbis point to the quote in Exodus to conclude that a fetus is not fully equivalent to a human life - it were, the man would be given capital punishment, just as he would be if he accidentally killed the mother. This is not to say fetuses are not human life, but that in cases where the mother’s life must be weighed against that of her unborn child, her life takes precedence. This article from an Orthodox Jewish rabbi explains the position in more detail: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48954946.html

Mike M,

Once again…

Abortion isn’t a religious issue, it’s a human rights issue.

See http://secularprolife.org

From CNN:

“All the priests that are administering the sacrament of confession during World Youth Day have the general authority to give absolution from the penalty of excommunication for abortion if someone comes to confession… if someone has this need,” Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi told CNN on Thursday, referring to the event that brought Pope Benedict XVI to Madrid on Thursday for a four-day visit.

So, that human rights issue is not quite as serious as it normally is for four days in one very Catholic country.  There’s that “Universal Morality” in [very selective] action.

“calling the prevention of conception even WORSE than abortion”

Fortunately this irrational nonsense is ignored by 90+% of Catholics in the US.  “Family Planning” seems to be much more sensible.

“Just like Catholics, we read scripture through the lens of tradition”

Maybe so, but Catholics are required to conform to the authority of their Pope and his minions.  So they are not allowed to actually interpret scripture - that is reserved for the Pope.  And Popes change their minds once every few hundred years or so or never.

“where the mother’s life must be weighed against that of her unborn child”

What?  A weighing of “cost” and “benefit”?  How rational!  How impossible for a Catholic!

“If science has clearly shown that a fetus is a life”

Wrong!  Wrong!  Wrong!  The “Party Line” is that fetus is an actual human being, not just a “life”.  Just a “life” is all too close to just a “potential human being”!

“I’m not quite sure the passage you’re citing”

That’s the problem with a book of 2000-year-old mythology.  Who is allowed to control the sheep with the sole authority to interpret the nonsense?  The sheep are not even allowed to read the Bible in their native language!  Only the clergy can read the Bible in Latin and interpret it!  Otherwise they are likely to get uppity and declare themselves to be Protestants!  And then we know that they are no longer part of the One True Religion!  They no longer accept our authority!

“in Genesis it says clearly, “Be fruitful and multiply.””

Well, I doubt that humans really needed all that much encouragement!  And the result?  Nearly 7 billion “carbon life forms” are “infecting” this planet according to the very intelligent entity known as V’ger in “Star Trek: The Motion Picture”.  Well, this is not sustainable and I predict that I won’t be here to see what “global warming” looks like in the future.  Ask Jennifer about 65 days of 100 degrees or above this summer and counting another day every day really feels like.  Hey.  It’s 7PM and the temperature has fallen to 101!  We had a total of 0.05 inches of rain??? in July and of course 0.00 in August.  Our average temperature this summer is about 7 degrees above “normal”.  As if there ever will be another “normal”.  Our only hope is a hurricane?  Oh dear.

Shoshana,
I thank you again for your response. These interactions challenge one to grow in their faith. I read the link to the article you placed on the page. For starters, it was political in nature. It reminded me of the last presidential election in ‘08 where there were Catholic priests and bishops in the United States who were telling (misguiding) practicing Catholics that they could vote for President Obama - or any Democrat candidate - in “good conscience” because the party also stands for things like anti-war, pro-helping the poor, etc…, which are all Catholic things. The problems is that not all issues have the same moral weight-equivalency. For instance, because a Catholic is against the death penalty does not automatically make him/her pro-life. Being against the death pentalty and being against abortion are 2 different things. The 2 issues are not morally equivalent. With that said, Dr. Daniel Eisenberg’s piece is just his opinion. He’s only speaking from his interpretation. There might be other Jews who share his same insight. But, that does not mean that he speaks for all Jews. Herein lies the problem when you don’t have one, universal voice speaking on matters of faith and morals for the Jewish people. As stated earlier, there are other Rabbis I have heard speak on the same matter and they disagree with this Rabbi.

As far as Catholicism is concerned, we do have one, clear voice that speaks out on matters of faith and morals: the Pope. Also, the Catechism very clearly outlines the basic tenets of the faith. For example, it clearly shows that there are minimal exceptions to the death pentaly, whereas there are NO exceptions for abortion. This is dogma, not opinion. But, sadly there are priests and bishops that are leading the “flock” astray on these matters. Or worse, not saying anything at all.

With that said, I think this particular doctor is trying to make the case that there is a “grey” area in a matter that others are trying to paint as black and white. But, there IS NO grey area. A life is a life. And to utilize scripture to make the case - or even tradition - is absurd. As you said, Catholics also utilize tradition, not just scripture. But, our tradition has always taught that. Even non-religious sources, for example, the orignial Hippocratic Oath that doctors profess before they are awarded the “MD” status, forbids abortion. And this pre-dates Christianity. The Hippocratic Oath has since been re-worded to not “clearly” reflect this.

In conclusion, I believe the article is a little “liberal” leaning, despite the claim that it’s from an Orthodox Jew. If a life, as dictated by the G-d of Abraham and Isaac and Moses has said clearly in scripture that life begins at conception, then nothing anyone else says is going to nulify that. This leads us down the slope of playing G-d. He has clearly given us His Word so we don’t have to wonder what He wants. He is G-d so we don’t have to be. I realize this is your belief. But, it does not change the reality that life begins at conception and it is not just a fetus. I’m sorry you were confused by the comment earlier about the traditions differing. Actually, I do believe that Orthodox Jews, for example, have a lot more in common with Orthodox Catholics than liberal/progressive Catholics. Just because a person/politician says they’re “Catholic” doesn’t mean they are. They may have been baptized Catholic. But, the test is their acceptance and practice of the faith and its teachings, not the self-perception.

“it was political in nature”

As if the removal of funds from Planned Parenthood was not political in nature.  As if the denial of evolution by crazy Republican presidential candidates (with one exception) was not political in nature.  As if the very selective 4 day special confessions in Spain were not political in nature.  Of course a lot of this silly world is political.  So what?

“The problem is that not all issues have the same moral weight”

Riiiiight.  And the penalty for abortion is excommunication unless the Pope changes his mind for 4 days in one country.  So you can see that the moral weight is really “flexible” sometimes.

“piece is just his opinion”

And the Catholic Church’s “teachings” are just the church’s “opinion”.  It’s not like there is anything important like a non-existent “soul” at stake.

“Herein lies the problem when you don’t have one, universal voice speaking on matters of faith and morals for the Jewish people.”

How rational of that religion!  That just points out how irrational the Catholic religion is.  But, of course, it’s the One True Religion!  Hilarious nonsense.

“This is dogma, not opinion.”

ROTFLOL!  And the word “dogma” does not necessarily have a good connotation!  No wonder the penalty is excommunication!

“there IS NO grey area.”

How irrational.  But typical.  My way or the highway.  Dogma is not open for discussion.

“Hippocratic Oath”

So, of course, it would be far preferable if non-doctors performed back-street abortions under less than sterile conditions.  Because the Popes have said it is unacceptable for doctors.  Absurd.

“has said clearly in scripture that life begins at conception”

So what?  Miscarriage, stillbirth, premature birth, time of viability.  Certainly it’s all “black and white” - not.

“He has clearly given us His Word”

Well, the Catholic Church dogma says that is true.  Apparently real people is real life often make a decision contrary to the wishes of the Catholic Church.

“the test is their acceptance and practice of the faith”

Of course.  The dogma does not allow any dissent.

Mike,
Jesus loves you, despite your hatred for His Church.
“For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no explanation is enough…”
God Bless You!
You will be in my prayers, brother - I mean that sincerely. I’m not just giving you platitudes.

“Jesus loves you”

Yes, there’s a lot of “evidence” for that.

“despite your hatred for His Church.”

There’s no point in “hating” a church or a religion.  They are what they are.  The members are doing the best they can under the circumstances.  The overwhelming weight of history and indoctrination are incredibly difficult to overcome.

“explanation”

Explanation??  What is a religious explanation??  Only science has “explanations”.

“You will be in my prayers”

That’s silly.  Prayers don’t do any good.  Perry got a prayer group together for rain 3 months ago and what good did it do us?  And I am blessed beyond measure.  I don’t need your prayers.  Pray for the starving in Somalia - they need it more than I do.  As if it would do any good.

And of course some religious people believe in what they call “heaven” and “hell”.  Those are completely ridiculous concepts.

“I’m not just giving you platitudes.”

Irrelevant.  Your prayers are useless.  What would you actually DO for me if I really needed something?  Time, money, what?  I have volunteered over 2500 hours in the five years since I retired.  Now that’s a lot better than useless prayer.

Question: Why do articles such as these always seem to turn in personal therapy for those who don’t believe in God? Answer: Because they need it the most.

God Bless.

OK, Mike, I’ll play along.
Due to the late hour, I will follow up tomorrow and give you a longer response.
God Bless!

“give you a longer response”

Why bother?

Fact: The “teaching” is “don’t use contraception”.
Fact: 90+% of US married Catholic couples do use contraception for “family planning”.
Conclusion 1: The teaching is correct and the couples are irrationally ignoring it.
Conclusion 2: The teaching is incorrect and the couples are rationally ignoring it.
My opinion is that conclusion 2 is correct.
And if that is the case for this teaching, why not for every teaching?
Apparently this teaching might have been reversed in 1968, but the Pope accepted the “minority report” and did not reverse it.  And there was a lot of “protest” when it was not reversed.

From Wikipedia:
“Family planning proponent Stephen D. Mumford has argued that the primary motivation behind the Church’s continued opposition to contraceptive use is the Church’s fear of losing papal authority if the pope were to contradict the dogma of papal infallibility.”

From Catholic News Agency:
In 1988, Dr. May wrote: “I was beginning to see that if contraception is justifiable, then perhaps artificial insemination, test-tube reproduction, and similar modes of generating life outside the marital embrace are morally justifiable too. I began to realize that the moral theology invented to justify contraception could be used to justify any kind of deed.”

Slippery slope indeed.

Why would you wish to repeat what I have heard 100 times before?  You accept “religious authority” and I reject it.  You are happier when you accept it and I am happier when I reject it.  How can there be any “reasoning” between us?  You have your reasons for accepting it and I have my reasons for rejecting it.  You can’t say anything to change my mind and I am unlikely to say anything to change your mind.

OK, Mike, let’s start with the previous e-mail.

You said to “pray for the starving people in Somalia.” First off, Jesus was the one that said, “You will always have the poor with you.” So, how this is relevant to the topic of prayer? Jesus prayed - for others. He asks us to do the same. Also, Jesus’ primary mission was not social justice: It was salvation! Jesus was not just some radical that came to steal from the rich to give to the poor. He came to save us from our sins. Some people want to narrow down Jesus to a good man that went around helping people. Or a good prophet, or good teacher. But, he was sooooo much more than that. When asked by the skeptical media if she thought her efforts would erradicate poverty, Mother Theresa simply said, “God does not call us to be successful, only faithful.” She also stated that “the United States was the poorest country in the world” because its spiritual poverty surpassed that of any materially poor country.

In the war on poverty, the Catholic Church is in the front lines in the fight. But, even they know that it’s a war that will never end, because Jesus said so himself. Those who wish to erase poverty from the face of the earth live in a Utopian idealistic world. Mother Theresa would often send some of her volunteers back home to where they came from because she wanted to them to fix their families, in turn reminding them that “charity begins in the home.” Mother Theresa saw the correlationship between poverty and the breakdown of the family. The family is the fundamental building block of society. And the United States has experienced over the years the breakdown of the family, thus resulting in all types of suffering - not just materialistic. Suffering can also occur on the mental, emotional, and spiritual dimensions of the human being. Just look at some of the richest people in the world who suffer from depression, addiction, anxiety, bi-polar, schizophrenia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, etc… Suffering does not discriminate. We are called to help those of ALL economic backgrounds. But, giving them a bowl of food or a shirt off our back would do them no good if we did not ALSO give them Jesus. Why? Because He said so. And Mother Theresa would also tell her workers and sisters that the poor they were helping was Jesus incarnate. She challenged them to see Jesus in the poorest of the poor. We are also supposed to be compassionate, which by definition means “to suffer with” the poor (“con”= with, “passion” = suffering). Philanthropy is nice. But, identifying with the poor and suffering is what we’re called to do: Be in solidarity with them, see oursleves in them. That’s true compassion, not the false compassion sometimes practiced by certain secular humanitarian groups. Even Atheists and other non-believers can do good in society. But, as Christians, we are called to become like Christ. And he suffered. So, we are to do the same. You mentioned that you have volunteered over 2500 hours. I don’t know what kind of vounteer work you do. But, as Catholics and as Christians, our motive is driven by the fact that we are helping Jesus. WE are seeing the face of Jesus in those whom we help.
I’m sorry that Perry’s prayer group did not work out. But, that does not mean that you should abandon prayer. That’s not what Jesus would want you to do. Jesus helped a lot of people. But, he also spent a lot of alone time in prayer. Constant communion with Him. And we are to do the same. Just because you may not see “results” that you can see with the naked eye, Jesus also spoke about that: “Eye has not seen…” Also, Jesus said that he came to “take away sight from those who can see.” So many saints have spoken of the beauty of God because they see with the eyes of the heart. Also science does not have then answer to everything. And to make science the FINAL authority over whether something exists or does not exist is a violation of the FIRST commandment: “Though shall not have have any other god besides me.” We don’t worship science: We worship God. Many scientists and atheists tell God, “Show me and I’ll belive.” And God responds, “Believe, and then I’ll show you.” But, the Church is not against science. Just because it’s scientific does not mean that’s it’s true. “Evidence” is not a God. The Natural Law does not contradict God.

As for your second e-mail regarding Catholics and the practice of contraception, there were a lot of Catholic priests, bishops, and cardinals who disagreed with the papal encyclical Humane Vitae when it was released in 1968, talking about the problems that contraception would bring in the future. As a result of him releasing that prophetic document, many of thoese priests, bishops, and cardinals left the church. And the ones that stayed but disagreed with him starting teaching the anti-Catholic practice of contraception. So, it’s no suprise that “90% of US married Catholic couples” utilize contraception. I don’t know excatly where you get you statistics from. But, is it no suprise that the divorce rate among Catholics is not different than the society at large? But, this is not a popularity contest. Contraception was banned by ALL Christian denominations prior to 1930. The first change to contraception came from the Episcoplian Church. The other Protestant denominations followed shorty after. The only one who has never changed -and never will - is the Catholic church.

You say, “Family planning proponent Stephen D. Mumford has argued that the primary motivation behind the Church’s continued opposition to contraceptive use is the Church’s fear of losing papal authority if the pope were to contradict the dogma of papal infallibility.” First off, just because someone says they’re FOR family planning does not mean they are in favor of family planning. Anyone can call themselves a “basketball player” or a “tennis player” or a “doctor,” which does not make them one. He might have credentials issues to him by a board. That does mean he is ethical. “Planned Parenthood” claims to be for family planning - according to governement standards. But from a Catholic perspective they are anti-family planning and one of the biggest threats to family planning. Planned Parenthood was a disguised continuation of eugenics and racial genocide by targetting the blacks in this country. FACT: The majority of the abortions carried out in the United States are carried out in the black neighborhoods.

Now, I ask you: Please find for me in scrpiture WHERE it says it’s OK to use contraception? I have NOT YET found anywhere that speaks in favor of the use of contraception. I’m going to save you the trouble: It doesn’t exist! So, how is it that other non-Catholic Christians continue this practice if it’s not rooted in scripture? All non-Catholic Christians utilize the Bible as their authority for how they practice their faith. Yet, I challenge any of them to find the authorization of contraception in there.

As for the dogma of papal infalability, no pope has ever contradicted another pope in matters of faith and morals. “Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever.” Abortion and the other current evils of society have existed since the time of Jesus. And the Church’s position has remained the same. And if the church is so afraid of losing papal infallability, why are there Episcopalian coming into full-comunion with the church today? Why are there other Protestant denominations and individuals seeking full-communion with the church? They want an authority, an ordained authority by Christ. It’s easy to point out all the dissenters in the church. But, the media is a little biased because they don’t point out the good that the church does. They’re mostly obessed with the sinners that the church has, not in Jesus’ healing power.

For anyone interested. There are people who think this is perfectly fine and should be lauded.  http://abortiongang.org/2011/08/having-one-minus-one-choices/ 

It tears my heart out!

“how this is relevant to the topic of prayer?”

Prayer is useless.  It’s silly to pray for me and it’s silly to pray for the dying women and children in Somalia.

“It was salvation!”

Incoherent.  Against science.  Ridiculous religious concept.

“do them no good if we did not ALSO give them Jesus.”

You are entitled to your opinion.  My opinion is that they will still starve to death if they do not receive food and water.  I see “giving them Jesus” as a superfluous distraction.

“we are helping Jesus”

I seem to be having a little trouble with this unsupported assertion.  How do you know that you are “helping Jesus”?  Maybe you’re just helping fellow human beings in need.  That’s what I do.

I help lower income people cope with the US income tax system.  Google “IRS VITA”.  I help them submit accurate tax returns.  Typically they owe no income taxes and receive $3000 to $6000 in “refunds” due to the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit.  I also help a non-profit who is the “representative payee” for people on SSI.  Google “social security representative payee”.  These actions are definitely helpful to lower-income people.

“science the FINAL authority over whether something exists or does not exist is a violation of the FIRST commandment”

Hilarious nonsense.  Science is the only authority over reality.  Who cares about your silly first commandment?

“Thou shall not have have any other god besides me.”

Well, science is not a “god” of course.  There’s no “worship”.  And contributions are tax-deductible only if they are given to a qualified educational institution.  Why do you say such silly things?

“the Church is not against science.”

Speak for your own religion.  The religions that deny evolution are against science.  And supposedly about 40% of US adults deny evolution.  And even though the Catholic Church apparently accepts evolution, the Catholic Church reserves the right to stick in an extra “soul” somewhere between our 2 million-year-old ancestors and modern humans.  Of course that is “against” the scientific evidence.

“The Natural Law does not contradict God.”

Hilarious.  Define “Natural Law”.  Define “God”.  If both are religious concepts, why should science care?

“Please find for me in scrpiture WHERE it says it’s OK to use contraception?”

I don’t care what it says or does not say in your book of mythology.  As usual, your definition of “morality” differs from mine.  You’re not going to convince me to change and I’m not going to convince you to change.

“how is it that other non-Catholic Christians continue this practice if it’s not rooted in scripture?”

Apparently they have weighed the pluses and minuses and made a choice.

“no pope has ever contradicted another pope”

Why not?  They are not allowed to correct a predecessor’s mistakes?  They never make mistakes?  Why should I accept that silly assertion?

“They want an authority”

Yes, it’s so much easier if you have someone else to tell you what to do.  And if it turns out to be a problem, you can blame them!  And the wives of the new clergy are a small problem.  :-)

“point out the good that the church does.”

Yes, but at what “cost”?  Are the benefits of the “good” that the church does greater than the “costs”?  What are the “fund raising” and “administrative” costs?  :-)

I repeat:
Why would you wish to repeat what I have heard 100 times before?  You accept “religious authority” and I reject it.  You are happier when you accept it and I am happier when I reject it.  How can there be any “reasoning” between us?  You have your reasons for accepting it and I have my reasons for rejecting it.  You can’t say anything to change my mind and I am unlikely to say anything to change your mind.

Jennifer had a column “Reasoning with Atheists” and this one’s title includes “Intellectual Honesty”.  I rate them both as failures of course.  And look at the comments on “Amanda Marcotte is Right to be Upset”.  It seems that Jennifer is so biased by her Catholic viewpoint that she is incapable of even understanding a different viewpoint.

Mike,

Before I go further and address your e-mail, you said, “I repeat: Why would you wish to repeat what I have heard 100 times before?  You accept ‘religious authority’ and I reject it.  You are happier when you accept it and I am happier when I reject it.  How can there be any ‘reasoning’ between us?  You have your reasons for accepting it and I have my reasons for rejecting it.  You can’t say anything to change my mind and I am unlikely to say anything to change your mind.”

I’m curious, then why do you bother coming this forum and engage in debate? If you’re close minded and determined in your beliefs, then why bother? If no one is going to change your mind - and no one is going to change my mind - then what’s the point of coming to a Catholic forum to begin with? That’s like me going to a Buddhist forum or a Hindu forum and telling that they faith is a bunch of garbage or that it’s based on false belief, etc… Of course you are free to come here since it is public. But, it’s slanted Catholic. It’s not the New York Times, with the author giving an Op-ED piece. You’re deliberately going out of your way to go an on-line Catholic periodical. So, you’re either here to vent your frustration at other Catholics (which you say is a “waste of time”), maybe with the secret hopes of swaying someone with your enlightened version of truth. Or do you secretly wish that someone could point out an argument that you havne’t thought of before since you seem to have heard every arguement “100 times before?”

Which of the 2 is it?

Well, Jennifer has written some very silly things and I’m here to point that out.

Jennifer had a column “Reasoning with Atheists” that wanted to assume that a god exists.  How silly.

This column:

“Here’s the weird part: Some pro-choice people are uncomfortable with this kind of thing.”

That’s not “weird”, that’s to be expected.  Jennifer thinks she is making a point.  I say it’s just reality.

“If you’re close minded”

Hilarious.  A Catholic apologist calling someone close-minded?  Perhaps you should also address that to Mormons, Christian Scientists, Muslims, etc.  Why do they think their religion is the One True Religion?  Isn’t that sooooo close-minded?

“Which of the 2 is it?”

Nah.  I’m retired.  I have a lot of time on my hands.  I just want a “dissenting view” on the record in these comments.  It seems likely that Jennifer never even bothers to read these comments.  She never actually posts a comment under her own column?

Why are you wasting your time replying to me?

“The NY Times article is just unbelievable.”

What a silly thing for a commenter to say.

“What you call emotions, we call conscience.”

What a silly thing to say.

I assume that normally the comments are simply an “echo chamber” of “I agree with you” and “that’s terrible” etc.  I wish to present a dissenting view.

And fundamentally I disagree with the supposed “absolute morality”.  Religions are strong on “absolute morality” and it seems that Catholicism is one of the strongest.  I accept that reality is more complicated and that reality is “relative morality” whether you like it or not.

“Jennifer had a column “Reasoning with Atheists” that wanted to assume that a god exists.  How silly.”

So, you’re an atheist?

“Nah.  I’m retired.  I have a lot of time on my hands.”

So, you’re bored.

“I just want a ‘dissenting view’ on the record in these comments.”

So, you’re Catholic? Because to truly be “dissneting” means that as a Catholic you disgree with the Catholic Church and still choose to stay Catholic. What good is a dissenting point of view if the person is not claiming to be Catholic? Then it’s just another point of view, but not Catholic. In other words, if a Jew or Muslim makes an “opinion” about Catholicism, then it’s not dissenting.

“And fundamentally I disagree with the supposed ‘absolute morality’.”

Then everyone should do what they think is right? That doesn’t even work in THIS country. See how freedom of speech or freeom of the press works for you in Cuba or in China or in Russia. It’s ironic: When a state of anarchy arises, eventually it turns into a dictatorship.

“I accept that reality is more complicated and that reality is ‘relative morality’ whether you like it or not.”

That seems like an “absolute moral” statement. But, if there is no absolute morality, therefore this statement would only be opinion - or “relative morality” as you prefer to call it.

“Prayer is useless.  It’s silly to pray for me and it’s silly to pray for the dying women and children in Somalia.”

That sounds like an absolute moral statement. But, you say there isn’t an absolute morality.

“Incoherent.  Against science.  Ridiculous religious concept.”

Absolute or relative morality?

“My opinion is that they will still starve to death if they do not receive food and water. “

What’s wrong with starving to death? “Don’t go imposing your morality on me!” Who cares about the people in Somalia or in Haiti? They caused that for themselves. Right?

“I seem to be having a little trouble with this unsupported assertion.  How do you know that you are ‘helping Jesus’?  Maybe you’re just helping fellow human beings in need.  That’s what I do.”

Isn’t the practice of “helping fellow human beings in need” morally based? Where do your morals come from?

“I help lower income people cope with the US income tax system.  Google ‘IRS VITA’.  I help them submit accurate tax returns.  Typically they owe no income taxes and receive $3000 to $6000 in ‘refunds’ due to the Earned Income Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit.”

Who cares about taxes? Why should we pay taxes? Isn’t that an “aboslute morality” imposed by the governement on us? Are you so self-righteous that you think you’re “doing good” because you help “lower income” people cope with the “US tax system”? Where did that “virtue” come from? And if it’s “relative,” then I should be allowed to not pay taxes, right? Why are you deciding that for them? Aren’t you imposing your “relative” definition of “good” on them. And what about the people that don’t pay taxes? Whay should they be punished? They didn’t do anything wrong - according to their “relative morality.” The government doesn’t have “the right” to impose thier “absolute moral consequences” on them. Let those lower income people them do it themselves, right? They don’t need anyone to help them out. They put themselves in this situation. Everyone for themsleves, right? And by the way, who gave the US Government authority to collect taxes? Democracy? Who decided that democracy should be the way in which the US governs itself? And what is the US Constitution? And by what authority did the founding fathers draft that document? It’s just a piece of paper, right, with words that don’t mean anything, right?

“Science is the only authority over reality.”

Is that an “absolute moral” statement? Can you prove that “freedom” exists? I can’t see it. But, they tell me it exists. What about depression? I can’t see that either, therefore, it must not exist and the field of medical psychiatry -SCIENCE- should be done away with. What about the “faith” people put in money when they go to the grocery store? I can’t see that either. Can science prove that? 

“Speak for your own religion.  The religions that deny evolution are against science.”

How do you know evolution exists? Can YOU prove it? Were you there 2 billion years ago? Therefore you must be basing it on “faith” - in science. 

“Define ‘Natural Law’.  Define ‘God’.  If both are religious concepts, why should science care?”

Why hasn’t science found the cure to cancer? Or diabetes? Or death? And what does science have to say about the “planet” Pluto? Oops, sorry?! Because they couldn’t “see” it before, therefore they just decided to call it a “planet”? Maybe it wasn’t so “absolute”. Why are we changing our “Food Pyramid” based on scientific research? Didn’t science get it right the first time?

“I don’t care what it says or does not say in your book of mythology.” 

‘Mythology?” Is that an “absolute moral” statement or is that a “relative morality? Gee, for someone who claims there is no absolute morality, you seem to be making a lot of absolute statements.

“Yes, but at what ‘cost’?” 

Why should an organization care about cost? Isn’t that relative? It’s their money, isn’t it? Or are you saying that there is a universal morality dictating the “right way” people have to utilize funds? Are you trying to impose your morality of economic proportions on people? I thought you said it’s relative to everybody?

“How can there be any “reasoning” between us?” 

You’re right because “reasoning” is based on reason and logic, which is based on truth. Yet, you haven’t given me any DEFINITE truth about science. There’s a reason WHY scientific theories are called “theories,” meaning that they’re “relative”: the “Theory” of Evolution, the Big Bang “Theory.” The problem is that the scientific communuity holds these “theories” out as “gospel” truth.

“It seems that Jennifer is so biased by her Catholic viewpoint that she is incapable of even understanding a different viewpoint.”

She states that she was a convert to Catholicism from a protestant denomination. She admits that she used to be pro-abortion, or pro-choice. She admits that her and her husband used to use contraception. Maybe she’s not so “incapable of even understanding a different point of view.” Isn’t the definition of open-minded that you are open to looking at something objectively and seeing that it could be true? Isn’t that what science supposedly does? But, what if the conclusion is that they were wrong? At the end of his life, Carl Sagan admitted that there was a god. Was he being close minded? Or was he looking into the possibility that his atheism had it all worong?

“Were you there 2 billion years ago?”
“Why hasn’t science found the cure to cancer?”
“Didn’t science get it right the first time?”
“There’s a reason WHY scientific theories are called “theories,””

If you are going to write such absolutely stupid nonsense, I’m not going to bother to reply.

“Carl Sagan admitted that there was a god.”

From Wikipedia: “In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, “I’m agnostic.””  He died in 1996.

“If you are going to write such absolutely stupid nonsense, I’m not going to bother to reply.”

Translation: “I can’t think of a response to these perfectly valid points, so I’m going to feign superciliousness and refuse to counter them.”

“I can’t think of a response ...”

Hilarious idiocy.  What should my response be to “Were you there 2 billion years ago?”?  They have recently decided that micro-fossils can be dated to 4.465 billion years ago.  To deny this is to deny science.  “Why hasn’t science found the cure to cancer?”  What a stupid question!  Because a god forbids it?  What a stupid answer that would be.  “Didn’t science get it right the first time?”  What a stupid question!  Unlike your infallible Pope (hilarious), science is allowed to find new evidence and/or change its opinion.  “There’s a reason WHY scientific theories are called “theories,””  What an ignorant statement!  Please read the Wikipedia entry on “scientific theory”.  You’re not paying me to remedy your deficient education.  If you don’t think these are really, really stupid questions, you’re an idiot.

From today’s “Choice In Dying”:

  Reading the so-called Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day published by Pope Karol Józef Wojty?a in 1987, it is important to recognize the presumption of the church when it speaks, as one of the headings in this document does, of the values and moral obligations that civil legislation must respect and sanction in this matter. This is a direct and immediate challenge to democratic forms of governance.

Treating this organization as a state is to give immense and undue force to its proclamations. It’s time we said No! No, you may not govern us. No, you may not dictate to us. No, you may not play the role of moral authority for us.

——————
Civil legislation MUST respect the values and moral obligations of the Catholic Church???  What arrogance!  Go away Catholic Church.  You are an evil institution.  Now maybe I do “hate” the Catholic Church.

Rafael, excellent post today at 8:53 am. McCants’ response indicates either he has no sound answers or does not have the intellectual depth to understand your points. In blogging parlance, he comes across as a mere troll to the thread.

My other response to the general topic is more political. Journalists like to try to corner certain pro-life politicians regarding abortion. Typcial is the rape and incest question. Never do you here pro-choice politicians get asked, “What do you think of selective reduction? What do you think of partial birth abortion?” To be consistent with there logic, they should be for both. But if not, this becomes a glaring inconsistency.

“to understand your points”

Well, in your infinite wisdom, please pick just one of his “points” and try to explain it to poor, dumb me.

“If you are going to write such absolutely stupid nonsense, I’m not going to bother to reply.”

Here you go again making absolute claims about me writing “stupid nonsnese.” Who’s the one being closed-minded and intollerant?

First of all, I’m simply refuting the assertion you made that science is “absolute.” I guess it isn’t as absolute as you thought. Absolute means that something is “free from imperfection; complete; perfect”(Dictionary.com). And I’m simply saying that science is not absolute. If you are offended or bothered by something I have written, then it must mean that I have done something “wrong.” But, according to you, there is no objective morality - only subjective morality or relative morality. So, therefore I really haven’t said anything offensive to you. In the same way that no one forced you to comment on here to begin with, you are also free to stop commenting. If you choose to stay, I will continue to engage you. Maybe you think I’m too “dissenting” to the “faith” of science.

Secondly, science does not speak to absolute matters of faith and morals: That’s what the Church does. If the Church recognizes that science discovers something, the Church is not against it or opposed to it. The Church is aware of cloning. They just say it’s wrong. Dynamite is not morally wrong: It’s gun-powder. But, to use it to blow yourself or others up is wrong. Latext is not a substance that is immoral: It’s rubber. But, to use rubber to prevent life from conceiving is immoral. Alcohol is not morally wrong. Science says that it’s OK to have a least a glass of red wine per day. But, it’s immoral to use your weekly paycheck to get wasted if you have 5 children and a wife to feed at home in a Mexican impoverished town. Pope Benedict was communicating with the astronauts on the last shuttle mission while they were in space. If the Catholic Church is so “against science,” why would he be talking to “such immoral people?” If anything, they were confirming for him that there is a God, as do most astronauts once they reach outerspace.

“From Wikipedia: ‘In reply to a question in 1996 about his religious beliefs, Sagan answered, “I’m agnostic.”  He died in 1996.”

Agnostic and atheist are 2 different things. By definition, an agnostic is “a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience” (Dictionary.com). St. Thomas Acquinas said the same thing about God being “unknowable,” which is why he called God “a mystery” - and he’s a doctor of the Church. An atheist DENIES the existence of God altogether. Big Difference! Carl Sagan did admit there was a God because I hear him say it on PBS, which is a shift from being an atheist, which is what he used to be. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a conversion! An agnostic at least acknowledges that there is a God. Does it mean that he practices a particualar faith or religion or that he believes in one particular one? No. But, usually the path of conversion for an atheist begins with at least that first step. He proabaly died before taking that next step.

“From today’s ‘Choice In Dying’: Reading the so-called Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day published by Pope Karol Józef Wojty?a in 1987, it is important to recognize the presumption of the church when it speaks, as one of the headings in this document does, of the values and moral obligations that civil legislation must respect and sanction in this matter. This is a direct and immediate challenge to democratic forms of governance. Treating this organization as a state is to give immense and undue force to its proclamations. It’s time we said No! No, you may not govern us. No, you may not dictate to us. No, you may not play the role of moral authority for us.”

I don’t know what kind of publication “Choice In Dying” is. It sounds like something anti-Catholic, a euphamism for “pro-choice” at the end of life: for euthanasia. So, I don’t know why they’re quoting John Paul II.

For starters, you don’t have to be Catholic to accept that life begins at conception, or that euthanasia is immoral. These are not exclusive to Catholicism. You can Buddhist or Protestant or Muslim or Jewish or even Atheist and STILL see the truth behind these moral laws. One does not need to be Catholic to recognize that murder is immoral. There are tribes in African who don’t practice any faith and are still aware that murdering another is a violation of humanity. In Japan and in other cultures, the dignity and respect given to the elderly is something the Western world could only dream of having and something we should look up to. So, to speak on the dignity of life is something that is good for ALL societies - including Communist nations, who decleare themselves atheists. And again, if this is so offensive, what moral law has been violated?

To accept Jesus is the son of God or that He’s present in the Eucharist, well then you have to be Catholic for that. But, the Pope does not impose that. And by the way, the Church never convinces anyone of anything: It’s the Holy Spirit that does that. Jesus utilizes the Church as His vessel for administering the graces of God. That’s what our faith teaches. I know it’s irrelvant to our discussion. But, I wanted to state that for the record.
 

“Civil legislation MUST respect the values and moral obligations of the Catholic Church???  What arrogance!  Go away Catholic Church.  You are an evil institution.  Now maybe I do ‘hate’ the Catholic Church.”

I think what bothers you the most is that the Catholic Church “dares” to say that there are moral or spiritual absolutes. Science cannot make that claim about science being absolute because they are constantly discovering new things, which disqualifies something they may have written or discovered earlier. Not so with Catholicism. Murder is murder, stealing is stealing. No scientific discovery is going to ever “disprove that.” That would be like me saying: “Because now science has said that I should eat an apple a day in order to keep the doctor away, I’m going to kill my doctor.” One has nothing to do with the other. We are talking about MORAL and SPIRITUAL absolutes, not scientific discoveries. In other words, there is no contradiction because the 2 DO NOT overlap in matters of faith and morals.  Abortion is a moral absolute, no matter if technology has come up with more “ethical” ways of killing an unbborn baby. Because it’s may be more medically sound, does not mean that the end result is any different: there’s still a dead baby! The scientific community (not all, mostly the atheists or Catholic haters) only wishes they could make absolute claims. There are plenty of scientists who are fervently Catholic.

We are all God’s children - even atheists. When the Catholic Church makes the claim to be speaking on behalf of God, they are speaking from the position of what’s good and bad for HIS people - all of us - not for their sake, not just for those who are Catholic or Jewish or Muslim. You don’t think that Catholics and other Judeo-Christians struggle with the teachings of the Church? Don’t you think that there are some out there who wish that the commandments weren’t there, that they could do whatever they want and they’re still going to go to heaven? I know you don’t believe in those concepts of heaven and hell. But, there are certain Protestant denominations that believe that once you have said “the sinner’s prayer,” you’re automatically saved and you will go to heaven NO MATTER WHAT YOU DO. And that’s false Christian doctrine. I know this doesn’t interest you. But the point being that following God’s ways is a daily struggle. But, it’s a happy one, one filled with joy - even during difficult times. And ultimately, God does want our happiness, which is why he has said “do this” or “don’t do that.” If you thought that the avoiding of paying taxes would not make you happy, then you wouldn’t do it. If you knew that eating junk food would make you miserable, then you wouldn’t do it. You can. But, would you? You have the freedom to. But, would it be wise? And that’s what I’m talking about: Wisdom. You can break God’s laws, you can do whatever you want. But, would it be wise?

From today’s “Why Evolution Is True”:

Yet in the book Plantinga argues strongly that evolution was guided directly by God to result in humans (who were of course made in his own image), asserts that “random” mutations could actually have been created by God to lead to humans, and approves of the idea of intelligent design as espoused by Michael Behe.  He also holds the view, shared by William Lane Craig, that the existence of the human rational faculty, and our ability to find out truth about the universe, cannot be explained by evolution instead must be a result of God’s largesse.  I won’t go into that dumb argument as I’ve discussed it earlier, as has P. Z. Myers.

————

Humans are soooo special - made in the image of a “god”.  Hilarious nonsense.  And Catholicism is the One True Religion.  Hilarious nonsense.

Also from “Why Evolution Is True”:

One of the more loony episodes (and there are many) in the annals of the Catholic Church is this report from The Freethinker, “Catholics pin hopes on dead Pope’s blood to stem gang crime in Mexico.”  Yes, that’s right: a vial of the late Pope John Paul II’s blood is, with Vatican permission, going on a tour of Mexico in an attempt to stem unrest in that country.

  Grania Spingies of Atheist Ireland, who reported this bizarre Sanginary Tour to me, had this to say about it (she’s an ex-Catholic):

  Oh man, how embarrassing.

  On the whole I don’t bother to draw people’s attention to the stuff that Freethinker publishes every week, because it’s a never-ending stream of crazy. It gets a bit ho-hum after a while. But whenever Catholics try to claim that their religion is sophisticated and liberal and trying to move with the times, I find it useful to point to examples like this that prove that Holy Mother Church is still trying to stupefy the peasants with carnie tricks.

————————

Religious belief is soooo crazy.

What has this got to do with MORAL and SPRITUAL absolutes?

The Catholic Church is not against science. It’s also not against the theory of evolution, despite the claims you are trying to make. It’s just against DARWIN’s theory of evolution. Man has “evolved” over time, yes - but not from monkeys because monkeys are not humans: they are a diffent species. 

But, you still can’t “prove” Darwin’s version of evolution to be an absolute. The scientific method first starts with a hypothesis and then moves from there until it arrives at fact. Hasn’t happened yet, therefore, not an absolute. Nice try.

Let me ask you something: The Church does not divorce Herself from science. Why is is that science wants to divorce itself from God? Isn’t it the objective of science to discover truth no matter where? Why is science so “closed-minded” to the possibility that there is a God who created this Universe and human beings “in His image and likeness”? Why is it science - at least your version of it - has to try and DISPROVE the existence of God by trying to connect 2 things that are unrelated: morals and science? Don’t you think it would be more practical and efficient in expenditure of energy and resources to try and be objective about the possibility that God is on the SAME SIDE as science and NOT AGAINST IT? Talk about a waste of natural resources and money. How hypocritical of the scientific community!

BREAKING NEWS: You can’t prove or disprove the existence of God merely by material means. It hasn’t happend up to now despite some “noble” efforts, and it’s NEVER going to happen. And He doesn’t want it that way. He wants us to come to Him FIRST by faith.

Like I said yesterday, whatever discoveries science makes, it’s still not going to change the fact that there are moral and spiritual absolutes: Murder will always be wrong despite the latest advances in weaponry; abortion will always be wrong; contraception will always be wrong (even if they should come up with a “Super Condom”); stealing will continue to be wrong even though we now can utilize the internet to bank. Science is not going to DISPROVE morals.

Sadly, I think Atheist and Anti-Catholic scientists go out of their way to try and disprove God so they can say, “See, there is no God. Therefore, there is not objective morality, because if God does not exist, then we are free to do whatever we want.” I think this is why you are so attracted to science. Your hatred for God is so evident in this e-mail and in the other pre-ceding e-mails that it’s going to eat you up - mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. Forget your hatred for the Catholic Church - that’s secondary! You gotta heal that anger you have towards God. And your brand of biased and UNobjective “relative science”  is not going to fix your relationship with God. In my opinion, it’s going to WORSEN it! So, as long as you continue to “bow down” at the altars of “modern” science that is DIVORCED from God, you will continue to fuel that anger, like adding fuel to a fire. And anger is not good for you. You don’t even need religion for that: Modern psychiatry and psychology will tell you that. It’s not good to be angry at anyone, including God. And speaking of scientific research, most of the latest articles site that people who pray and practice forgiveness are healthier than people who don’t. I challenge you to find an article from a respectabler source that says that prayer is BAD for your emotional and mental health. I guarantee that if you do, you will find 10 more article that counter that “opinion.”

Mike McCant,

If you’re going to attack the Church, please attack what She actually teaches as opposed to what you think She teaches.

Many, many Catholics (including myself) believe in non-atheistic evolution. See, for example, this article: http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-im-not-young-earth-creationist.html

Amazing how the intellectually dishonest manipulate language. Their prime example is calling the choice to kill anborn girl a choice while those who are pr-unborn life are called anti-choice even though they are FOR the choice to save that life. “Extremists” and “fundamentalists” are also used and of course when a clinic is bombed or an aborrtionst is murdered those nasty labels are thrown around also.
It is so good to see mothers who regret their abortions and fathers who miss their sons are organizing to speak out. Today’s youth who see empty desks at school and college, empty places at their family tables and see that the aborted tax-payers are missing from the pay-roll and denying bebefits to their older fellow-citizens or grandparents.

Hey Mike!

Try this article out for size: “The Blind Irrational Faith of Atheism” written yesterday (8/25/11) by Frank Cronin in this periodical, National Catholic Register. He’s a convert from “Atheism”.

Oh, and in case you’re worried about his “deficient education,” his “post-master’s” studies include Harvard and Colombia University - not quite the “religious institutes.”

Atheists who try to deny God and believers who try to fight proven or very-well established theories and facts are both not minding their own side of God’s world.

Of course the mythological story of “Adam and Eve” in the “Garden of Eden” “without sin” is ridiculous.  But it is required by the Catholic catechism as the basis for the Christian religion.

Cronin: “Brain activity is tangible. Reason is not.”
Hilarious.
“Reason for them is an illusion.”
What a stupid thing to say!
“But, for those who recognize an intangible dimension to the universe, reason is more than mere brain activity.”
Hilarious.  For those that don’t, it isn’t.
“They are inherent aspects of the universe, a universe that is both tangible and intangible.”
Unsupported assertion.
“Why do we allow them to use reason to defend and debate a view of the universe that eliminates reason as a real and legitimate source of knowing any truth…?”
Yes, yes, yes.  Atheists are no longer allowed to use reason!  Hilarious.
“If thoughts are solely biochemical events as atheists believe they are, then logic, reason, common sense and intuitions are too.”
Yes, of course.  So what?
“The actual reasoning of brain activity is not valid or credible because it is nothing more than activity.”
What a stupid thing to say!
“Make them explain how they can use reason.”
And when they cannot explain how they can use reason, ignore them!  Perhaps they will go away!  And quit pointing out how all religions are quite irrational.
“that blends and harmonizes the tangible and the intangible.”
Unsupported assertion.
“The presence and importance of reason to human nature and human living is part of the evidence for the reality of intangible things.”
Ridiculous unsupported assertion.
“the dismissive ridicule from the people”
I vote in favor of that.
“the logical impossibility of the Christian faith”
Well, faith is believing without evidence.  It’s not impossible, but it is certainly illogical.
“We must show them we do not inhabit a universe that is empty, silent, meaningless, purposeless, without order or structure, rhyme or reason.”
And just how do you propose to contradict reality?
“degree in theology”
Bah, humbug!

Inaccuraate information M McC. Biblical scholarship has advanced so that the theology is correct, we are born into a sinful society where all are infected and affected. The story which is a myth in the classical sense, that is a story with religious meaning and more, contains elements that are not factually true and must be understood in their original setting which is Babylon the home of Abraham and Sarah who were called out of there “from UR of the Chaldees” (Iraq) and were “wandering ARAMEANS” their language was the Aramaic of Jesus circa 4000 years later. Some of theircultural stories were passed on and woven into the Hebrew Bible/Old Testamen.
If you have not heard of that development and how to understand Genesis and the meaning of the tree, the garden and the snake then do so please.

Today’s quote from Ben Goren:

“It’s really as simple as that. Do good and you and those around you will be happier and more prosperous. Do evil and you’re putting yourself and the rest of society at jeopardy.”

“we are born into a sinful society”

It seems that the word “sin” is a religious word.  So your sentence is a religious sentence and I reject it as meaningless.

“how to understand Genesis and the meaning of the tree”

Why should I care about the “meaning” of that mythology?  Should I care because it seems that based on that “meaning”, it seems to me that Catholic doctrine advocates what I would call “immoral” actions?  It’s simpler just to point out that my opinion is that certain actions (anti-conception for example) are simply immoral in some situations.  Fortunately it appears that a very large majority of Catholics agree with me.

“Atheists who try to deny God ... are ... not minding their ... side of God’s world.”

Hilarious.  Catholics who do not practice appropriate family planning are not minding their side of the natural world.

“Many, many Catholics (including myself) believe in non-atheistic evolution.”

Define “non-atheistic” evolution.  There is no evidence that any “god” was ever involved in evolution.  “I have no need for that hypothesis.”  So your belief in “theistic evolution” is not justified.  It’s just another religious prejudice.

“Murder will always be wrong”

Define “murder”.  The devil is always in the details.  Your attempts to justify “absolute morality” are rejected.

“I think what bothers you the most is that the Catholic Church “dares” to say that there are moral or spiritual absolutes.”

Yes, because it’s obviously not true that there are moral absolutes.  So the church is attempting to control people by simply stating “this is forbidden”.  Anti-conception is a good example of how even Catholics are simply ignoring the church doctrine.  Anti-IVF ditto.  And anti-abortion gets you excommunicated unless you got absolution in Spain within that 4 day period.  Hilarious absolute morality unless you pay your “indulgence”.

Your p;ice is all over the lot. Jesus gave us moral absolutes in the Beaitudes MT 5-7 and LUKE 4-6, goimg away beyond the limited Thou Shalt Nots of Moses’ 10 commandments. Those chapters include a commentary or further detail about the eight in MT and six in LK.  No killing and not even cussing out the neighbour[ doing justce and hunger for it,  not just do not steal.  Forgive enemies and on and on.
Contraception is forbidden in the HS/Old Testament. If you have your mind made up that is a pity but please see the professional studies and statistics that show the damage done my abortion and contraception to women, their marriages and the Dada who lost babies to abortion.
As far as your biblical understanding it is stuck back there with the stork bringing babies, Santa Claus coming down the chimney. The reality is that the Church was founded on Peter who professed his faith in who Jesus is and denied Him at the trial and was away from the Cross with the other nine,Judas was dead and John was the only one there.Jesus came back and restored them to His minisry Easter morning. Same since, humans who are flawed, sinners is an acceptable alternate word to normal people. Anything that is immoral is called sinful, a crime in civil law except now the Left has legalised most of what the civilisation called illegal and sinful when the words were almost interchangable

“Jesus gave us moral absolutes”
Your church would certainly like people to believe that - provided that your church is the authority which is allowed to specify exactly what is and is not moral.  It’s called “control”.
“The reality is that the Church was founded on Peter”
Such a silly mythology.
“sinners is an acceptable alternate word to normal people.”
But it’s a religious word - therefore rejected.
“the Left has legalized”
Yes!  We no longer live under a theocracy.  I hope that continues.  But with Perry, Palin, and Bachmann as candidates, predicting the future is difficult.

Have no idea what religios moral value system you espouse if any. As to your logic; Do you see that Jesus did give moral absolutes and therefore killing is wrong- from womb to natural death£” OR do you reject the Catholic Church’s right to teach that - and any other Christian group or believer?
No one that I know ever lived in a theocracy as such. However the Bible’s HS/OT moral code was the basis of the USA’s legal?moral code until it was chipped away. Divorce, birth control ( decided as no longer illegal for dominantly Protestant Massachusetts in the 50s), same gender sexual activity even in private. Then the Leftist Flood Gates opened with abortion with absolutely no Government restrictions in 1973- took a lot of people a while to un-learn the lie that it was only allowed up to three months. Same gender unions equated with marriage is “in” now with the Left.Then there are renewed and steady calls to allow people to help someone die, abortion until a baby is free of all serious defects, sexual relations with minors legalised. And Mr Obama wants contraception paid for my taxes and wants children who are “sexual beings” to be taught masturbation- Clinton’s Surgeon General was fired for suggsting that. How times have changed. Birth control and abortion have destroyed marriages, injured people emotionally and sexual activity is now common in 9-10 year olds.
The extreme Right are not all pure beleivers either but they are often painted as demonic by the Left.

“do you reject the Catholic Church’s right to teach that - and any other Christian group or believer?”

It’s not *YOUR* religions place to dictate governmental policy.  The United States in no way was founded on the Christian Religion, as stated by law.  What is amazing is that you claim that the United States legal code was based on Christianity,  try again.  How man Senates were there in the bible?  How many Court Rooms?  What passed for justice was a good old stoning.

LOL: Rather strangely it was a Greek doctor, Hippocrates way before Jesus’ time, and not a Catholic Pope who designed the oath that bears his name that the physician not do any harm and not cause an abortion.  The US Supreme Court in its 1973 22 January decision had to go way back to find some obscure philosopher to justify abortion. They totally ignored the 4000 years of the Jewish-Christian Traadition. Duh. The Colonies, following the British and earlier Christian Tradition of law and the US since the beginning followed that- divorce, same gender activity and of course fornication as well as murder theft, all in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. You need to study your History, do some study of world religions and learn about the Natural Law to realize that major Faiths used see moral evil as against the Natural Law and their codes reflected that. The fact that human life begins when a cell is formed after a seed abd egg unite is a medical fact. That decision did not come from Sinai, Vatican or Salt Lake City. And the fact that Courts or legislatures say it is not a human life that is destroyed in abortion does not deny that fact.

Wow! In reading post after post by Mike Mccants I was impressed by such a thorough ignorance of science and religion. He is clearly no scientist or if he claims to be one, he would certainly be a foolish one. He obviously does not understand philosophy either. And finally, he has no idea what the Catholic church teaches nor why they teach what they do. I have never seen such a ignorant person in my life. He can’t even carry a straightforward debate withought jumping from one of his own thoughts to another and from opinion to halfbaked falsehood and back again. He is completely irrational. I realize he’ll probably atack me for this but it will merely provide further proof, even though that is already abundant, of his supreme ignorance and lack of any true knowledge. All he has is propaganda. He’s fallen for believing the Big Lie like Hitler used in World War II. His hate speech is very similar to that used against the Jews that people believed because they heard it so often.

I hope if he responds he will speak as someone who is intelligent. We’ll see.

The basic premise is that un-natural activity is against the law of nature and so indefencible, killing one’s own kind in the womb, shooting indiscriminately into a crowd, having sexual relationships with one’s own parents or sibling or children, abusing prisoners of war for the pleasure of the guards. One can rationalise, or try to provide explanations for such but they hold no water. It is un-natural, immoral to deliberately take a life in the womb, so the Catholic Church is accused of imposing theology/dogma when medicine tells us that it is a human life. Prisoners are tortured, so that is attempted to be justified by the fact that lives are saved from the inormation extracted by “cruel and unusual punishment” which even the US Constitution forbids. My saddest example is the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing millions of innocent non-combatants and inflicting cancer for generations - “to shorten a war and save US lives.” And 9/11 compared to that insane decision?

In my opinion, it isn’t possible to be both pro-choice and compassionate. I mean, if you are compassionate to one person but not to another, are you really compassionate?  No, you are not.

Love the sinner, hate the sin was how St Augustine put it.

Hello,

I’ve read your blog and I am wondering if you’ve ever seen the documentary “180?” Or anyone else for that matter? Here is the link to watch it: http://180movie.com/. I was just wondering what everyones thoughts were on it. It is a great 33 minute film that really puts abortion into perspective.

What are the emotional effects on children who lose a brother or sister to abortion? Not just losing their sibling, but the pondering of their own existence and value in light of their mom’s actions ...

Like many other pro-choice women, I am uncomfortable with ALL abortions.

Really, many of us are.

We just don’t think that some people have the right to impose what is essentially a religious belief (that life begins at conception) on others.  Further, the majority of women having abortions do not do so cavalierly.  It is a difficult, painful decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor.

Although I would never—NEVER—have an abortion personally, I would also never—NEVER—presume to dictate what another woman can and cannot do with *her* body.

Grump

Abortion is not a religious issue. It’s a human rights issue. See secularprolife.org.

Frankly, I’m uncomfortable with you denying the right to life to other human beings based on your own arbitrary criteria. That’s happened before in history and it’s never gone well.

Also, Grump, I so would never presume to tell a woman what to do with her body. Abortion, however, destroys her BABY’S body. Her right to bodily autonomy ends where her baby’s body begins, just as my right to swing my fist ends where someone else’s nose begins.

GRUMP CUR; You share a common logical fallacy with many others. Life begins at conception is a medical, verifable fact. People argue about “personhood” because persons are protected by the US Constitution. That did not bother then Senator B Obama in Springfield Ill when he voted to keep tax dollars from US ciitzens who survived abortion and were left to die in hospital closets. Religiously valid principles and teachings are NATURALLY good and obey the Natural Law that is written in our hearts but we can sidestep it because of our human flawed mind and will that SEEM to justify evil but are in fact deceiving us. “Keep the government out of my bedroom” is a cutesy slogan and resonates with many citizens. But suppose I am feeding my daughter who is 14 some poisionous drugs OR my husband is impregnating her- you have seen the stories from inside the USA around the globe in recent years. Does the Government, as in the police and courts keep out?  Same for murder, theft, driving 50 past a school crossing at 7;45 AM with kids trying to avoid my idiocy. There are NATURAL MORAL LAWS which the Church, Synagogue and Mosque endorse, not because GOD or ALLAH spoke from the sky but because WE know they are the Maker’s instructions. We are NOT our own. We are on loan and stewards of all of creation- unborn balies, the grass, the ozone layer and the ocean and the rivers, the vulnerable elderly the murderer in prison. ALL God’s Kids and God’s “Stuff” and HE is mighty concerned about how I take care of HIS IMAGE and LIKESS and His PLANET EARTH. Peace and happy meditating.

Grump,

Frankly, I am uncomfortable with men raping their 12 year old daughters but I would never presume to tell him what to do with his own sexual organs.  If he wants to place them in his daughters body, who am I to interfere.  I, myself, would never rape a child, and like most people, am uncomfortable with the idea that anyone else would, but I would NEVER, NEVER presume to dictate what a man can do with his own body.

The to buy a residence Monster Beats Outlet Monster Beats Outlet:http://www.monsterbeatsbyddre.com/  inside innovative Hobsonville Point suburb have been launched—and they’re costly. And because the households Monster Beats Outlet Monster Beats Outlet:http://www.monsterbeatsbyddre.com/  are designed over a daily seal of approval, new managers will expect a high finish complete in a properly equipped household. One estimated feature will probably be broadband online connectivity through the entire dwelling beats by dre beats by dre:http://www.monsterbeatsbyddre.com/ , to your web. In the years ahead, these connectivity might be expected all innovative people plus analogous to the development in electric regarding houses for energy a lot less than 100 years past. The actual Hobsonville Terrain Company (HLC) recognises this specific as well as in collaboration having Vector tend to be occupied advertising High speed broadband Dietary fibre in your Entry. Having said that, I’ve verified in which precisely what that really suggests is a Top speed Nutritional fibre will end for a package at home - which will does not necessarily mean very fast entry of your residence!

I’ve truly informally questioned website visitors to question them exactly what ‘High Pace Fiber For your Door’ implies as well as i’m continually advised therefore you’ll have high-speed savings around your house. The actual HLC are utilising the actual Restaurant to demonstrate the actual technological innovation. ‘Visitors can also be glad to go through the entire force connected with fibre to the door technology that may provide instant internet access. (August 2010 e-newsletter)I. With the numerous clips in addition to content released through the HLC, it is not difficult to view the reason possible property owners would certainly feel they may be buying a modern-day linked residence. The particular HLC know ‘we said associated with your current entry, not necessarily through the entire home’ we are unable to guide imagine Monthly bill Clinton’s renowned ‘I would not get love-making relations’ avoid. To get fair, I think the particular HLC currently have basically missed the significance of definitely not electric your house effectively, as opposed to try to dupe property owners simply by meaning an enormous ePipeline within households, in addition to delivering some sort of trickle.

Think about the effect on a person. A contemporary family will have a central gadget (Xbox 360, family computer and many others) by which to mode audio and video lessons to units around the property. They shall be trying to play on-line games along with every single, skyping friends using a video clip call up, browsing the internet as well as watching stars through online (introducing next week ( space ) tellingly not really High-definition when existing internet connection connections will likely not service HD). Some individuals may also be working from your home and possess further ICT requires. This IT demands into the future will likely add to the insert. A residence hard-wired for you to mode internet access to each area furthermore kinds this spinal column for you to make each room connect to one. Nevertheless, wifi gain access to might be rapidly bottlenecked. You will have a place for mobile, to back up the actual spine * but it really must not be the particular spine.

Industry experts on the list of Hobsonville Stage contractors who stated ‘they’ll often be a good amount of shops, and the majority of folks use wifi anyway’. The actual HLC explained which ‘There is not any prescriptive qualification regarding the central wiring since this duty breaks with the builders like a ordinary perhaps the property design course of action… HLC work collectively to make sure that optimisation in your own home amount is a component of the supply method. I

Which isn’t sufficient. The particular HLC have collection design requirements for the general contractors to add in such characteristics as being a rainfall normal water fish tank collectors’ to be used with regard to bogs etcetera, in reducing environmentally friendly impact. The point is, your HLC possess the mandate to create high-speed wiring a need within a property, if there’s the need. The us government provides the will certainly, and are having to pay billions to be able to throw available high speed broadband obtain, so it will be weird a organization build in the federal government will be prioritising rain drinking water dive bombs over the spine associated with wiring in addition to shops after a household. How about designers? Properly, they are once the cheapest choice and definitely will let you know instant is ok * yet I’m certain will likely be willing to ‘upgrade’ your top-of-the-range household for an additional expense.

The high velocity much needed dietary fibre after that has got purely shifted a jar neck of the guitar with the birdwatcher systems in addition to exchanges, on your entrance. After you move into trying to utilize brand-new total capacity, you’ll turn into disappointed. For you might be a direct effect when you arrive at market your own home, competing with (owning with luck , mastered) completely wired Hobsonville Factor homes. A newly released Herald document sometimes pointed to be able to residences in the united states staying worth 5-10K additional - used only for currently being feeling stimulated regarding broadband internet. Your options next will be to hit in the surfaces and hang within the ethernet wire.

Best places to from this level? Occur HLC—produce on the implied promise of very fast connections. Transform it into a design requirement to cable tv most open public, relatives along with cargo area locations. That’s what the us govenment wants. That’s what people require. RFgA9yJsN808dxBke9Tp9tBu4299

Timberland Boot Sale has get started with making casual outerwear to go with their boots.Timberland Sale It has a brand of superiority outside clothing that is certainly purchased by individuals looking to look superior and in addition those individuals who needs strong timberland boots for mountain climbing.Timberland Boots Why Timberland Boots And How will you Get The Best Bargains?Timberland Boots : http://www.timberlandabootsale.com/
Why Timberland Boots And How will you Get The Best Bargains? Foremost, you’re not alone as well as among few people searching for Timberland Outlet. However there is that’re a tremendous people researching them on the web. How can this always be good? The greater number from the demand, the most may try to be the deals you will like. Why do boots with great demand? Their demand is a result of their proud and proven reputation quality. They are around with regard to over Many or the eye their items may be consistently strong. How good are Timberland Wall plug? It is prudent illustrated by their recent news item on account of DailyRecord. co. uk inside teenager who testified that his much-loved Timberland boots saved his / her life. What is this excellent report procedes to claim that boots saved his lifestyle when he fell onto a computer program train track from night time heavy drinking. The autumn on the actual track caused him currently being zapped by 25, 000 volts of electrical power. What stopped the electrical energy from burning his physique? Doctors told the young person, that they was stopped while using the rubber soles of his / her Timberland Chukka Boots. There you have this. Every single replacement quality in particular when it matters most. Timberland boots are sturdy and reliable and as well rugged. That they are formulated to withstand heavy usage about a while. Further, there exists whole variety of boots that is usually to suit all weather conditions. Hence, it is no wonder that why lots of people are searching on line on your various sets of these kinds of boots. Essentially you might come across categories for guys, as well as also kids. Timberland Custom Boots. long year acer trends show only 001 more acelenolysunci topics now pr50 in 2012