Kennedy Asked Not to Take Communion
I’ve never understood why things like this are considered by some to be controversial.
EAST PROVIDENCE, R.I. – A month of harsh words between Rep. Patrick Kennedy and a strident critic, Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin, escalated Sunday when the bishop acknowledged asking Kennedy not to receive Holy Communion because of the Democratic lawmaker’s support for abortion rights.
The Catholic church is pretty clear that its doctrine forbids abortions. Kennedy supports abortions and makes no bones about it. He is not in communion with his fellow Catholics. Ergo, he shouldn’t take communion. Pretty simple, really. There are plenty of churches out there that support abortion. Kennedy is free to go find one. In the meantime, it’s Bishop Tobin’s responsibility to make sure people are in adhere to the teachings of the Catholic church.
Why is this so hard for folks? Why should anyone presume that Kennedy has a right to receive communion or that the church is obligated to give it to him?
As a former Catholic - I was always puzzled that there are a number of people in the church who don’t agree with many facets of the Catholic teachings (birth control for example) yet still claim to be part of the church.
I left and found a place that fit my beliefs. When I visit a Catholic church, I don’t take communion there unless I am specifically invited.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2009 at 2333 hrs
I agree with you entirely, Owen. But I do think part of what makes the issue a little complicated is that the Catholic Church seems to spend a lot more time talking about this sin than they do about a lot of others. What about adulterers or coveters or people who commit a bunch of other sins or who believe things that aren’t entirely in line with where the conservative leadership of the church is?
I think in this regard, the church’s focus on abortion seems awfully singular at times and may cause people to wonder just how comprehensive a view the church is taking of the teachings of God.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on November 23, 2009 at 0008 hrs
The Church not only has the right, but the duty to prevent Kennedy from receiving the Eucharist while he is in a state of sin. The controversy comes with His Eminence making it public. The sanctity of the confessional also extends to not making announcements of who may or may not be in a state of grace. Bravo to Bishop Tobin for taking the stand he has, shame on them both for making it public.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0011 hrs
So, should Rep. Patrick Kennedy represent the Catholic Church or the people who voted him in office?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0711 hrs
You don’t get it do you, Pat?
He represents the people. His membership in the Catholic Church is voluntary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0732 hrs
Kudos to the Catholic Church for standing up for its beliefs. The fact of the matter is the Kennedy’s and others have to realize you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
In order to receive forgiveness one has to be willing to be sorry for their sins. Since he continues to stand on the side of pro-abortion he obivously isn’t sorry.
Fair and Balanced, I think Mr. Kennedy needs to decide where he stands and so far it seems he is choosing the pro-abortion crowd over his religion and his faith. I find that very telling.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0907 hrs
Fun to watch the bishops and archbishops (or whatever these people call themselves) foam at the mouth what politicians THINK about an issue important to the church vs. what they do about people who ACT in conflict with church positions. It is highly unlikely that Kennedy has had an abortion (since he is a man), paid for one, or helped perform one, At issue are his thoughts about the subject, not his actions.
On the other hand, divorced Catholics and Catholics on birth control pills show up for communion by the millions every Sunday. What effort would the bishop have local priests take to weed out these sinners before passing out the Eucharist? Why is it somehow worse to think evil thoughts than it is to perform evil acts?
It will be interesting to see if Listecki mounts this platform when he arrives in Milwaukee. Walker (a Baptist) shares the church’s thinking on this topic while Barrett (a Catholic) apparently does not.
Also fun to watch Charles Sykes squirm, particularly on the Listecki angle. Charles was all for Listecki taking the hard line on abortion and let folks foment freely on both sides. But when commentators started pointing out that while Chuck may tow the church line on abortion, he is way off the farm on other issues which the church claims are also important—like fidelity in marraige. Yes, the church opposes gay marraige, but it also believes in the one husband - one wife system. Chuck, of course, has walked away from two wives. He left Wife #2 at home to take care of the minor children while he was down on the beach with the woman who would become Wife #3.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0911 hrs
Churches should not be dictating legislature.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0917 hrs
Stay on point Pat - the church isn’t legislating anything. It’s disciplining a member who isn’t following church teaching. Just like if you belonged to the Society of Baby Killers, but you thought that baby killing was a bad thing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0923 hrs
Charles -Not sure,but I think the topic was abortion. Now I am just merely a human, but I think killing babies is way worse than leaving your spouse. Now back to the abortion topic…......
FYI…Churches don’t dictate, but they do have some say on who can receive Communion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0924 hrs
You’re wrong Bill, the church is attempting legislate because of their opposition to lawmaker’s support for abortion rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0929 hrs
If the Church could legislate it would. It can’t so it doesn’t. The choice falls onto Mr. Kennedy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0932 hrs
He is not in communion with his fellow Catholics
Actually, many Catholics share his beliefs. He’s not in “communion” with the doctrines from the Vatican. Many Catholics have reconciled the ability to participate in the Church without adhering to every single doctrine (something I suspect many of this blog would appreciate - fighting propaganda and orders from a centralized authority)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 0941 hrs
On the one hand, I find it really ironic that the Church would choose this one issue over all others to withhold communion from one of its members. Did they withhold anything from those who voted for what was in their own words an “unjust war”? I doubt that bishop even went out to march. And what about those who vote for the death penalty? Apparently those folks aren’t being denied communion. Why not? Something stinks in the Catholic church leadership and I think it smells like partisan politics.
Personally, though? I think the Church isn’t doing itself any favors. Too many people think it’s perfectly compatible with their modern liberal values. Actions like these make it clear that it’s not. And I’m pretty sure that when push comes to shove most of those experiencing this disconnect will not side with the Church.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 0955 hrs
And I’m pretty sure that when push comes to shove most of those experiencing this disconnect will not side with the Church.
Don’t bet on that. While a few people disagree with the Church’s teaching on the matter, VERY few disgree with the Church’s right to discipline her own members.
See, e.g., the Oregon ‘confessional-secrecy’ case of a few years ago. MOST people who had an opinion sided with the Church’s position that Confessions are absolutely, positively, secret, even though many Oregonians are lefties.
Posted by dad29 on November 23, 2009 at 1006 hrs
RS, very nice feint-and-dodge routine. You’ve practiced, I see!
There is such a thing as a ‘hierarchy of values.’ Voluntary abortion is one of the four non-negotiables and pols who cross that line as did Kennedy will be told so, going forward.
And by the way, the Church’s ‘leaders’ are not “conservative.” They simply follow Christ’s law.
But nice try, anyway.
Posted by dad29 on November 23, 2009 at 1009 hrs
Don’t bet on that. While a few people disagree with the Church’s teaching on the matter
That’s what I’m talking about.
VERY few disgree with the Church’s right to discipline her own members.
That’s not what I’m talking about.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1011 hrs
They simply follow Christ’s law.
Not that made me chuckle.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1012 hrs
Scott - I understand what you say when you say the church isn’t doing itself any favors that many think abortion fits into modern life and so on. However, the Catholic Church (and for the record I am not Catholic) believes in the Bible and the word of God and the Commandments. Therefore they must adhere to the word of God. Now we as sinful human beings can either choose to follow or not to follow.
Kennedy can choose to remain Catholic and follow the law of the Church/God or he can choose to leave the church and go to some other feel-good-religion or it can remain the status quo.
I think the Catholic Church would do more of a dis-service to itself by bending the laws the Church/God.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1016 hrs
A couple of issues with what has been mentioned. Being divorced does not make put one in a state of sin. It is only if you then get married again without having the first marriage anulled by the church that you would need to forego the Eucharist. The matter of supporting a war, unjust or otherwise is also not something that would put one in a state of sin. And the Church’s stance on the death penalty has been equivicable at best. Also, it does not matter whether Mr kennedy has had an abortion or not, as both thought and deed can constitute a sin.
As to whether the Church is legislating, I would argue the Church herself is not trying to do so, but each member of teh Church has a responsibility to do so.Matthew 22:21 “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s.”
Romans 13:1 “Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God.”
If the law is not what the Church teaches, then one should work to change it. Again, this whole situation should have been conductred privately between the Bishop and Mr Kennedy
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1025 hrs
Over a million “murders” every year! Not serious? The Church has determined it is THE most serious “crime” that a Catholic or anyone can do. MURDER! The Church certainly has respect for all other “sins”, but abortion is the most serious. Hence the detemination to remove from society. Secularism is killing America as it has in France and many other countries. Abortion, Divorce, agregious gambling, pornagraphy, Gay marriage, sex, sex, sex is the driving force.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1030 hrs
The matter of supporting a war, unjust or otherwise is also not something that would put one in a state of sin. And the Church’s stance on the death penalty has been equivicable at best.
Sure, I get that. But if you take that to your average American Catholic? I think you’ll find a lot of them think it’s bullshit. This is why I say the Church isn’t exactly conducting a membership drive here. Not that that’s it’s job. I get that it has principles to stick to. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s doing wonders for attendance.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1034 hrs
If the law is not what the Church teaches, then one should work to change it. Again, this whole situation should have been conductred privately between the Bishop and Mr Kennedy
Unreal.
This thread his a very nice eye-opener to how people get it SO wrong.
What part of freedom don’t you understand?
What is wrong with being against abortion, but STILL believing that people have a right to make choices for themselves.
Just because you don’t support a law against abortion doesn’t mean you think its a good idea. It just means you think people have a right to decide for THEMSEVLES what is right or wrong.
I’m no religious expert, but I’ve heard of this thing called free will. If you want people to change their behavior, why not work to that through their own free will rather than under the threat of force? Why leverage government to force something upon people that you can’t convince them of through logic and example?
You’re no different than the Taliban… You think your religious beliefs are right, and you are ready to use government to force what YOU believe onto other people.
Be against abortion… Fine… Go stand on highway 100 with your graphic little signs. Donate your money for TV commercials to get your message out. But stop thinking that your religious beliefs entitle you to use government to leverage them. If thats the kind of government you want, move to Iran.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1106 hrs
Woah Woah Woah XX, back the truck up. Whether my beliefs are religious or not has not bearing on if I am permitted to use the government to leverage my beliefs. I am free to petition and fight for laws that I feel represent my belief system, whether that be pro or con ANY issue. What entitles me the right to use government to leverage my beliefs is the same thing that entitles you to do the same thing, The Constitution.
To answer your first question, “What is wrong with being against abortion, but STILL believing that people have a right to make choices for themselves?” There is NOTHING wrong with having that belief….unless you are Catholic. If you are Catholic and have that belief, the Church has a right, no a duty, to prevent you form receiving the Eucharist.
You’re no different than the Taliban… You think your religious beliefs are right, and you are ready to use government to force what YOU believe onto other people.
And it seems you think YOUR secular beliefs are right. Are you ready to use the government to force what YOU believe on other people?
Let’s agree on one thing: We, all Americans, have the right to advocate for our beliefs, no matter what the source of those beliefs. What we DON’T have the right to do is force others to believe the same way.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1125 hrs
We, all Americans, have the right to advocate for our beliefs, no matter what the source of those beliefs.
I agree. However, just because someone has the right to do something doesn’t mean they should. For example, I think it’s wrong to legislate anything based solely on one’s religious beliefs. I should have a defensible secular rationale. That’s my opinion.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1141 hrs
Is it the purpose of the Church to bring in people to fill the seats or is it to bring people closer to God, to save souls? I’d say bring people closer to God/save souls.
Since the Garden of Eden and the first sin…people are given a choice. The Church should not waver rather Mr. Kennedy has been given a choice of what is more important to him.
Scott is it a religious belief or just a sense of right or wrong?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1220 hrs
To answer your first question, “What is wrong with being against abortion, but STILL believing that people have a right to make choices for themselves?” There is NOTHING wrong with having that belief….unless you are Catholic. If you are Catholic and have that belief, the Church has a right, no a duty, to prevent you form receiving the Eucharist.
If this is how Catholics believe, I guess I’ll have to change my position on whether Catholics should be elected to public office.
I always assumed that someone could be a devout catholic, protestant, whatever… and live by those principles but not feel compelled to pass laws to force others to live by their religious rules.
My parents are 7th Day Adventist and they don’t believe in eating meat, drinking alcohol, or working on the sabbath. I repsect their beliefs, but I really don’t want them making laws that say that no one can work on the sabbath, eat meat, and ban alcohol. And to be honest, I think you are interpreting the bible wrong because for as intense as my parents study the bible and witness through their behaviors and actions, the last thing THEY want is for the government to force people to do anything.
Your mentality seems (to me) to be the problem with our government today and why, continuing on in the belief that people should be using the government to pass laws to advocate their personal desires will lead to more and more conflict.
Where is the common ground in forcing your beliefs on another person?
I mean there is PLENTY of common ground to be found in a live and let live approach. But if personal beliefs should be leveraged through government, we’ll just have one faction fighting against another faction trying to get control of the government forever.
I always believed a person could be religous AND still believe in our founding principles of individuial freedom. You are demonstrating to me (if I am understanding you correctly) that I was wrong.
I always defended religous people who took heat from the media just because they were “evangelicals” I advocated that people could be very religious and still be good defenders of not just our constitution, but the founding priciples our forefathers very clearly stated for us. Was I wrong to?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1239 hrs
argh, I mistated my point… elovrich, the portion of your last post I quoted I meant to comlpetely agree with. I could care less who or for what reasons the catholic church wants to deny someone communion.
This is the part I then meant to take issue with:
Whether my beliefs are religious or not has not bearing on if I am permitted to use the government to leverage my beliefs. I am free to petition and fight for laws that I feel represent my belief system, whether that be pro or con ANY issue. What entitles me the right to use government to leverage my beliefs is the same thing that entitles you to do the same thing, The Constitution.
You are certainly free to advocate for anything you want. People are free to form a Communist party and advocate for that in this country. I’m not so open minded however, as to believe that would fly in the face of nearly EVERYTHING our founding fathers stood for and the philosophy they so clearly laid out for us.
Our founding fathers laid out a separation of church and state. How ironic that you believe that the very document which provides that freedom is free to be changed to deny the freedom it provided.
Sad, doesn’t make sense… Selfish. In my opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1246 hrs
And yet the church gives communion to priests that molest little boys.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1252 hrs
Interesting thought experiment:
Supposing I am a follower of religion X. Religion X believes you must do Y. Me and my X’ers constitute a majority, so we enact a law that everyone in the country has to do Y.
We don’t care what you believe, mind you. Freedom of religion and all that. But you have to do Y.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1254 hrs
xxpilot:
If my beliefs are those of the majority, whether they are based on religion, moral compulsion, a flip of a coin, or just plain old pig-headedness, they would be those of the majority. In our system of government that is what matters. I have the right, as do you, to try to persuade (not force or compel) others to share those beliefs. If I have a very strong feeling about an issue, I will continue to advocate for that position until I can achieve that majority.
Halfway through this response I see your correction, so let me also change tack.
You bring up the seperation of Church and State. What precisely do you interpret that phrase to mean? Does it mean that the government will not establish a particular religion as the official religion of the country, ala the Church of England? Or does it mean that any decision, law or ruling that the government makes shall be made without reference to the religious or moral compass that each individual might rely on? I personally believe it is the former.
There are many posts on this site alone where we have discussed the fact that some of the Founding Fathers were members of the Enlightenment, but they also were, for the most part, men of God raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition. I am not saying that this is the only tradition we should look to for guidance, just that it was the majority of the population at the time of the founding of this great nation.
Your last sentence lost me. What freedom am I saying should be changed to take away a freedom?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1304 hrs
“And yet the church gives communion to priests that molest little boys.”
It’s one thing to look at sin and say - don’t do that anymore. It’s another to say - “I’m going to keep doing it”
Everyone sins - and some are definitely worse than others. But is is about what you believe. If you believe its ok to be a child molester, I don’t think you are going to get communion at any church. If you had done it in the past and know that you shouldn’t and are actively taking steps to address the issue - communion should be given.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1309 hrs
Given the fact that the “personhood” of a fetus is a matter of religious faith, does a law preventing a pregnant woman from having an abortion serve a secular purpose?
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1311 hrs
scott:
Supposing I am a follower of religion X. Religion X believes you must do Y. Me and my X’ers constitute a majority, so we enact a law that everyone in the country has to do Y.
We don’t care what you believe, mind you. Freedom of religion and all that. But you have to do Y.
Let’s change a few words:
Supposing I am a follower of political party X. Party X believes you must do Y. Me and my X’ers constitute a majority, so we enact a law that everyone in the country has to do Y.
We don’t care what you believe, mind you. Freedom of speech and all that. But you have to do Y.
Is there a difference? Should there be a difference as long as the law represents a majority of the population?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1314 hrs
Is there a difference?
Yes. For a law to be considered Constitutional, it must have a secular purpose.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1317 hrs
scott:
can you give me an example of a law that does NOT have a secular purpose?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1322 hrs
I’d rather you tell me what secular purpose would be served by outlawing all abortions.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1333 hrs
Nobody is forcing Kennedys will, he is entitled to his beleifs, he should just practice them in a place more suited. If I where to attend a Luthern service with a Koran and prayer rug, I am sure somebody would kindly tell me that I need to be looking for another place to worship. What gets me is if he does not follow the catholic religion what do you gain by sitting there every Sunday.
Then again Obama sat in the same service for twenty years and from what I gather never heard a word or took anything to heart.
He is a Kenndey its all politics only this time somebody is calling there trump card, how dare anybody question a kennedy.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1335 hrs
if he does not follow the catholic religion what do you gain by sitting there every Sunday.
I think a lot of American Catholics—who use birth control, are against the death penalty and support abortion rights—have been asking themselves that same question. And a lot of them have been answering themselves: Not much.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1342 hrs
scott:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Lemon test only applies to legislation pertaining to religion. Abortion and whther is is legal or not, while religous in that is involves moral principles, is not a law concerning religion. Yours would be a misapplication of the Lemon test, I think.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1342 hrs
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Lemon test only applies to legislation pertaining to religion.
Are you sure? That doesn’t sound right to me.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1349 hrs
I am sure Catholics world wide are celebrating the fact that scott is is there voice and speaking up for weak and feeble. Is Scott a Catholic? or do church members just contact you at a whim and tell you there concerns.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1352 hrs
Scott, the Church is not a business—she doesn’t do ‘marketing.’
I’m sure the Church is VERY happy that you’re concerned for her health, though. /sarcasm
XX, you need to take a breath. The rationale against abortion is very simple: it is the deliberate taking of an innocent life. Now if you think ‘deliberate taking of innocent life’ is OK, then why do you support the law against Murder One?
—or is your abhorrence of the Church’s position based only on the SIZE of the dead person—or their relationship to you—or what, XX?
Where in the Libertarian book does it say murder’s OK, XX?
Posted by dad29 on November 23, 2009 at 1354 hrs
I’d rather you tell me what secular purpose would be served by outlawing all abortions.
More people to pay taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1358 hrs
I think you guys misunderstand me, dad29 and crusher. I’m not trying to be snotty. I’m merely making reference to the fact that attendance at mass has been falling for decades. I believe this is why. The clash between what people believe and what the Church believes. And when the Church draws a line in the sand—like it has in this case—it only exacerbates that phenomenon IMO.
Scott, the Church is not a business—she doesn’t do ‘marketing.’
I’m well aware of the fact that the Church isn’t a popularity contest, that it has longstanding principles to adhere to. I’m not saying it shouldn’t do that. I’m not saying it should. I’m not expressing any opinion on that whatsoever. I’m merely opining that in cases like this, when it chooses those traditions over what a lot of American Catholics think is right, membership suffers.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1401 hrs
If my beliefs are those of the majority,
Our founding fathers gave us a philosophy that protected the rights of the MINORITY from the tyranny of the majority. I subscribe to that belief.
If 51% of this country was Muslim, then they could just vote our laws in parallel with Sharia.
I’m looking for elected officials who would prevent that kind of imposition of one’s will against another.The views you express demonstrate why there is a notable segment of voters in this country who have a proclivity to reject candidates who are religious.
I’m looking for candidates who’s faith is strong enough that they need not leverage government to proliferate their religion.
You bring up the seperation of Church and State. What precisely do you interpret that phrase to mean? Does it mean that the government will not establish a particular religion as the official religion of the country, ala the Church of England? Or does it mean that any decision, law or ruling that the government makes shall be made without reference to the religious or moral compass that each individual might rely on? I personally believe it is the former.
I believe they intended that our government shouldn’t establish laws that had a basis ONLY in religion.
I don’t need a religion to tell me murder is wrong. Common sense tells me that. It just so happens the 10 commandments does also.
I don’t need a religion to tell me that we should respect the private property of another person. Common sense tells me that if I don’t respect my neighbors private property, he won’t respect mine. Anarchy would ensue.
Our founding fathers believed a mans religion was between himself and his god. But to answer your question, Separation of church and state CLEARLY means far more than that we don’t have an “official” religion. Clearly… One need only read what our founding fathers said. They didn’t talk about just not having an “official” religion, they talked about government having no business dealing with people’s faith. Its clear.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1414 hrs
The Roman Catholic Church is NOT a democracy. Why do so many think / act like it is?
Posted by Josh Schroeder on November 23, 2009 at 1419 hrs
I hope nobody thinks I am saying that. I certainly don’t think it is—or that it should be.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1420 hrs
Scott;
Let’s take a look at the 3-pronged Lemon test and how it might apply to, oh I don’t know, the Hyde or Stupak amendments, just for an example.
Both of these amendments concern the limiting of the use of federal funds to pay for abortions or abortion services.
Prong one – secular purpose
Both of these amendments limit the expenditure of public monies on a completely elective medical procedure.
Prong two – Primary effect
The primary effect of both of these amendments is to conserve limited federal resources and prevent them from being used on a procedure that is not medically necessary. It neither advances nor restricts any particular religion or religiosity.
Prong three – Excessive entanglement
Since these amendments prevent the expenditure of public monies to advance a policy that is admittedly divisive, it actually LIMITS governmental entanglement in the religious argument of whether abortion is appropriate or not.
Since the amendments meet muster under the Lemon test, if a church wants to require that its member hold a certain belief, it is certainly allowed to do that. If the member disagrees with that position he is free to leave the church or accept the consequences. In this case, the withholding of the Eucharist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1422 hrs
a completely elective medical procedure.
Not always. Right?
the Hyde or Stupak amendments,
I’m going after first principles. If there was a law that made it illegal to have an abortion—ever—would that law pass the Lemon Test? Does it have a secular purpose?
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1429 hrs
Xxpilot;
You have turned the argument of this post around. It isn’t about whether the state has any business dictating to religion, I agree with you that it does not. It is about whether the Church was right in withholding the Eucharist from Patrick Kennedy because of his beliefs on the subject of abortion. It has not only the right, but the responsibility to do so.
As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with being against abortion privately and supporting the right of another to have one publically or as a matter of policy, UNLESS YOU ARE CATHOLIC.
If 51% of the country were Muslim, and they elected Muslims into 51% of the seats of Congress, and held the presidency, they could indeed make the laws of this country align with Sharia law. And they would have every right to do so. That is what a democracy is all about, even a representative democracy. The rights of the minority will be protected only so far as the majority agrees to allow them to be. Thankfully, the moral conscience in our country has held that to be the case the vast majority of the time.
You can look for candidates to support whatever beliefs you hold, and hopefully find enough other like-minded people to get them elected. But, if you are in the minority in your election, or if your candidate is in the minority in the body politic, then your beliefs will not be the law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1436 hrs
XX, you need to take a breath.
Gosh, thanks for lookin out for me my friend. I’ll take care of me, you take care of you.
Now that we have that straight….
The rationale against abortion is very simple: it is the deliberate taking of an innocent life. Now if you think ‘deliberate taking of innocent life’ is OK, then why do you support the law against Murder One?
I won’t change your mind, I’ll state my beliefs and then leave it at that.
“life” is a definition that hasn’t been arrived at yet if you ask me WITHOUT resorting to religious beliefs.
It doesn’t make sense to me that when a sperm is floating around in the falopian tube, its just a sperm, and the egg is just an egg, and then a few seconds later once that egg and sperm collide, BOOM life, and suddenly its the equivalent of murder to stop the development of a fertilized egg. Sorry. You’ve got to reading braille with mittens on to not see the distinction between murdering a person and destroying a fertilized egg. (in my opinion of course) I think a deer has far more senses and personality and emotions than an embryo, but people have NO problem killing one of those just for sport/food/tradition. (and I have no problem with it either) but destroy an embryo and its murder? Get real.
I don’t pretend my definition is right for you. As such, I won’t ever force you to have an abortion. I won’t ever ask you to pay for someone elses. I won’t ask any of your taxes go to pay for someone elses. But I will ask you to afford others the freedom to make a decision YOU think is wrong when it has nothing to do with you and no affect on your life.
Sorry. Thats what I believe.
If I’m wrong, and you’re right, Your god can throw me in a fiery pit when I die or when the 2nd coming happens and I’ll accept my fate.
I live an honest and true life. I don’t tell other people what to do when it has no affect on me or anyone else, and I don’t pretend that YOU have more of a right to decide what happens to an embryo inside a womans body than she does.
If you think abortion is wrong. Don’t do it.
If you want to tell other people its wrong. Have at it…
But if you want to pass a law that relies on your religious defiintions of what life is, and when life begins, AND think you have more of an interest in what goes on inside a womans body and head than she does. I’ll stand against you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1440 hrs
scott;
Both amendments makeallowances for cases of rape incest and medical necessity to preserve the health of the mother. So does th Catholic Church. The only thing that is limited is the use of abortion as after-the-fact birth control.
I don’t know if a law banning abortions under all circumstances would pass muster or not. The history of this issue has been entangled for so long with religious opinions that I would suspect that as if today it would not. But then again, the Lemon test is under assault also and may not be long for this world.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1440 hrs
there is nothing wrong with being against abortion privately and supporting the right of another to have one publically or as a matter of policy, UNLESS YOU ARE CATHOLIC.
I’m not so sure. Surely it’s necessary to adhere to the Church’s rules on it one’s self. But is it also required that you make sure everyone else does as well? Believer and non-believer alike? Does the Church wish to make rules for everyone or just for Catholics to follow? I am really not clear on this.
If 51% of the country were Muslim, and they elected Muslims into 51% of the seats of Congress, and held the presidency, they could indeed make the laws of this country align with Sharia law.
No they could not. They would also have to amend the Constitution pretty seriously to make that happen.
That is what a democracy is all about,
And a constitutional democracy is about insulating certain issues from majority rule.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1443 hrs
I’m merely making reference to the fact that attendance at mass has been falling for decades. I believe this is why. The clash between what people believe and what the Church believes. And when the Church draws a line in the sand—like it has in this case—it only exacerbates that phenomenon IMO
.
So what does this mean? Does this mean the Church should change it’s views depending on how the members feel? What Law of God would that fall under.
Example: I’m a parent and both my teenagers want to stay out late and party. My husband and myself have rules and we have them for a reason, so they don’t end up hurt, in jail and so forth. Now because they have different views than the parents does that mean we should change our rules to suit them? No, it means we need to enforce the rules for their own good. If they choose to move away and do their own thing we can say we tried our best to save them and we continue to try to get them back into the fold.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1446 hrs
Both amendments makeallowances for cases of rape incest and medical necessity to preserve the health of the mother. So does th Catholic Church
Okay, so would a law banning all abortion except in cases of rape, incest or life-of-the-mother have a secular purpose?
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1447 hrs
xxpilot;
And as long as Roe v Wade is the law of the land, I will not prevent a woman from getting an abortion, nor will I prevent a Dr from performing one. However, I WILL do what I can to persuade a majority of Americans to view things the way I do. Based on whatever criteria I hold as moral and right. It is what is know as the loyal opposition. I will not do anything to break the laws as written, but if I hold a different viewpoint, I will do what I can to have the laws changed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1450 hrs
Does this mean the Church should change it’s views depending on how the members feel?
I’ve taken great pains to say no, that this is not what I’m saying the Church “should” do. I get that they have scriptures and traditions and tenets to remain true to. I have no idea where and how it draws the line between change and tradition. Nor do I care. i’m not a Catholic. I’m just saying that when this conflict arises many American Catholics seem to be leaving the Church.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1452 hrs
You have turned the argument of this post around. It isn’t about whether the state has any business dictating to religion
You seem to indicate it was when you said:
If the law is not what the Church teaches, then one should work to change it.
This is what I categorically disagree with.
It is about whether the Church was right in withholding the Eucharist from Patrick Kennedy because of his beliefs on the subject of abortion. It has not only the right, but the responsibility to do so.
The catholic church can do whatever they want. I have no issue. If Pat doesn’t like it, find a church he does.
As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with being against abortion privately and supporting the right of another to have one publically or as a matter of policy, UNLESS YOU ARE CATHOLIC.
I think we are in agreement on that also,
If 51% of the country were Muslim, and they elected Muslims into 51% of the seats of Congress, and held the presidency, they could indeed make the laws of this country align with Sharia law. And they would have every right to do so.
They do not have every right to do so. Our constitution specifically prohibits the federal government from doing certain things. 51% doesn’t mean its constitutional. Unfortunately if 2/3rds did and the states ratify and all the other crap that has to happen for a constitutional amendment happend, then indeed, they could change our constitution to whatever they want. It would be a shame, but they could. with super majorities and state ratification we could eliminate freedom of speech, press, due process, right to keep and bear arms, and everything else. (I still believe that would all be morally wrong because our civil rights superceded governments, but thats another discussion)
That is what a democracy is all about, even a representative democracy. The rights of the minority will be protected only so far as the majority agrees to allow them to be.
That maks no sense. “the rights of the minority will be protected as long as the majority agress to allow them to????”
You don’t understand what a “right” is.
I’m going to come back to your comment:
If the law is not what the Church teaches, then one should work to change it.
This will just lead to continual unrest and vitriol
My parents church teaches that you shouldn’t work on sabbath. Their sabbath is saturday. Do you really think they should be trying to get government to pass a law to agree with their church teachings? Do you want to live in a country where you can’t work on sabbath when you’re religion thinks sabbath is sunday.
What I hear from you is if 51% of the country wants it, fuck the rest. UN-american (in my opinion)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1457 hrs
@scott #56
IMO, yes it would. It would protect the life of an unborn human child. That is secular. The part that is not secular, and open to debate, is when does life begin.
There are 3 choices. At conception, at birth, or somewhere in between.
Despite xxpilot’s strawman of the deer and the embryo, (he forgot the adjective human), there is a descerible, definable and definite change at the moment of conception, there is another on at the moment of birth. Is tehre one at some point in between? Does iot make sense to set an arbitrary perios of the first tri-mester? The second? Pick a point betwenn the two extremes when you will say, ‘On this side of the line is life, on the other there is not’. If you can’t do that, then that leaves you two choices, life begins at birth, or life begins at conception. So, which do you support the right to abort a fetus when the mother’s water breaks, or the right of the fetus to live as soon as it is conceived?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1502 hrs
However, I WILL do what I can to persuade a majority of Americans to view things the way I do. Based on whatever criteria I hold as moral and right.
Not only do I think you SHOULD do what you just said, I admire that in a person and commend you for doing what you believe to be right. So long as you are appealing to people without the duress of threat of force etc. If you can win over their mind, of their own free will, good on ya!
It is what is know as the loyal opposition. I will not do anything to break the laws as written, but if I hold a different viewpoint, I will do what I can to have the laws changed.
Now you lost me. What I hear from you is “if I can’t change their mind appealing through logic/rationalization, then I’ll use government force. I reject and have no respect for that attitude.
Once you resort to the threat of force (government) to impose your will on someone else (when they aren’t doing anything tangible against you) you have failed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1507 hrs
yes it would. It would protect the life of an unborn human child. That is secular. The part that is not secular, and open to debate, is when does life begin.
But if the issue of whether it’s, as you say, “the life of an unborn human child” is not secular, then how can protecting that life be secular? (BTW, I think what we’re getting at his more accurately described as “personhood”; Obviously it’s “life” and obviously it’s “human.” Even at the moment of conception. But that doesn’t make it the moral and ethical equivalent of you and me. At least not in any empirical way.)
So, which do you support the right to abort a fetus when the mother’s water breaks, or the right of the fetus to live as soon as it is conceived?
I think we should make our laws reflect reality: Personhood develops over time. There is no “line” at which it is fully present after having been completely absent. And we can make laws like that. Less consideration of the unborn early in pregnancy, more later in pregnancy, full consideration upon birth. And that’s kind of what we have now.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1510 hrs
xxpilot,
I am completely aware of 2/3 super majority and state ratification for amending the consitution. However, in a practical sense, if one radically different group held 51% of the legislature, and treh presidency for long enough, tehy could pass laws that do not conform to CURRENT interpretation of the Consticution without ever having to amend the base document itself through the simple, though admittedly time consuming, process of legislatoing from the bench. Packing the courts with justices who will interpret the laws as that majority sees fit. I am with you in thinking that would be a shame, but it is certainly possible.
On your other points:
I believe that every one of us should be engaged in trying to form our government to conform to what we feel is the best; with the understanding that if we are in the minority we continue to fight for our beliefs while at the same time supporting the law as it is. Do you feel that if my opinion happens to be the minority today that I should just say, ‘Alright, I guess that is that,’ and move on to the next itm on the agenda, never to revisit it again?
Continual unrest is good, it makes us challenge ourselves to make things better. Whether it is vitriolic or not depends on the attitudes of those engaged, it is not a function of diagreement in and of itself.
Allow me to change one word in the item you keep quoting, perhaps it will lead to better understanding:
If the law is not what one’s church believes ini, one should work to change it.
Whether it is my church or your church or the church of baseball, you should advocate for what you believe in, ESPECIALLY if you are in the minority.
As for the rights of the minority being protected only so far as the majority chooses to protect them… Htere are many examples of that in our own history. Slavery, the Japenese internment camps, smokers. If you are in a minority, your rights are only protected as far as the majority shooses to allow them to be. Otherwise they can pass laws to restrict those rights. I am not saying it is good, or proper, just that it is possible.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1522 hrs
xxpilot @ 61
You may be misunderstanding what I am saying. In order to affect a change in the law, I would need a majoirty of the support. It is the force of governement that is the result of the will of the public, not the will of the public that is a result of the force of government.
scott @ 62:
Be careful going down that ‘personhood’ path.
First, where along the continuum in the womb would you disallow abortion on a completely elective reason? Formation of certain organs? Self-awareness? A heartbeat? The presence of brainwaves? Pick your poison, if only for the purpose oif discussion in this thread.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1532 hrs
oh and scott:
Last I checked the definition of homicide was the taking of human life, not the taking of human personhood. So yes, the definition of when that life begins is quite germane, and it seems you agree life begins at conception
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1535 hrs
where along the continuum in the womb would you disallow abortion on a completely elective reason?
I don’t think there’s anything to fear. To some extent decisions like these will always be somewhat arbitrary. After all, development happens on a smooth gradation. Laws can only approximate this by a series of steps, legal rights and considerations, at certain points along the way.
Abortion for “I don’t want to be pregnant” basis? I don’t know—up to 20 weeks? What we’d do is gather all the available evidence about development and weigh them against what we believe constitutes a person deserving of full ethical consideration (and Constitutional protections).
All of this is simply to say that I reject the notion that it must be at birth or at conception. That’s a nice, neat straight line to draw—but it’s not the reality of human development. And laws can be made to accommodate the reality.
As far as perosnhood and human and all the rest? I don’t want to play word games. I acknowledge that “human life” is any entity which a) exhibits living processes and b) contains human DNA. However, most everyone immediately understands that a just fertilized egg is not the same as a human being and does not deserve the same moral consideration or constitutional protections as you or I. This is why I think a different term—personhood—allows us to talk about that state in which an entity does merit that consideration.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1544 hrs
scott:
But what is it about the point of development at 20 weeks that makes that a reasonable choice to you? I am not disagreeing that there is a discernable path of development, I would just like to know at what point you think abortion by choice stops being acceptable.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1550 hrs
No, I’m sorry. I have no answer to just blurt out and defend. What I’m suggesting is that we “gather all the available evidence about development and weigh them against what we believe constitutes a person deserving of full ethical consideration”
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1555 hrs
so you are saying that you have no personal feeling for what that point might be?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1601 hrs
Let me go review all the available evidence and get back to you with a series of legal considerations afforded to a developing fetus. Be back in six months.
Seriously, though. All I do know is that, given the developmental nature of personhood, any ideology which holds that a just-fertilized egg is a person is ludicrous. And any ideology which holds that an almost-born fetus merits zero legal consideration is ludicrous also.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1604 hrs
scott:
I am not asking for a breakdown of the current legal evidence, nor am I asking you to make a declaration that you will be held to beyond the scope of this thread. But are you seriously saying that y9ou have no gut feeling for what qualifies as personhood?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1613 hrs
I don’t even want to be held to it in this thread! My gut feeling is simply this: I think personhood is fully established upon live birth, not before. And that most of the rights associated with it should be given late in pregnancy, not early.
All of which is why I’m pretty comfortable with things the way they have been. Partial birth abortion is rare and almost always something undertaken in cases of heartbreaking medical conditions. Before that, it’s hard to get an abortion in the third trimester. Depending where you live, I guess. But I suspect most women seeking them at that point would be ones acting rationally regarding some pretty grim medical issues. Before that? I think a woman’s desire not to be pregnant is enough to terminate.
In broad strokes.
What about you?
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1621 hrs
This is in response to Scott’s comment at 58 where he believes the Catholic Church is losing membership because of conservative doctrine.
This is incorrect. Take a look at the huge increase in Evangelical church attendance the past 25-years. There is a large group of people in the Catholic church who have left to go to more conservative churches.
Your die-hard Catholic would argue that the attendance drops began starting in the 1960’s with Vatican II when the Church adopted the “big-tent” philosophy. The lack of clarity became troubling. Many people prefer that they have religion to provide a rigid guide as to how to live life. The Catholic Church has lost all that the past 40-years. If you stand for everything, then you stand for nothing.
Pedophile priests along with a new Gen X video society that doesn’t like the staid liturgy in the Catholic church is the second part of the attendance decline.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1628 hrs
I am Catholic. I follow the Church’s teachings on this issue. But, if I had to be the one to originally craft the opinion it would go something like this:
I know that the point at which to protect the unborn is at some point prior to birth. I cannot define exactly when that point is. Since I cannot define the precise point at which it is permissible to take a life through virtue of whether there is or is not ‘personhood’ I will err on the side of my morality and not take the life under any voluntary circumstances.
The nice thing about this reasoning is that it fits with the stance I would take on the death penalty. I will argue against the death penalty up to the point that there is no chance that the person accused is erroneously found guilty. In other words, it can be used in cases where either the accused confessed in such a way that it is clear it was not coerced. Or there are multiple and agreeing independent witnesses to the crime. I will err on the side of preserving life, without eliminating the possibility altogether.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1636 hrs
Steve, maybe you’re right. I have no data on the subject. (Do you?) I was only expressing my opinion.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1640 hrs
I know that the point at which to protect the unborn is at some point prior to birth. I cannot define exactly when that point is. Since I cannot define the precise point at which it is permissible to take a life through virtue of whether there is or is not ‘personhood’ I will err on the side of my morality and not take the life under any voluntary circumstances.
Interesting… I know the point at which (i believe) an unborn should be protected is at some point prior to birth. I cannot define exactly when that point is. Since I cannot define the precise point at which it is permissible to take a life through virtue of whether there is or is not ‘personhood’ I will err on the side of the rights of the individual who has the most at stake (the woman) and leave the decision to her.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1700 hrs
xxpilot:
But that is just it isnt it? Who DOES have the most at stake? The life of the unborn child, or the convenience of the mother? Since we are already recognizing that there are limited cases when abortion would be permitted, we ARE talking about abortion for convenience. Still want to hold the mother’s rights to excercise birth control after the fact above the the rights of the child to live?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1705 hrs
elovrich, I find your position kind of a cop out. You recognize that personhood occurs by degrees during gestation, but you’re unwilling to reflect this reality in law. If you want to be conservative about it why not just ascribe one notch more rights than the evidence suggests at each stage of development? Instead you’ve chosen not to reflect reality in the law at all: full personhood at the moment of conception.
Although, since you do allow exceptions to this, one wonders if that’s what you’re really giving…
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1708 hrs
scott:
I am not comforable with defining the point at which a fetus reaches personhood, so I accord the fetus the benfit of the doubt. If this is a cop-out, then I will accept that label. But I at least have the moral fortitude to make a call. Too many want to just say, “I wouldn’t, but I can’t make that decision for another” You either believe it is right or you believe it is wrong. If you truly don’t have a dog in the fight, then you are a rare exception. If I am copping-out what do you call those who hold their beliefs privately but wont advocate for laws to support their beliefs? It would be like saying, I believe that blacks are equal, or, I believe that women have the right to vote, and tehn not acting on it. THAT is the cop-out.
I swore to myself I was going to address this just on the merits and argue on non-emotional grounds. But to call taking a stand a cop-out is just too much. Yes, I agree that personhood develops over time, but I do not tie the right of the fetus to live to personhood because I cannot define at what point on that spectrum taking the life would be justified. Notice, we have both already agreed that LIFE begins at conception. To say that it requires, the development of a certain physical feature, or a certain cognitive ability is not something I am prepared to do. The simple reason being that if you define something as necessary at the front end, then you are also saying that its absence defines the moment of no longer having ‘personhood’ at the back end.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1726 hrs
I have no problem with what the church did, whether it is hypocritical or not. The church has every right to refuse communion to anyone who does not follow its doctrine, whenever they choose, and under whatever circumstances they choose. It makes sense that they would make an example of such a high profile person, and the arguments about birth control, and when life begins are irrelevant here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1745 hrs
Scott—-there is a lot of Church attendance data out there on the web as it relates to trends supporting this. And if you want more local flavor, just look at a Church like Elmbrook in Waukesha that probably is half filled with ex-Catholics who wanted more structure in their lives than what the Catholic church is giving them.
Not trying to raise a ruckus. Just pointing out that interestingly enough, for many people they actually prefer to belong to a church that makes decisions for them. And that applies to other religions such as Orthodox Judaism. A large segment of the world falls into being attracted to very regimented religion.
Then there is a small group of people who prefer to worship with very open beliefs. Denominations like Unity, New Thought, Religious Science, etc have no rules other than active intellectual engagement on a spiritual level. Those are the least popular and least attended churches in the US. Again, I’m not passing judgement on them at all. Just noting human nature seems to work towards populating churches that have the least amount of self-freedom as it relates to beliefs and values.
The Churches that tend to open up to many ideas usually fall apart. The Evangelical Lutherans are now finding that out as they ordain actively gay clergy. They’ll only modestly increase their attendance base from people who support that, but most likely lose a huge amount of people who will defect.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1747 hrs
I highly recommend The Last Abortion Doctor, an unflinching article about late-term abortion from the September 2009 issue of Esquire. Doesn’t provide any answers to the questions being debated here—probably just raises more—but it’s a very thoughtful piece and worth a 15-minute read.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1757 hrs
what do you call those who hold their beliefs privately but wont advocate for laws to support their beliefs?
I guess they’re people who are honest about where their position on fetal rights comes from: Their faith. And they recognize that it’s not right to force others to live as their own sectarian beliefs dictate.
But to call taking a stand a cop-out is just too much.
My goal here isn’t to insult you, but that is exactly how I see it. You say you’re “taking a stand.” I say you’re refusing to take one dictated by our shared belief in the development of personhood. But I don’t want to quibble. I understand you feel strongly about it and I understand that I’m not here to present iron-clad arguments which will logically compel you to become pro-choice. I have no such magic and I know that.
A large segment of the world falls into being attracted to very regimented religion.
And yet the world becomes more secular every passing year. Atheism surely is the fastest growing “denomination” in America. Or one of the fastest growing. Surely. Even here in highly religious America.
The Churches that tend to open up to many ideas usually fall apart.
Or never catch on in the first place. But I’m not sure I’m prepared to accept the Catholic Church as a victim of its own newfound liberalism and openness. Vatican II notwithstanding.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1832 hrs
My goal here isn’t to insult you, but that is exactly how I see it. You say you’re “taking a stand.” I say you’re refusing to take one dictated by our shared belief in the development of personhood. But I don’t want to quibble. I understand you feel strongly about it and I understand that I’m not here to present iron-clad arguments which will logically compel you to become pro-choice. I have no such magic and I know that.
I personally do not believe that personhood “develops”... I am a “conceptioner” if you want to label me, and it is my personal choice to allow people to butter their own beds, or make their own bread, or lie in it, or toast it, or whatever they want to do with it, because finality is between you/me/anyone and God, or not. (i’m kind of agnostic)...
And yet the world becomes more secular every passing year. Atheism surely is the fastest growing “denomination” in America. Or one of the fastest growing. Surely. Even here in highly religious America.
Atheism as a belief is not the fastest growing “denomination” in America, the check off segment “Non-Religious” on the census is. I would check that box, although I believe there is a God, not a spaghetti monster.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1845 hrs
I guess they’re people who are honest about where their position on fetal rights comes from: Their faith. And they recognize that it’s not right to force others to live as their own sectarian beliefs dictate.
I would call them weak willed, and intellectually dishonest. If you believe something you should fight for it. I get just as annoyed as anyone by Jehova’s Witnesses, but I admire their will. On the other hand, the conservative who sits and allows themselves to be bashed in a college classroom, I call weak. (I know, not exactly equivalent, but it was the first analogy that came to mind)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1851 hrs
And they recognize that it’s not right to force others to live as their own sectarian beliefs dictate.
Is it right to force others to live as your beliefs dictate, whether they are sectarian based or not? Or is it just sectarian beliefs that we shouldn’t impose on others?
Atheism surely is the fastest growing “denomination” in America. Or one of the fastest growing. Surely. Even here in highly religious America.
You are correct in this belief according to the latest surveys. It is interesting that you chose the word ‘denomination’. Since the Establishment clause states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” does that mean that this ‘denomination’ also does not have the right to impose their beliefs through creation of laws? (This of course is dependent on the answer to the previous question above)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1854 hrs
And laws can be made to accommodate the reality
Yah, well, the “trimester” formula worked when Roe was decided and then technology advanced so now we can deliver babies at ~4.5 months and they will be just fine.
New law?
And the term “development”—that’s kinda slippery, too. What about the mentally disabled? Physically disabled?
As Evro says, you’re not well-positioned.
Posted by dad29 on November 23, 2009 at 1908 hrs
I’m not talking about “viability” or premature survival rates, dad29. I’m talking about personhood.
And the fact that the questions are hard does not deter me. I’d rather face hard questions as best I can than simply deny reality altogether.
I guess it’s kind of like my view on morality in general. I feel I am responsible for making the best decisions I can for my own well-being and that of others. There are no magic bullets and nobody inherently knows any magic information that I don’t know. Those who claim to offer certainty are no better than stopped clocks: When they do good it’s rare and mostly by accident. If, in the light of new information, I think a decision was wrong, adopt a new position to accommodate it.
Making the best decision you can, with the information you have, and being willing to refine it later, is as good as it gets. Many people find this frightening and burdensome. I call it taking responsibility and being a moral grownup.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1915 hrs
But if you want to pass a law that relies on your religious defiintions of what life is, and when life begins, AND think you have more of an interest in what goes on inside a womans body and head than she does. I’ll stand against you
Ummmnnnhhhhh….
Governments are established to further the common good. Jefferson didn’t quibble with that (and your Jeffy quotes are nice, but really—he was not the ONLY Founder, you know…)
The definition of ‘common good’ must rest on a defined and commonly accepted set of moral absolutes. If those absolutes are violated, such violation is considered a breach of the ‘common good,’ and prosecution results.
Those “goods” have a hierarchy. Life happens to be the one at the top of the Founders’ list in one document, followed by ‘liberty,’ generally taken to mean un-restricted to do GOOD (not evil), and ‘pursuit of happiness,’ Now ‘happiness’ in the language of the 1700’s meant “virtue,” not material goods; you may check Plato and Aristotle if you wish.
But under the schema you propose, some “harmless” evil should be ignored. Well, prostitution is a “harmless” evil, except for the self-destruction of the woman AND the lack of self-discipline in the man. Do you encourage that?
I doubt it.
Anyhooo…while “religion” should not set the rules for civil life, moral absolutes should. Jefferson acknowledges that through inference in his ‘twenty gods’ graf.
Posted by dad29 on November 23, 2009 at 1921 hrs
I’m not talking about “viability” or premature survival rates, dad29. I’m talking about personhood.
I encourage you to describe the difference, in medical detail.But if you want to pass a law that relies on your religious defiintions of what life is, and when life begins, AND think you have more of an interest in what goes on inside a womans body and head than she does. I’ll stand against you
Is it OK to kill a baby at birth (partial birth abortion) because a woman wants to? Pretty sure a baby is a person at birth….
Remember my earlier question?
Why do liberals support the bumper sticker “keep your laws off my body” when it comes to abortion, but no when it comes to government healthcare, and by that I include medicare, medicaid, badgercare, the public option, single payer, government run health care, or however many other labels you can come up with for it?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1929 hrs
Why do liberals support the bumper sticker “keep your laws off my body” when it comes to abortion, but no when it comes to government healthcare
Because a law explicitly controlling your reproductive rights is a lot of clear and direct control for the government to assume. Hence, “keep you laws off my body.”
Government health insurance, on the other hand, is no more restrictive than private health insurance. In fact, it’s usually been more secure, and thus more liberating, in that the government isn’t going to rescind your policy when your’e sick or deny you coverage for a preexisting condition. Hence, the same line doesn’t really ring true.
I understand that you believe government health care is basically fascism in a lab coat. I get that you think it’s going to lead directly to draconian care rationing the likes of which the world has never seen before. Or something. But you must understand that a lot of us don’t believe that at all and think you’re a little nuts.
That help clarify things?
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 1937 hrs
Anyhooo…while “religion” should not set the rules for civil life, moral absolutes should.
I don’t think the founding of this country was quite that agnostic.
Whether or not Thomas Jefferson was agnostic, atheist, christian or not, he went along with the christian leanings of the others, to get along.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1939 hrs
Because a law explicitly controlling your reproductive rights is a lot of clear and direct control for the government to assume. Hence, “keep you laws off my body.”
Funny, now you know what I’m talking about…
Government health insurance, on the other hand, is no more restrictive than private health insurance. In fact, it’s usually been more secure, and thus more liberating, in that the government isn’t going to rescind your policy when your’e sick or deny you coverage for a preexisting condition. Hence, the same line doesn’t really ring true.
Reproductive rights are part of healthcare. Your side has fought to make sure of that. Even though I do not support abortion under any circumstances but incest and the survival of the mother, I am supposed to be A-OK with a bill that insures Americans uninsured and pays for their abortions?
I understand that you believe government health care is basically fascism in a lab coat. I get that you think it’s going to lead directly to draconian care rationing the likes of which the world has never seen before. Or something. But you must understand that a lot of us don’t believe that at all and think you’re a little nuts.
It is not fascism in the least. It is communism, from Merriam-Webster :” a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed “
The “good” being healthcare.
That help clarify things?Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1945 hrs
BTW. Way to ignore the entire rest of my post and choose the easy point to attack…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1950 hrs
I do not support abortion under any circumstances but incest and the survival of the mother,
and rape. My bad.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 1958 hrs
#89
while “religion” should not set the rules for civil life, moral absolutes should.How and who defines what those moral absolutes are?
#92
Whether or not Thomas Jefferson was agnostic, atheist, christian or not, he went along with the christian leanings of the others, to get along.And you know this how?
Our founding fathers among other things, held slaves, killed and stole land from the original Americans, and didn’t allow women to vote. All sounds very christian to me.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2007 hrs
I neither a Catholic, a Christian nor an atheist so bear with me please.
The Roman Catholic Church has a clear hierarchical top down structure. The Pope sets the rule according to his understanding of what Christ would want and by what he perceives the Holy Spirit’s direction. The rest of the membership follows suit. Kennedy, like many Catholics I know does not agree that the leadership has the right opinion on these matters. However for various reasons many Catholics choose not to leave the denomination. The Bishop by his action has is someways set the clock back for Catholics. how can non-Catholics now believe that Rome is not on some level pressuring its members to vote in accordance on its doctrine? Who is to say that sort of thinking will not be extended to leaders who are Jews, Muslims or Hindus?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2007 hrs
#95
I do not support abortion under any circumstances but incest and rape.Why? Is the life worth less when it comes about because of incest or rape? Does God love the life less?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2010 hrs
Why? Is the life worth less when it comes about because of incest or rape? Does God love the life less?
I don’t know what God thinks about it, but in these circumstances, where a woman was violated, I am willing to see the value in “a womans choice”.
Our founding fathers among other things, held slaves, killed and stole land from the original Americans, and didn’t allow women to vote. All sounds very christian to me.
Well, that certainly belies your “fair and balanced” nature.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2029 hrs
Fair and balanced…. I notice that you conveniently edited my post to leave out “the life of the mother”... Does God not also love that child?
What is the deal with liberals and editing other peoples words?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2031 hrs
I am supposed to be A-OK with a bill that insures Americans uninsured and pays for their abortions?
I’m actually looking for a bill that preserves the status quo. I don’t want to turn health care reform into a debate about abortion. This, I think, has been the Democratic leadership’s position. I support it.
It is not fascism in the least. It is communism, from Merriam-Webster :” a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed “
What exactly do you think is being “owned” here? The government is offering to subsidize poor and lower-income people’s health insurance—if they don’t have insurance already. That’s the owning part? Surely it’s not the public insurance option, per se—it’s paid for through premiums just like other health insurance plans are. Hospitals are not being taken over. Private insurers aren’t being outlawed. Doctors are not now government employees. If you’re going to flat-out call it communism I think you should be able to explain this.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 2035 hrs
What is the deal with liberals and editing other peoples words?
it’s edited because that’s the part we want to know about: Why is it okay to terminate a pregnancy if that pregnancy is the result of incest or rape? Are those conditions not merely an extreme example of the mother not wanting to continue a pregnancy? If you deny abortion services to other women who do not want to carry to term, why do you allow these? Is it not still “murder”? Inquiring minds want to know.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 2037 hrs
Doug,
Well I guess you think a life is worthless and deserves to be killed in some cases.
You haven’t answered to the christian values of our founding fathers that you believe in.
And you didn’t answer as to how and who defines what those moral absolutes are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2040 hrs
I wrote this several years ago:
http://widigest.com/html/owen_80405.htm
Yes, it’s a Natural Rights argument against abortion.
Posted by Owen on November 23, 2009 at 2040 hrs
, killed and stole land from the original Americans
How do you know they were the original Americans? How do you know they didn’t kill and steal land from another more primitive group?
Either way, they weren’t “original americans” anyway, they came here over an ice bridge.
I refuse to accept this “white guilt” BS.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2041 hrs
“Fair and balanced…. I notice that you conveniently edited my post to leave out “the life of the mother”... Does God not also love that child?
What is the deal with liberals and editing other peoples words?”
Ok, so you believe that the life of the child should be killed only if the mother will die.
Oh and assuming I’m a liberal is like me assuming your a nazi.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2044 hrs
“How do you know they were the original Americans? How do you know they didn’t kill and steal land from another more primitive group?
Either way, they weren’t “original americans” anyway, they came here over an ice bridge.
I refuse to accept this “white guilt” BS”
So you’re saying it was good and just for the land to be taken away by force from those who had it. And it’s ok for the government to come and take your land away from you now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2048 hrs
Interesting. Alinsky taught both of you well….
Unfortunately you cannot hold me to my own standards on a subject about which you don’t know my beliefs to begin with.
On the subject of our founding fathers… Do you really think they weren’t Christians? Fascinating, did you go to public school?
Moral absolutes are defined by God, or man, or nature, or whatever. The elimination of a human life for convenience is wrong. The elimination of a human life, because its conception was a crime is something different, probably not wrong but I am willing to take the moral chance.
I am not going to take the time to describe to you my entire moral ethical background, although I suspect it is very similar to yours.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2049 hrs
So you’re saying it was good and just for the land to be taken away by force from those who had it. And it’s ok for the government to come and take your land away from you now
Is that what I said… Hmmm. Interesting. Reading comprehension is not your forte.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2055 hrs
And rational thinking is not yours.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2056 hrs
Oh and assuming I’m a liberal is like me assuming your a naz
i.
First of all… This is so ridiculous and outlandish that my only response is this.
You should have used the word “you’re”, the contraction of you and are, because you were implying that I am a Nazi not that I own one.
Secondly, a nazi? Really? Wow, ignorance is a powerful thing.
You can drop the hyperbolic bologna or I can stop conversing with you. The decision is yours.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2100 hrs
The elimination of a human life for convenience is wrong. The elimination of a human life, because its conception was a crime is something different, probably not wrong but I am willing to take the moral chance.
Something just doesn’t seem right about this. And I think I know what it is. I’m going to supply the only rationale for this that makes sense to me. I know you’ll deny it. Consider that a forgone conclusion. But hey—know thine enemy. Understand me at least.
Outlawing abortion has to do with keeping sex as risky as possible (outside married, procreation). Knowing that a life-chancing pregnancy must be carried to term would, therefore, be a deterrent. Those who find themselves in that unhappy situation? Well, sin must have its punishment.
Victims of crime don’t fall under that moral code, you see. That’s why “murder” is okay in their case.
It’s not really about protecting the unborn per se. It’s about controlling people’s sex lives.
If you’re puzzled by this, see here for a detailed discussion of this phenomenon.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 2108 hrs
The notion that you consider me an “enemy” is interesting to me, but hey, take it as it comes….
Outlawing abortion has to do with keeping sex as risky as possible (outside married, procreation). Knowing that a life-chancing pregnancy must be carried to term would, therefore, be a deterrent. Those who find themselves in that unhappy situation? Well, sin must have its punishment.
It has nothing to do with the riskiness of sex, it has everything to do with abortion becoming a method of birth control. I do expect people to live with the consequences of their decisions. Being pretty agnostic, I do not believe premarital sex to be a sin, I did my share of it.
Victims of crime don’t fall under that moral code, you see. That’s why “murder” is okay in their case.
Correct. You can define it as murder, if you wish. I do not, I call it “abortion”, removal of tissue, if you will. There are situations in which I think it is appropriate to defer to the woman, there are some in which that is unacceptable. Is that hypocritical? Maybe, maybe not.
Again, Alinsky taught you well.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2119 hrs
The notion that you consider me an “enemy” is interesting to me,
I was referring to myself.
It has nothing to do with the riskiness of sex, it has everything to do with abortion becoming a method of birth control.
So in other words you’d like to see contraception more widely used, thus preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Me too. But much of the pro-life movement in American disagrees with us. Why do you suppose that is? I think I know.
You clearly want to discuss someone named Alinsky. Why not just make whatever point you’re trying to make and stop being so oblique about it.
Posted by scott on November 23, 2009 at 2126 hrs
#111
Wow Doug. You just used internet rule number 11 known as Skitt’s Law.Skitt’s Law
Expressed as “any post correcting an error in another post will contain at least one error itself” or “the likelihood of an error in a post is directly proportional to the embarrassment it will cause the poster.”It is an online version of the proofreading truism Muphry’s Law, also known as Hartman’s Law of Prescriptivist Retaliation: “any article or statement about correct grammar, punctuation, or spelling is bound to contain at least one error”.
Language Log quotes the following example, from Paul Ordoveza’s How Now, Brownpau? blog:
“For too long, we linguistic pedants have cringed, watching this phrase used, misused, and abused, again, and again, and again. ‘This begs the question…’ [we hear], and we must brace ourselves as the ignoramii of modern society literally ask a question after the phrase.”
While Mr Ordoveza’s point is entirely valid (“begging the question” is a logical fallacy, meaning to “beggar the question”, or assume your conclusion in your premise – not to raise the question), the plural of ignoramus is ignoramuses.
It was apparently first stated by G Bryan Lord, referring to a user named Skitt, on Usenet in 1998.
And if you’re going to start name calling and assume someone is a liberal, or anything else, then anyone can assume you to be anything that they wish. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.
If you’re going to give an opinion, be prepare to logically answer for that opinion. If you can’t give a answer just say so, instead of dancing around it. It’s not a disgrace to admit you just don’t know.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2136 hrs
so in other words you’d like to see contraception more widely used, thus preventing unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Me too. But much of the pro-life movement in American disagrees with us. Why do you suppose that is? I think I know.
Yes. Yes. And probably yes.
You clearly want to discuss someone named Alinsky. Why not just make whatever point you’re trying to make and stop being so oblique about it.
Saul Alinsky. Rules for Radicals, 1971. Rule #4.) Make your enemy live up to their own book of rules.
By trying to force me, through debate tactics, to admit my own hypocrisy you were essentially trying to make me live up to my own book of rules. However, since you do not know my book of rules, it is difficult or impossible to do. I am guilty of similar assumptive questioning, it is a habit that is difficult to break.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2136 hrs
And if you’re going to start name calling and assume someone is a liberal, or anything else, then anyone can assume you to be anything that they wish. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah.
If you’re going to give an opinion, be prepare to logically answer for that opinion. If you can’t give a answer just say so, instead of dancing around it. It’s not a disgrace to admit you just don’t know.
You cut and paste that from Wikipedia?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2138 hrs
From 52, “If I’m wrong, and you’re right, Your god can throw me in a fiery pit when I die or when the 2nd coming happens and I’ll accept my fate.” xxpilot
A very bold statement. I pray you give that some more thought.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2152 hrs
That was very well written Owen!
No questions from me on this
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2159 hrs
With the exception of Kelly (maybe) looks like the posters here are just about all men for what is essentially a woman’s issue.
Just out of curiosity, if you got your way and got abortion outlawed, what would the punishment be for a violation and who would it be laid on?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2206 hrs
How is it just a women’s issue? The decision to abort affects both the mother and the father, and the public in general. Would it have made sense to only ask slave owners and slaves how they felt about abolition? Or only ask women when it came to suffrage? Saying that it is a women’s issue either let’s men off the hook of having to make a difficult decision, or it erodes a father’s rights.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2219 hrs
But what about Keith’s question, “Just out of curiosity, if you got your way and got abortion outlawed, what would the punishment be for a violation and who would it be laid on?”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2229 hrs
Take a breath. Note the word “essentially.”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2236 hrs
Ok, so here is where I stand on this topic.
I am a Catholic, and I would not advocate terminating a pregnancy within my own personal life. That would be my choice based on my faith. With that said, if I were in public life and charged to defending the freedoms of others, I would be comfortable defending the public’s right to make those choices for themselves. My personal faith and beliefs does not entitle me to force my beliefs on others. I don’t find this hypocritical.
Because I follow my faith and beliefs in my personal life I feel comfortable taking communion and feel that Patrick Kennedy is practicing the teachings of the church in his personal life, but defends the freedoms of others that don’t prescribe to those same beliefs. The bishop is making it political.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2254 hrs
Yes Keith, I noted the word essentially and know you didn’t say solely. It still is not even ‘essentially’ a women’s issue, in my opinion. but one that involves the entire community, since you are talking about a crime that would be prosecuted by the state rather than in civil court.
if I were in public life and charged to defending the freedoms of others, I would be comfortable defending the public’s right to make those choices for themselves. My personal faith and beliefs does not entitle me to force my beliefs on others. I don’t find this hypocritical.
Fair and Balanced:
Shouldn’t that be freedoms and rights of others? As a public official, wouldn’t your responsibility to impose the beliefs of your constituency on others through the enactment of laws they feel are just and right? And as an elected official, wouldn’t it be a safe assumption that you yourself, in your professed beliefs, represented the majority of your constituency?
The Bishop is not making it political, he is making it public, and as I said early on in the thread, that is not right of either party in this case. Frankly, there is no evidence one way or the other if Kennedy is practicing the teachings of the Church in his personal life, and it is none of anyone’s business outside of the confessional if he has repented for any lapse he may or may not have committed.
As for what the punishment for violation of a ban on abortion? At the very least the doctor would be guilty of performing an illegal medical procedure. I am not certain what the penalties are for that, but I would imagine revocation of license would be at least part of it. For the woman and anyone else involved? Let’s start with conspiracy to commit murder, since the woman and anyone who advised her in a professional capacity (can you say Planned Parenthood) did not actually commit the murder, that might be all you could charge under current statutes. Would there be other crimes defined as a result of such a law? Possibly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2323 hrs
As much as many have a problem with abortion, many more would find the application of a punishment more abhorrent.
You guys, and for sure guys, are stuck. The GOP would never derail their electoral gravy train and outright outlaw abortion. That would cut the string with which they jerk you all around.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2009 at 2331 hrs
“As a public official, wouldn’t your responsibility to impose the beliefs of your constituency on others through the enactment of laws they feel are just and right? And as an elected official, wouldn’t it be a safe assumption that you yourself, in your professed beliefs, represented the majority of your constituency?”
No.
As a public official my responsibility would be to all the people, not just the majority. We pledge allegiance to our republic not our democracy. In a republic the sovereignty is in each individual person. In a democracy the sovereignty is in the group. Our founding fathers made our government a republic to control the majority and protect the rights of the individual and the minority against the whims of the majority. It protects an individual’s God given unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 0714 hrs
If you have to “kill” something doesn’t that mean it was “alive” in the first place? So to me, an abortion means you killed something that was alive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 0739 hrs
Outlawing abortion has to do with keeping sex as risky as possible (outside married, procreation).
Easily the most fact-challenged argument since “personhood determines abort-permits”.
It’s life/death, not punishment.
But as long as you brought it up, are you telegraphing a rebellion against the Judeao-Christian (and Islamic, and Hindu, and Confucian) concept of family? You know, the Mom-Dad-Chilluns model which happens to be both natural and BEST for children under 95%++ of the circumstances?
Say it ain’t so…
Posted by dad29 on November 24, 2009 at 1034 hrs
The Bishop by his action has is someways set the clock back for Catholics. how can non-Catholics now believe that Rome is not on some level pressuring its members to vote in accordance on its doctrine?
No, Kay, there are such things as First Things—life being the first of the first things. The Bishop simply told Kennedy that he was deliberately and actively working against that First Thing.
As to Rome—nothing like a good conspiracy theory, eh? You disappoint me with that line.
Posted by dad29 on November 24, 2009 at 1037 hrs
The elimination of a human life, because its conception was a crime is something different, probably not wrong but I am willing to take the moral chance
Your conclusion is correct. But your premise is “we can kill the child for the sin of its FATHER.”
Posted by dad29 on November 24, 2009 at 1039 hrs
for what is essentially a woman’s issue
“We are all a piece of the main, a part of the clod/
Therefore do not ask for whom the bell tolls/
It tolls for thee” —John DonneKeith’s worship of “community” has its limits when it comes to moral absolutes.
Posted by dad29 on November 24, 2009 at 1042 hrs
Outlawing abortion has to do with keeping sex as risky as possible (outside married, procreation).
Easily the most fact-challenged argument since
On the contrary. it’s been the most useful insight I’ve ever had with regard to understanding the pro-life movement in America. It explains so much that otherwise is unexplainable. It accounts for the movement’s lukewarm (at best) feelings toward sex education and contraception. It explains why they are so willing to make abortion exceptions for the victims of crime. It explains why they are against the HPV vaccine. It explains, in essence, why no common ground is ever found in the area of preventing unwanted pregnancies. It explains their tendency to cling to abstinence-only strategies even when they don’t work.
It explains why pro-lifers so often say “no” when you ask them if they want a world in which no couple ever conceived unless they explicitly chose to, no matter how sexually active they are.
Often I get “well I am not against contraception,” and “I am not against the HPV vaccine,“etc. But by and large pro-life America is. And this is why.
But as long as you brought it up, are you telegraphing a rebellion against the Judeao-Christian (and Islamic, and Hindu, and Confucian) concept of family? You know, the Mom-Dad-Chilluns model which happens to be both natural and BEST for children under 95%++ of the circumstances?
Say it ain’t so…
I’m gonna say I have no friggin’ idea what you’re ranting about or why.
Posted by scott on November 24, 2009 at 1104 hrs
The difficulty in defining the point at which life begins is difficult because we have not yet decided what constitutes life. Does a person require brain function to be considered alive? Is mobility a requirement? If one needs assistance breathing, is one really alive? These are questions to which the answers vary from person to person and moment to moment.
A reason for me to leave the choice to individuals not government
What I hope we can all agree upon is that life is worth protecting. If we can agree on this, then we should be conservative in defining what life is and when it begins. We operate our criminal justice system on the premise that it is better to let 100 criminals go free that convict one innocent person. In our protection of life, we should operate under the same premise, which would dictate that it is better to let 100 questionable lives continue to exist than to terminate one life.
So because we have ‘unproven’ or ‘unprovable science’ then we should pass a law ‘just in case’????
By that logic the global-warming crowd is right… Just because we can’t prove humans are causing climate change, we should err on the side of caution and give government authoritarian control with MASSIVE pursuit-of-happiness infringing restrictiosn and regulations over our lives ‘just in case’?? Slippery slope…
We have already decided that a baby in the womb is a life from the point of conception.
No “you” already decided that a baby in the womb is a life from point of conception after admitting that we don’t have a workable agreed upon definition of life…
When faced with a clash of rights, the society must determine which right should take precedence. A woman’s right to choose is being infringed by the baby’s right to live. If the woman must forgo her right in lieu of the baby’s right to live, then what is the harm?
First, you are giving equal weight to the rights of an embryo/fetus that you are to a full grown human being that has reached the age of reproductive capacity? Doesn’t seem logical.
The woman will be without the full comfort and use of her body for about nine months and there may be some long term health effects. These are serious consequences. If a baby must forgo his right to live in lieu of the woman’s right to choose, the consequences are even more serious. The baby will be deprived of his right to exercise any other right – ever.
Again, you assume equal rights to a full grown living human being that has reached reproductive age and an embryo/fetus AND place equal weight on the consequences to a woman and everyone who that woman knows and interacts with, her parents, her support structure, etc and the consequences to a fetus/embryo. AND you seem to limit your considerations of consequences to the woman to only 9 months and possible long term health effects. What about emotional effects? Do you account for the emotional stress of being forced to have a baby a woman doesn’t want, doesn’t think she can handle, doesn’t have a support structure to help her with. Bringing a baby into a bad situation that that baby and mother will have to live through for its whole life.
You seem to have a penchant ignore and take the most dismissive oversimplified approach to a womans rights/consequences while taking the most robust view of the rights and consequences to a fetus/embryo that you’ve already admitted we don’t know or can’t define as life???
To all of your judgements, and assumptions I would say again… Why are you or the government in a better position to make these choices than the woman who is pregnant? All of the things you discuss a woman is free to consider as she makes her choice about what to do with her life and her pregnancy. She can decide for herself at what point she believes life begins. (you’ve already admitted we can’t define it)
This is not said in sarcasm or in offense, but I had high hopes when you posted your article. I thought perhaps you would provide me with a logical reason why a libertarian, freedom and individual rights minded person, would be against abortion. I think your article falls far short. It relies on far to many assumptions… assumptions which in every case you seem to have a preconceived proclivity to side with the anti-abortion viewpoint.
But what about Keith’s question, “Just out of curiosity, if you got your way and got abortion outlawed, what would the punishment be for a violation and who would it be laid on?”
Not only that, but what methods of enforcement would be employed? Pregnancy police?
I think there are multiple reasons why government shouldn’t get involved in abortion. Not withstanding why Owen’s arguements in his natural law article fall short for me, how do we enforce ‘life at conception’?
If the government has SUCH an interest in that life, doesn’t logic that open the door to some DAMN scary rights-infringing methods to protect that assumed life?
If we give government power and authority over pregnancy… WHOA….
Do you register when you become pregnant? Do you have to register when you go to Walgreens and buy and EPT so you can get a visit from the government pregnancy police?
Do you force doctors to report positive pregnancy tests?
Scary stuff… I’m not ready to take ONE step down that road. I don’t trust government to handle that kind of an issue. EVEN if we could find a plurality of americans to agree on a definition of life, the execution of the laws that would surround that… eesh… No thanks…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1145 hrs
And I’ll add one more thing… The infringement of rights EVEN upon those who would NEVER have an abortion would be HUGE if we give government a role in “life at conception”.
Do you want the government coming to question why you had a miscarriage?
Do you want the government coming to monitor your pregnancy?
You can’t prevent abortion just by elimination the point of sale at Planned Parenthood.
Does your (owen’s) assumption that life begins at conception justify every woman/family in this country, even those who would NEVER consider having an abortion being subjected to new invasions into your privacy by government to execute this new policy/law of “life at conception”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1151 hrs
Wow. XX - did you just buy a little shack in Montana?
And this thread that the stance against abortion is about controlling sex is ridiculous. It’s about where you think life begins.
So if you are a member of the church and they say that life begins at conception, and you “believe it” but you don’t practice it - you are not a practicing Catholic and therefore are not entitled to the benefits (ie., communion) from that church. That is all this is about. (faith without works, etc)
If you don’t think life begins at conception - that is your choice - but don’t expect the Catholic church to consider you a member. I’m sure there are other churches somewhere that share that view and they would love to have you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1301 hrs
Nice of you to bring Donne into the discussion, though the only time I go with Absolutes is when buying multiple bottles of vodka.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1352 hrs
Wow. XX - did you just buy a little shack in Montana?
Dude, you should totally not make such statements. Any minute now Doug is going to go completely apeshit on you about how inappropriate it is.
Posted by scott on November 24, 2009 at 1449 hrs
It accounts for the movement’s lukewarm (at best) feelings toward sex education and contraception.
I’m in favor of sex education…just not the kind that Planned Parenthood spews. I want equally both sides. Funny how in the PP Sex Ed they don’t go on and on informing the “children” of how many STD’s there are and how many of them can actually kill. Just put a condom on and all will be right with world education is not putting the “children” in the know.
1 in 4 sexually active people over the age of 12 carry a STD!! Yet that is all glossed over in PP-style of sex ed. How about explaining to the children how to tell your soon to be husband/wife that you have genital warts (HPV), that you will give it to them and that it can cause cancer in women. If I’m not mistaken I believe cervical cancer is the #2 killer of women today.
If you have to kill something (fetus) that means it was alive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1452 hrs
I’m in favor of sex education…just not the kind that Planned Parenthood spews. I want equally both sides.
There are no “sides” in sex education. Unless you mean the “factually accurate and helpful” side and the “bullshit and doesn’t help” side.
1 in 4 sexually active people over the age of 12 carry a STD!!
And yet pro-lifers are the ones saying we shouldn’t vaccinate girls before they become sexually active.
If I’m not mistaken I believe cervical cancer is the #2 killer of women today.
I think you are are mistaken. All cancers combined are the number two killer of women. And the cancer that kills the most women is lung cancer. After that, it’s breast cancer—which kills about ten times more women than cervical.
Posted by scott on November 24, 2009 at 1505 hrs
Wow. XX - did you just buy a little shack in Montana?
Meaningless drivel.. Do better next time…
If you don’t think life begins at conception - that is your choice - but don’t expect the Catholic church to consider you a member. I’m sure there are other churches somewhere that share that view and they would love to have you.
Bill, you are about 124 posts behind in this thread. I’ve already submitted I could care less what the Catholic church does.
That is all this is about.
Again, you seem to have missed a few posts. The discussion has evolved to tangents. I understand its a lot to read, but you aren’t obliged to participate in the discussion if we’ve diverged too far from your contentions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1557 hrs
I’m in favor of sex education…just not the kind that Planned Parenthood spews. I want equally both sides.
Well… If you are a parent… Then whats stopping you from teaching your kids what you want???
If you have to kill something (fetus) that means it was alive.
Symantics is hardly good basis for debate. Kill is your word. We’ll substitute ‘dispose of’ then. I think the discussion is far past literal meanings of words. “alive” doesn’t provide any delineation to help with our definition because even 1 cell amoeba are “alive”. Plants are “alive”. Humans “kill” many livings things every single day.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1604 hrs
How about explaining to the children how to tell your soon to be husband/wife that you have genital warts (HPV), that you will give it to them and that it can cause cancer in women.
The strains of HPV that cause warts do not cause cancer, and the strains that cause cancer do not cause warts. Just thought you should know…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1626 hrs
First off I never said I didn’t speak to my children about sex ed…I do. So if I do then why do the schools need to have a class for it??
The “bulls***” that doesn’t matter?” I wonder what your term “bulls***” means…does it mean that if refrain you won’t have to worry about STD’s and some that kill or would it be the “BS” that you won’t get pregnant if you abstain? So you advocate letting children have it and not even trying to keep it from happening? Glad you’re not my parent, you give up waaaay to easy.
Like I said I could be mistaken about the #2 killer of women, but none the less HPV does kill. It’s a fact that children and adults for that matter NEED to know. I think that getting children vaccinated for HPV is a choice that the parents need to make not you,not me, not Obama, not the school and not PP.
XXPilot- Hmm seems to me you are shying away from the word kill. Yes, humans kill many things including babies. How about the baby found in a trash recepticle that was alive and the nurse who found it went before a committee that Obama was on. How about that item that was “disposed” of?????
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1728 hrs
Kelly, if you want to call it killing a fetus… So what… I kill sperm everytime I wear tight shorts… Wanna make that a crime?
“kill” doesn’t mean anything on its own. Your pointing it out for us in this discussion doesn’t demonstrate anything.
First off I never said I didn’t speak to my children about sex ed…I do. So if I do then why do the schools need to have a class for it??
I didn’t say they do. But your contention was that you wanted to “teach equally both sides” in #139 nothing is stopping you from doing so.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1739 hrs
The “bulls***” that doesn’t matter?”
No, the bullshit that doesn’t help. As in abstinence-only “education.” It’s been shown to be ineffective. So let’s stop doing it. Of course I’m for advocating abstinence. Of course I’m for telling kids the risks of being sexually active—all of them. But I’m for giving them medically accurate information about sex and contraception, too. That’s been shown to actually make a difference. And we could be doing so much more of it.
It’s a fact that children and adults for that matter NEED to know.
They sure do. Maybe more of them will do the sensible thing and get their kids vaccinated.
I think that getting children vaccinated for HPV is a choice that the parents need to make not you,not me, not Obama, not the school and not PP.
What planet are you on that you think someone else is going to start making mandatory medical decisions for you and your family? Have you ever been forced by a president—Democrat or Republican—to get a vaccine of any kind? Has Planned Parenthood ever knocked on your door, syringes at the ready? I think that they have not. So please. Let’s stay in reality, shall we?
Posted by scott on November 24, 2009 at 1741 hrs
Have you ever been forced by a president—Democrat or Republican—to get a vaccine of any kind?
Ummmmm., yes scott, I have. Granted there were special circumstances, but it I have.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1759 hrs
Right. “Special circumstances.” I’d like to know more.
Posted by scott on November 24, 2009 at 1902 hrs
Deployment in the First Gulf War, service members were required to receive a battery of vaccines prior to deployment. In addition, there were pills we were given that were still in testing that were supposedly for fighting exposure to possible chemical weapon exposure. These drugs only been cleared by the FDA through a special waiver to DoD and were still investigational.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 1943 hrs
That’s what I thought. Unfortunately that’s still happening. Just heard a vet on the radio the other day talking about how his CO threatened to put him in jail if he didn’t take his shot—a shot he knew had more risks than benefits. He did manage to dodge it, though.
But I’m talking about civilians. People don’t want vaccinations, they don’t get them—often with bad effects for them and everyone else. There’s no indication that anyone is being forced or that they soon will be. That’s paranoia.
Posted by scott on November 24, 2009 at 1946 hrs
just like any long-term plan to change a culture, start with the children. First offer to have vaccinations available in the schools (gee like NYC did with H1N1). The next step isn’t just offer them, but require them in order to stay in school. The children grow up accepting the fact that is the way things are, and you go from there…. Cal me paranoid, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me…..
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2009 at 2207 hrs
Cal me paranoid,
You’re paranoid. There are a hundred more important things to worry about in this world. A thousand.
Posted by scott on November 25, 2009 at 0015 hrs
*cackles maniacally*
scott;
You said there was NO indication that it soon might be, I am just ponting out one possible indication *shrugs and puts on my tinfoil hat*
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2009 at 0132 hrs
Wow you people need to get a grip. I think schools should teach BOTH. Apparently you feel they should only teach how to use a condom. How very one-sided of you.
The problem is the schools mainly teach about condom use. What they need to tell kids is what the risks really are. How many sexually active kids have STD’s and what can happen when you contract them. The fact of the matter is BOTH sides are not being taught equally and not all the ‘facts’ are getting out to the kids.
I think having kids vaccinated is a choice between the parent and the child and NOT for you to make.
Scott- I will be forced to pay for abortions through Obama’s new government run health care plan? How about the parents who prayed for their child instead of getting medical attention? Anyway, my point was to say that it should be left up to family to decide and no one else.
I think the Catholic Church has every right to deny Communion to Kennedy. (isn’t that the topic?)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2009 at 0759 hrs
I think schools should teach BOTH.
You know, I don’t think anyone disagreed with that at all. I didn’t. The ironic thing here is that one side of this debate wants to teach something called “abstinence ONLY,” but it’s the other side that gets immediately accused of being one-sided.
The problem is the schools mainly teach about condom use.
You keep saying that, but can you help me understand what you’re talking about?
Try this on for size. I want schools to teach what works to keep kids as safe as possible. If you want that, we’re in agreement. If you want something different than that, I’m afraid you’re on your own.
I think having kids vaccinated is a choice between the parent and the child and NOT for you to make.
No one here ever disagreed with that or said anything to suggest otherwise. There is no bill being proposed which threatens this freedom. There is no reason whatsoever to think that this is in jeopardy, on the table, an issue being discussed… it’s sheer paranoia. There, I said it.
I will be forced to pay for abortions through Obama’s new government run health care plan?
I don’t want there to be any change for you in that area. I don’t want any change for anyone in that regard. This isn’t an abortion bill. I don’t want to complicate it by making that an issue. As I said about 50 comments ago, I want to preserve the status quo on that front.
How about the parents who prayed for their child instead of getting medical attention?
They should have gotten more jail time.
I think the Catholic Church has every right to deny Communion to Kennedy.
I never disagreed with that, either. My only observation was that I don’t think they’re doing themselves any favors with regard to their image or their attendance.
Posted by scott on November 25, 2009 at 0823 hrs
Right. “Special circumstances.” I’d like to know more.
Military service.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2009 at 0854 hrs
We covered that in 149 and 150.
Posted by scott on November 25, 2009 at 0900 hrs
Hmmmmm???
RNC insurance plan covers elective abortions
http://www.catholicvote.org/index.php?/forums/viewthread/163/Focus on the Family provides its employees health insurance through Principal, an insurance company that covers “abortion services.”
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/10/28/does-focus-on-the-family-fund-abortions/Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 27, 2009 at 1138 hrs
Totally different. You see, RNC and FoF can be trusted to never actually use such services, whereas other people might…Or something.
Posted by scott on November 27, 2009 at 1818 hrs
RNC insurance plan covers elective abortions
I don’t understand this reference. Is the RNC’s private insurance policy, which possibly overlooked this clause, some kind of ‘smoking gun’?
... and somehow the equivalent to gov’t funded abortions?
Let he who hath read the fine print in his insurance policy cast the first stone…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 30, 2009 at 1330 hrs
There are more comment off ramps here than the Marquette interchange has. heh
I’ll go back to the main post for a moment.
The Catholic Church has every right to deny Kennedy communion, and I believe that they also have a duty to do so. The Eucharist in the Catholic Church is only for those who believe it to be the body and blood of Jesus Christ. The Church holds that to receive the Eucharist we must believe all that the Catholic Church officially teaches as coming from Christ. Clearly Kennedy does not believe much of Church Doctrine. While he may certainly receive a blessing, he should refrain from taking Communion in a Catholic Church. The Church does not have thought police scurrying about to see who lives their lives strictly according to Church doctrine, but Kennedy is very public and open in his whole-hearted support of abortion. If Kennedy were to seek Reconciliation and change his work with regards to abortion, I’m sure that he would be welcomed to receive the Body and Blood of Christ again.
If you don’t really believe in what the Catholic Church stands for, then you should seek out a church that is more in line with your own thinking. You certainly should not be upset and expect the Church to change for you, because you feel entitled to wine and crackers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2009 at 1404 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134040
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 06:55 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 4
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 07:04 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).