A Democrat Who Doesn’t Get It
August 24th, 2008 at 03:23pm Mark Noonan
And, no surprise, its Nancy Pelosi:
Meet the Press this morning:
Brokaw: …“I if [Obama] were to come to you and say ‘help me out here, Madam Speaker, when does life begin,’ what would you tell him?
Pelosi: “I would say that as an ardent practicing Catholic this is an issue that I have studied for a long time, and what I know is over the centuries the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said three months. We don’t know. The point is it that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to chose.”
It shouldn’t have an impact? Tell that to parents looking at sonograms. Look, it’s obviously alive. Nevermind. “Shouldn’t have an impact.”
Err, no…Nancy, you might want to check things out a bit more given that since the 1st century (and that, for you lefties out there, is from the year 1 to the year 100…which means this goes back to before the year 100, and thus very swiftly upon Christ’s ministry on earth) the Church has forbidden absolutely the intentional taking of an innocent human life from conception to natural death. Basing itself upon Scripture and the teachings of the Church Fathers, the pro-life opinion is well known, easily ascertained and absolutely obligatory on Catholics, and trumps the absurd notion that there is a right to an abortion. Next time you decide to study something about our mutual faith you might want to shy away what pro-abortion fanatics say about Catholic teaching and actually, ya know?, check with what the Church has to say…
The sad thing about this is that Pelosi is putting herself at horrific risk just to provide a dodge for Barack Obama’s cowardly answer on the question of when life begins. Sad, too, is how Obama is essentially setting it up so that confused Catholic women like Pelosi are forced to go out and defend him…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Congress, Democrats, Life Issues
52 Comments
1. Alex | August 24th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
You can lie about politics, Mark, but you can’t lie about the facts. There’s thousands of years of common law and religious history supporting that life begins at “quickening”, when the baby starts to move. See the Wiki entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quickening for an overview, I could dig up primary sources if it would matter, but it won’t.
And Pelosi cited St. Augustine. Who are you citing that this has never been the case? I’ll grant that you can cite the Bible that it *should* be the case, but that doesn’t mean it’s been that way for 1900 years. Or did I miss the section on indulgences in the Bible?
2. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Alex,
I’ve seen sonogram movement in babies less than 20 days old.
So is that then the moment life began for that particular child?
Are you able to determine involuntary movement vs voluntary movement?
Since you seem to be such an expert, and ridicule Mark for his opinion, maybe you could be just a bit more precise and regale us with your brilliance. What say you?
3. WhatChange | August 24th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Nancy, I hate to break the news, but you are not an ardent practicing Catholic. Nor are you Catholic, nor is Francois Kerry. As Mark stated, pro-life is absolutely obligatory on Catholics. Why these two are allowed to ardently practice is disgusting. Good luck with your explanation at the Pearly Gates.
4. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Here’s something else Nancy said:
Drawn by Obama’s inspirational message of change and committed to moving our nation in a new direction, these Americans will take time off from work and family, and often spend their own money to travel to Colorado for this historic convention.
But I thought all Americans were losing their homes, losing their jobs, had no money and were one paycheck away from the soup line. How can they take a week off, incur hotel and travel charges, to spend time in Denver?
5. Macker | August 24th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Man, I can’t wait till Speaker Pelosi debates Mama Moonbat for her Congressional seat. That’ll be a catfight for the ages!
Please pass the popcorn please!
6. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
The Sheehan-Pelosi debates will be must see tv. I hear comedy central has the broadcast rights.
7. js | August 24th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Gen. 25:21,22 In Genesis 25:21,22, Rebekah conceived twins, and “the children struggled together within her.” That which was conceived was called a “child” between the conception and the birth.
The Hebrew word used here (BEN) is the most common Old Testament word for a child or son. When used for the physical offspring of humans, it consistently refers to distinct human individuals (see Gen. 25:1-4; 3:16; etc.). Job 3:3
On the very night of Job’s conception it could have been said, “There is a man-child conceived.” The word for “man-child” (Heb. GEBER) elsewhere means “man,” i.e., a human individual (see Job 3:23; 4:17; 10:5; Psalms 127:5; 128:4; etc.).
Job 3:16 Babies that die before birth are called “infants” that never saw light. This is exactly like babies that are aborted. This word (Heb. OLEL) always and without exception refers to human individuals (cf. Hosea 13:16; Psalm 8:2; Joel 2:16).
Numbers 12:12; Luke 1:43 In Numbers 12:12, Moses describes “one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother’s womb.” If a baby dies before it is born — as in an abortion — the woman who conceived it is still a “mother.”
In Luke 1:43, Elizabeth addressed Mary as “the mother of my Lord” before Jesus was born.
The word “mother” (Heb. EM; Greek METER), in contexts referring to physical human reproduction, always refers to one who has procreated or formed another human individual, a separate and distinct individual from the mother herself (see Num. 6:7; Gen. 3:20; Luke 1:60). A woman who has conceived, even if the child is not yet born and even if it dies before birth, is a “mother.”
Luke 1:41,44 Elizabeth conceived (v. 24), and the life “in her womb” is called a “babe” or “baby” (Greek BREPHOS). This is the second-most-common New Testament word for a baby. It is always used for that which is a human individual separate and distinct from its mother (see Luke 2:12,16; Acts 7:19.)
Luke 1:36 Again, the life conceived in Elizabeth’s womb, before it was born, is called “a son.” The word “son” (Greek HUIOS), in contexts that refer to the physical offspring of humans, always refers to that which is a human individual separate and distinct as an individual from its parents. It is the most common New Testament word for a “son” (see Matt. 1:21,23,25; Luke 1:13,31; 2:7; etc.)
st augustine obviously knew that life existed from creation, as despicted by the Bible…the term quickening appears in Corinthians;
1 Corinthians 15:35-50 - [Verse 45 in Original Greek]
35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body. 39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds. 40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. 50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
so,effectively, life exists before the spirit, the soul exists at conception…
8. JPL | August 24th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Interesting that you cited sources arguing that life begins at “quickening,” Alex. Does this mean that if Roe v. Wade were overturned, you’d support a law that criminalizes all abortions after the 4th month?
9. Mark Noonan | August 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Alex,
Errr, yeah. What’s your point? That is the legal definition - in other words, what would be used to prosecute someone for the death of an unborn child. Working with the best information they had, people in olden times tried to figure out when they could or should prosecute someone who performed an abortion or, in the course of other crimes, caused a woman to lose her child. For Catholic belief, however, going back to the first century to intend the abortion of a child is forbidden - no ifs, ands or buts about it.
10. Timothy Horrigan | August 24th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Of course, Mark and his fellow McCainiacs don’t agree with the Catholic church on everything. The Church has views on economics which are downright Marxist. It opposed the War in Iraq. It opposes capital punishment. (If the Vatican had its way, the greatest villain in modern history… Saddam… would still be alive and might still be in charge of the world’s second-greatest superpower… Iraq.)
The Catholic Church even believes in evolution, the Big Bang, ice ages and global warming. All four of those socalled “theories” fly in the face of the fact that the Bible clearly states that the universe was created during the course of a single week which began on Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC. And yet the Church refuses to abandon those theories.
There are many other areas where the Catholic Church’s beliefs deviate from the Republican Party’s platform.
11. Ricorun | August 24th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Mark, (a) what’s your first century precedent? (b) why wasn’t it adopted by the Catholic Church until the early 20th century? Talk about “no ands ifs or buts; (c) why are you not similarly insistent upon a ban on invitro fertilization? I realize you’re not in favor of the latter, but neither are you actively against it.
The notion that “olden times” didn’t realize when a pregnancy occurred is nonsense. That would only make sense to a person who is not familiar with the physiological changes (very often, though not totally invariably) associated with early pregnancy. That might be convenient for your POV, but it’s still BS.
12. Steve | August 24th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Great site!
Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen to over 70 of America’s top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio! In addition you can email the President, VP and Congressional Leaders!!
http://www.the-irn.com
13. Danish Artist | August 24th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Nancy Pelosi, the most disgraceful Speaker of the House in history.
At the time of St. Augustine people believed the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Science has come a long way since then in both cases.
Why does the left support protecting breeding grounds? There isn’t life there until the “child” in question starts moving.
Apparently, this is above her pay grade as well. Practically everything is above her pay grade.
14. Danish Artist | August 24th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Precedents have been set where a criminal has been charged and convicted of murdering an unborn child.
Apparently the courts, jurors and appellant courts disagree with Pelosi and those convictions have been upheld.
15. Mark Noonan | August 24th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Ricorun,
But it was - one of the things which caused the early Church its trouble was its insistence not just on no abortion, but no infanticide (both of which were widely practised in the Roman Empire). All of this stuff the liberals consider oh, so modern and no one ever thought of it before is all, really, just recycled, 2,000 year old nonsense from the dregs of a decayed pagan civilization.
As for “olden times” - true, well educated men and women had a fair idea of how pregnancy developed, while midwives also had their fund of wisdom, but do you realise how small a baby is at, say, 10 weeks? Rather hard for people waaaay back when to make determinations on such matters, so the rule of thumb for legal purposes was when the child moved, or came out of the womb looking like a formed child.
16. Friar John | August 24th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Deleted - slanders, foolishness, paranoid conspiracy theories.
17. Fredrick Schwartz | August 24th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? What a waste of time. Did any of you “I love and will fight for a fetus, but let the born kid starve” (expletive deleted) ever take the time to think that if you had taken half of the energy you waste arguing about the medical decisions of people you don’t even know and giving it to your communities that poverty and poor education might have been eased in some way?
What a waste of time! Does anyone make such efforts on behalf of tonsils or the appendix? Both of those collections of cells have gotten a bum steer, but none of you will lift a finger to save them.
18. Mark Noonan | August 24th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Timothy,
Well, actually, Pope JPII and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) expressed their opinion that liberating Iraq was not a good idea - that isn’t “the Catholic Church”, but the opinions of two men. Other Catholics hold to a different view, and in the Catechism it notes that the actual decision on when to go to war is a prudential judgement the Church is not competant to make.
I, too, am opposed to the death penalty, but carrying out the death penalty - in and of itself - is not an immoral act and the death penalty is a licit punishment which can be inflicted upon properly convicted criminals. The leadership of the Church, by and large, holds that the means of preventing a criminal from murdering post-conviction are sufficient to nearly always dispense with any societal need for a death penalty, and so the death penalty should generally never be imposed. But, once again, the decision to do so is a prudential judgement the Church will not make.
It was a Catholic priest, actually, who first figured out the Big Bang, much to the initial consternation of the religious agnostics in the world of science because the Big Bang means there is a Beginning, just as the Bible says. As for the theory of evolution, I believe that even the most ardent “young Earth” creationist believes that micro-evolution is an established fact - what the Church takes issue with, as do all people who have studied the matter, is the claims that an entirley unguided series of random mutations could have resulted first in life, then in all the life we see on the Earth today. Such a concept is beyond the realm of logic and, indeed, common sense and those who hold to such a view tend to use Darwin’s theory as a quasi-religion.
And you might want to latch on to the fact that Genesis, most importantly, was written to make people understand that there is one God, and He made everything, seen and unseen.
19. Mark Noonan | August 24th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Fred,
And have you ever stopped to consider just how much money, materials and time Christians give for the succor of the poor?
Before you go about insulting people rather than having the courage to debate the actual issues, perhaps you should learn a few things?
20. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
…if you had taken half of the energy you waste arguing about the medical decisions of people you don’t even know and giving it to your communities that poverty and poor education might have been eased in some way? - Frederick
Frederick,
Do you realize how much time and money Christian charities donate to help the poor and less fortunate here and around the world? Tens of millions.
How much money does The Collective give?
John & Cindy McCain donated 26% of their income to charity.
Barak & Michelle Obama gave 1%.
Do you have anymore baseless talking points?
have a hellac day
neocon
21. Dennis | August 24th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Well, actually, Pope JPII and Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) expressed their opinion that liberating Iraq was not a good idea - that isn’t “the Catholic Church”, but the opinions of two men. Cardinal Noonan, Blogs for Victory, 2008
“This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium [teaching authority] of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown is such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, promulgated by Pope Paul VI on November 21, 1964)
Noonan, you are all over the place. The only thing you really are consistent on is your authoritarianism, and the insistence that nobody can be properly killed until after they’re born. After that it can be capital punishment, collateral damage, whatever. Just make sure they have an actual identity, rational thoughts and a moral conscience before you smite ‘em.
22. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Dennis,
I am not sure I understand your position. You are obviously pro-choice yet seem to be opposed to all other forms of murder or fatalities; ie, collateral damage, death penalty etc.
That would seem inconsistent unless you can definitively tell me at what point life begins.
Please regale us with your brilliance.
23. Jeremiah | August 24th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Pelosi proves the dangers, not to mention all other churches and sects of injecting secularism into church doctrine. Which weakens the effectiveness of the church on curing the problematics of society…and the problem itsself is sin, and abortion is sin, because it is murdering, taking away God’s ordained creation.
Secularism is, aside from other things (ie, atheism), fundamentally in rejection of faith and religious tones, yet, those who hold secular sentiments, want something to fall back in case they are found guilty, and thus, want to be spared any troubles that might be brought their way. But more so, they want to inject secularism to weaken the church’s influence purposefully and universally, in order that Satan’s carnal thinking may confuse the church and therefore, give them excuse to deceive, and my how it has definitely cofused and deceived people. The United States in living on the borderline of virtual implosion.
Now, let’s examine life and abortion (and this is to all you left-leaning abortomaniacs out there) - Let’s use a baby puppy for example, let’s say you’re out walking on a day like today, on a Sunday afternoon, and you walk by an old barn, and as you go by, you hear a noise, and you go inside and their to your amazement, there are three baby puppies, still wet and with a little bit of the umbilical cord still attached, but the mommy isn’t there…and you wait and you wait for her to come back (to later find out that she’s been ran over by a vehicle) her puppies…and well, she doesn’t return, and so you decide to take the little puppes home and take care of them yourself, you bottle feed them with artificial milk for about six weeks, and so you let them loose to go play out in the yard and so happens that the little puppies stray away out into the road, and then, when you go to check on them, you look out in the road and all three of the little puppies are dead in the road, they got run over by a truck.
Now, tell me, how would that make you feel? Since you took good care of them, didn’t the little puppies mean anything to you? Didn’t you like them, little, furry, cuddly puppies? Wouldn’t you cry, because they were so playful and happy and now they’re dead?
And those are just, “puppies”.
Now, if you want to argue that semantics of what puppies are before they’re born … they’re ‘puppies’, they call an unborn dog a dog, an unborn dolphin a ‘dolphin’, and unborn cow a ‘cow’, and unborn horse a ‘horse’ and so on, you get the point.
But what about people? When comes down to people, oh no, can’t call them a baby person, we have to call them a “fetus”, because if you call babies in the womb ‘people’ then that destroys their argument in favor of killing them.
Let’s examine this further now, with the puppy story … ask youself this - If life has worth at 1,400 something, then is it “not” worth anything at day one?
What about a parent, after old age has taken its toll, and they breathe their last, are you not saddened to see them go? I would assume ‘yes’, then why on earth could you not feel the same about life on day one?
That’s the point, you see, we have moral worth from day one, because we have potential to do great things. We are to be beneficial to one another, not destroy one another.
When left-leaning acacemics make a case in favor of abortion, the purpose is to demonize, as that’s what secularism does, it demonizes, and deflects away from the ultimate worth of human life.
Secularism and Darwinism are based principally the same, but when combined, they put a nation in great danger.
There is ‘Right’ and there is ‘Wrong’ in this world….and what is right? Is God’s Word. What is wrong? Is secularims or darwinism, which is based on a lie.
24. Mark Noonan | August 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Dennis,
Seriously, leave off the anti-Catholic websites and go to the source:
It doesn’t mean what you think it means - if you read it in context, you’ll understand it better.
Next time you come across an anti-Catholic thing, whatever it may be, remember that it is either a bald faced lie, or a gross distortion.
25. Ricorun | August 24th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
At the time of St. Augustine people believed the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Science has come a long way since then in both cases.
My first impulse was to ask… how would you know? But actually, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realize that science HAS come a long way — in LOTS of situations. So… how do YOU feel about invitro fertilization? It seems to me that it’s MUCH more possible to eliminate IVF than it is to eliminate abortion, because abortions can be performed in a back alley somewhere, IVF cannot. Moreover, preventing IVF is likely to promote adoption more than making abortion illegal. Making abortion illegal is likely to generate more criminals — of young women, their doctors, and if fairly administered, the young women’s partners.
And yet abortion, not IVF, is ground zero in the right to life debate. Why is that? After all, even McCain argues that since IVF is legal, then embryonic stem cell research should be federally funded as well. Otherwise, it doesn’t make sense.
Another thing that doesn’t make sense is this: the notion that body and soul are distinct also has a long theological history — one that is largely shared by all of the major religions. Insofar as you believe in an afterlife you have to believe that. Likewise, the initial melding of those two concepts is largely considered to be the point when human life begins, and the final dissociation when life ends. However, different theological traditions have different opinions about when those couplings begin and end. I certainly have my own opinions, but I readily acknowledge that my opinion — no matter how heartfelt — is my own. As far as how God feels about it, well, that’s above my pay grade. But IMO, there is nothing wrong with feeling AND ACCEPTING an obligation to make one’s personal opinions known to others. But likewise IMO, I cannot in good conscience state my opinion with absolute certainty without playing God — that is, elevating myself as a false god. I just don’t see any way around that.
Moreover, I am adamantly of the opinion that the right to life does not end at birth. Absent the infanticide issue (which is truly abominable on legal grounds in this country without a doubt, and against most theological traditions as well), the obligation to the born is less a theological requirement than it is an American one. According to the Declaration of Independence we are all created equal, and we have an equal right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Thus, to the extent that we, as a society (however construed), attempt to ensure birth, we as a society have an obligation to ensure the child so born has an equal playing field on which to succeed.
26. Jeremiah | August 24th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I cannot in good conscience state my opinion with absolute certainty without playing God — that is, elevating myself as a false god.
Ricorun,
Well, the Supreme Court and ACLU sure seem to have elevated themselves to “God.” They want to tell us what to do and how to do it.
27. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Rico,
You so eloquently explained the distinctfulness of body and soul as demonstrated in the beginning and ending of life. But then you went on some moral realtivist slant citing that the origin of the soul is some gray area, that people can only have opnions about and might be above your pay grade.
Why can’t you acknowledge that there are both definitive beginnings and endings of the body and the soul and that the souls absence in the end is as definitive as it’s presence in the beginning.
There is no gray area.
28. Ricorun | August 24th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
There is no gray area.
Actually, in an ecumenical sense I’d say there is. But I assume you see it in black and white. So could you lay your sense of “black” and “white” out for me? And assuming you think it is more than your personal opinion (and apparently it is), could you also provide documentation as to why you think so? Also, I have mentioned a variety of related issues which you, either conveniently or inadvertently, failed to address. Given your apparent certainty about when body and soul meld and release (though to my knowledge, your specific opinion on those hasn’t become clear), I presume that providing a coherent and inclusive POV should be as easy as falling off a log for you.
Then again, I know more than most about your apparent certainty. So I doubt you will attempt it. But if you feel able, I’d be very interested in hearing what you have to say. But until you do I will continue to assume you are a sycophant more interested in poking holes in what you perceive as the opposition than filling those in your own POV.
29. Jeremiah | August 24th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Actually, in an ecumenical sense I’d say there is.
Ricorun,
There has always been doubt to some degree or another as a result of choice. The first deflection, in the form of deception, came in the Garden of Eden.
So, I can understand why would choose to doubt.
To the contrary, however, God has never changed, nor will He, and that’s why He gave us proof, through His transcendent Law. So we have no reason to doubt. He means what He says.
Genesis 9:6 - Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.
Exodus 20:13 - You shall not murder.
Deuteronomy 27:25 - Cursed is he who accepts a bribe to strike down an innocent person.
Proverbs 6:16-19 - There are six things which the LORD hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood…
Also, as to your statements about not knowing when the soul enters the body…I refer you to post #7 by JS above.
30. neocon | August 24th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I told you my opinion and that is that life begins at conception and I base that on my belief that God omniprescient and just doesn’t arbitrarily assign a soul at “quickening”.
Since when does voicing an opinion require documentation? It appears however that you are the one poking holes in others arguments, needing those holes to support the pro-abortion agenda.
31. Lorenzo DeMedicci | August 24th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
In truth, the Vatican owned all the whore houses in Rome during the 15th century (probably long before and after too, but I am a 15th century Italian scholar and so cannot say for certain).
But I do know when one of their girls became pregnant, they were forced to have an abortion.
32. Timothy Horrigan | August 24th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
“At the time of St. Augustine people believed the world was flat and the earth was the center of the universe. Science has come a long way since then in both cases.”
Actually, even the ancient Greeks knew that the world was round, and they even figured out large it was.
33. Dennis | August 24th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Neocon, I’ve stated here before that not all moral issues should be legal ones. That requires no brilliance, just a modest degree of humility. But since you asked, my opinion is that a new human life begins at the time of implantation in the womb. Until then a zygote is just a free-floating cellular mass, a potential human life, but as likely to be spontaneously aborted as not.
After awareness of pregnancy I believe a woman does bear a moral obligation to protect and nurture the life inside her. Yet I believe such moral obligations are absolutely personal and a pregnant woman or expectant couple are accountable for that life to God alone until a child is born, takes its first breath and receives a legal identity.
No amount of hyperbole or sentimentalizing changes the fact that there is a profound, qualitative difference between a fetus without self-awareness or rational thought processes, and a fully formed human being with thoughts, memories and moral perceptions. Sorry Jeremiah, we are not talking about puppies here.
I do not believe the state has the right, much less the duty, to criminalize abortion because too many complexities, inconsistencies and conflicts are inherent in the issue. I don’t think abortion as after-the-fact birth control is morally defensible under any circumstance. But rape, incest, and cases where by amniocentesis or other means a baby is known to be profoundly retarded or without hope of rational thought at all, fundamentally change the moral equation. What about abortion to save the life of the mother? What if two medical opinions differ? If abortion were criminalized the dilemmas and contradictions would only multiply. There are times when the law itself must step back and realize its own inadequacy for addressing certain matters. This is the singular, insurmountable defense for Roe v Wade.
Meanwhile known effective means should be employed to reduce abortion such as responsible sex education, making birth control and adequate health care available to all, wage equality for women and finding ways to make adoption work better for both birth mothers and adoptive parents.
Other aspects of the ethical debate I think Ricorun covered brilliantly in post 25; his last paragraph in particular defines the concept of “pro-life” in much more affirmative terms.
34. Ricorun | August 24th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
I told you my opinion and that is that life begins at conception and I base that on my belief that God omniprescient and just doesn’t arbitrarily assign a soul at “quickening”. Since when does voicing an opinion require documentation?
Voicing your opinion doesn’t require documentation. Voicing your opinion as fact does – especially if you’re characterizing said opinion as the indisputable word of God. Even though you sacrificed the moral high ground long ago, I presume you are still able to appreciate the difference.
So which is it? Is it just your opinion? Or do you consider it the word of God? If the latter, on what authority?
35. Jeremiah | August 25th, 2008 at 12:03 am
No amount of hyperbole or sentimentalizing changes the fact that there is a profound, qualitative difference between a fetus without self-awareness or rational thought processes, and a fully formed human being with thoughts, memories and moral perceptions.
Dennis,
You proved my point beyond a reasonable doubt, then, Dennis.
So, that being the case, you do not apply equality evenly.
If THAT is the case, then not one person, including myself, is worth the air we breathe, yet, God chose to give us life.
How disgraceful!
I encourage you to study the meaning of INTRINSIC and how it pertains to the worth of human life at all stages.
What is the definition of ‘intrinsic’? Inherent, REAL.
We inhereted worth how? By God choosing to give us life. We in turn hand that same inherent worth down when we choose to join as man and wife for the purpose of raising a family.
Now, just think about it, Dennis, we we really be here if God did not take great pride in creating us?
36. Jeremiah | August 25th, 2008 at 12:11 am
If the latter, on what authority?
Ricorun,
Through Jesus Christ Our Lord!
Colossians 1:15-17
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.’
37. neocon | August 25th, 2008 at 10:35 am
On what authority? - Rico
Only you could ask such an inane question. Do you think man has all the answers?
Do you look towards verfiable proof from from one your fellow human beings before accepting that as truth?
If so, I feel sad for you.
38. Dennis | August 25th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Jeremiah, in post 35 you miss my point entirely. The difference I marked between the death of a fetus and an already born person does not pertain to intrinsic value, it pertains to human suffering. It is tragic, even traumatic when a baby is lost. But the loss and suffering go to another level when a loved one is killed who was fully integrated into the lives of many other people.
When a baby dies who never has really lived, it is a loss that heals quickly. When a beloved father or mother, sister or brother, a beloved son or daughter dies, a huge hole is left behind and many people suffer. It is a collective, communal loss. I know this from experience, as I have lost immediate relatives and loved ones both ways.
To take life in war is to cause human loss and suffering on a massive scale. People who rail against abortion as murder and shrug off the massive human suffering and carnage of an avoidable war as “collateral damage” are simply not credible as moralists.
39. Jeremiah | August 25th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Dennis,
No matter how much you want to try and defend the murder of the defenseless, there is no way tha God will accept your reasoning.
After we’ve done all we can to ensure that we do not harm that little child, in hopes of giving the child an opportunity to live…then that’s all in the world that God expects. His will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven.
But when we knowingly destroy innocent life God curses those people. It doesn’t matter if it’s one or 10 billion, at His appointed time, which is the right time, God unleashes His fury as punishment for their disobedience.
Our purpose, the Born-again believers purpose, is to do everything we can to uphold God’s Word and influence people to do the right thing. Which is to cherish life, and give hope to the little children in the womb, onward. Cradle-to-Grave. And that is our duty as individuals, not as blind allegiance to earthly men, but wholely and impartially to the Creator.
I don’t show indifference to the world, because then, I would be just like the world … in a lost state of existence. Which Christ taught specifically against.
Now, to turn the page somewhat … You seem to stay stuck on the war, but your anger and resentment are motivated and directed in all the wrong direction.
Listen, a soldier doesn’t ASK to be killed in battle, and George Bush DID NOT send them to be killed. These soldiers are on stand by 24/7, 365 days a year READY to fight the enemy, and if NEED BE …. Lay down their life for you, and so, tell me, what person thinking rationally, knowing that there are threats out there, would wait on the enemy to strike before going to war? …… ?
These soldiers are fighting the ENEMY … AL QAEDA!!!!!
Do you think that our soldiers would be over there if there was no enemy?
Do you think a soldier walks up in front of some foreign gunmen for the fun of it and opens his arms and says, “HERE! YOU CAN KILL ME!!!”
We go to STOP the enemy from killing innocent people!!!!
When the enemy stops the shooting and violence, we stop fighting them and go home!!!
If the enemy starts shooting again, we go back and start fighting them again.
You see?
Yet, thousands of us can’t stop the unborn from being killed … I think the current death toll of U.S. Soldiers right now, is somewhere around close to 3,000.
You know how many innocent American unborn children have been murdered since then? Over 7 MILLION … OVER 7 MILLION!!!!!
There are more children murdered in ONE day than the entire war!!! And the numbers just keep climbing.
God is patient … won’t you answer the call America?
STOP THE GENOCIDE!!!!!
40. 42 | August 25th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
“there is no way tha (sic) God will accept your reasoning.”
How do you know? Who are you to speak for God? Who are you to tell anyone that you know God better then they? Truth is you know nothing about God and what you think you know is only because someone told you…so get off your high horse there churchy
41. 42 | August 25th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
“You know how many innocent American unborn children have been murdered since then? Over 7 MILLION … OVER 7 MILLION!!!!!”
Name ONE
42. neocon | August 25th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
So unless and until a person is “named” that person doesn’t exist?
43. Jeremiah | August 25th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
42,
Name one?
How can I when they were never given names? BECAUSE THEY WERE MURDERED!!! ….. BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T LOVED!!!
But it’s alright, something good always comes out of something evil, as they are angels now watching over God’s people.
Can a mother be with the child she murdered in Heaven? Well, I don’t think so. Because she made the decision to murder.
Can we call a woman’s decision to murder a “natural” decision? No, because she has to be taught to disregard life, or, in other words, she has to be taught that disregard for life is the “best” choice, before she will commit murder, and more often than not that is the case, because children are not taught how to love in school, they are taught how to hate life in school. That’s what Margaret Sanger’s agenda was all about, was hate. I’m sure her conscience at this point in time, is just like a coke oven.
If all the corpses were stacked in a pile at one time, that her agenda has wrought…I’m sure that America’s conscience would awaken in short order! What a disgrace!
And this is the reason that America is weakening, because you people on the left have relegated morality of America back to the trenches and death camps of 1930 Germany.
How? By being allowed to define “Separation of Church and State” and giving you the ability to remove prayer from school and teach children Darwinianism.
Rest assured, it will come back to haunt with a veangance!!
44. 42 | August 25th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
“How can I when they were never given names? BECAUSE THEY WERE MURDERED!!!”
ok, name ONE instance in which a murder took place. did anyone call the police? did you know of the murder an not inform the authorities???
“By being allowed to define “Separation of Church and State” and giving you the ability to remove prayer from school and teach children Darwinianism.”
when was prayer ever removed from any school??
name ONE instance in which someone couldn’t pray in school or anywhere else.
Darwinianism? What do you have against teaching science in school?
45. Jeremiah | August 25th, 2008 at 10:37 pm
ok, name ONE instance in which a murder took place. did anyone call the police? did you know of the murder an not inform the authorities???
42,
No. The police couldn’t do anything…because the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land has legalized murder of children. That’s why there’s been 50.000.000 children murdered.
when was prayer ever removed from any school??
Read Murray v. Curlett.
Which ended school prayer, which they consolidated through “Separation of Church and State.
So now children have two different upbringings or no upbringing at all - I’ll explain-
If living in a Christian home they have parents who teach them God’s Word, but when they go to school, they hear something else, like Darwinism and homosexuality, viewing pornography, and of course, they get to hear about abortion, “If you accidentally get pregnant and don’t want children, then just go have an abortion. and you can then resume the pursuit of your lusts.” They teach primarily homosexuality, as pregnancy prevention, but do not teach, however, about the disease, and the moral aspects of homosexuality.
So, what are the children to believe, their parents or their teachers?
I would hope their parents, but that leads to the third part of the equation, which testifies that most parents do not take their children to church, because they’ve quit going themselves.
Even there, however, they are injecting secularism…which allows homosexuals and abortionists free reign to defile church teaching, and thus, you have a watered down version, of false doctrine. Men try to fit their own ideas and opinions into the Bible, and it just won’t work, it’s like trying to mix oil with water, they don’t mix. They’re trying to mix sin with righteousness.
In the school system, however, they have taken away the righteousness, and go purely with sin or filth rather, and this will spell danger for the future.
You see what I mean? What we teach children now, they’ll implement it in the future, and boy will there ever be trouble!! Big time!!
It’s just like raising a dog to be vicious, only tens of millions of them!!!!
People should put warning signs up on all the colleges, ‘Danger! Enroll at your own risk. We teach strictly Darwinism in science, and homosexuality in health!!’
It’s a cancer folks, a cancer that won’t go away until people start to fight it!!!
46. Dennis | August 26th, 2008 at 12:27 am
Jeremiah, at no time have I ever “defended the murder of the defenseless” (post 39). You, on the other hand, have done so repeatedly. More on that anon. You are so anxious to box me into a “pro-abortion” cubbyhole that you will say anything at all.
I declared unequivocally in post 33 that upon awareness of pregnancy a woman has a moral obligation to protect and nurture the life inside her. I also said such moral obligations are absolutely personal and a pregnant woman or expectant couple are accountable for that life to God alone until a child is born, takes its first breath and receives a legal identity.
I refuse to grant to the state what belongs to God alone: power over moral conscience. You want to disagree, fine, but do not construe that as defending the murder of the defenseless - it is rank dishonesty.
Furthermore I declare that violently destroying lives of real people already born, in an unnecessary war, is as morally reprehensible as abortion. My Christian brother, I have not once heard you condemn the deaths of civilian “collateral damage” in Iraq as murder. As an apologist for this completely avoidable war that has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, you are the defender of murdering the defenseless.
47. Jeremiah | August 26th, 2008 at 1:16 am
Tell me something, Dennis:
Do you seriously think that our military, the finest, brightest military in the whole world would purposefully seek out to kill innocent bystanders?
Is that their aim?
With the most expert intelligence gathering, don’t you think they would pick out the most likely spots that would be considered safe havens for the enemy to strike?
One last thing …
When Saddam Hussein was in power, how many people in Iraq were free people at the time? How many people, possibly Christians were there who tortured?
48. Jeremiah | August 26th, 2008 at 1:30 am
I mean to say … “were there who were tortured.”
49. Dennis | August 26th, 2008 at 3:26 am
You refuse to address my point, Jer. This is not the military’s sin. The Bush administration conceived this travesty, Congress enabled them and the American people by and large allowed it. There is blame aplenty to go round.
As I said on another thread, if Mr. Bush had followed Scriptural principles in dealing with Iraq, religous freedom would have been preserved, Saddam Hussein would have been neutralized and hundreds of thousands of lives would have been spared.
You call abortion murder yet refuse to condemn this unnecessary slaughter of people already born. You hide behind how bad Saddam was, as if that makes it all okay. As if their deaths are somehow all tidy and nice, because we also killed a bad guy. Whom the US previously enabled in his wickedness until he was no longer useful to us. And whose ability to keep Iraq from flying apart we cannot duplicate.
It sickens decent people to hear such moral equivocation. Have the integrity to call a spade a spade - if killing unborn babies is wrong, killing already-born people in a war of choice is just as wrong. And there never was a war more unnecessary than this one. And the bloodshed may not be over yet by a long shot.
50. Jeremiah | August 26th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
The Bush administration conceived this travesty, Congress enabled them and the American people by and large allowed it.
Really?
I thought the ENEMY started it. I guess we just went over there to kill innocent people as “target practice” and a “few laughs” …. HUH?
If there had been no travesty being commtted, then WE WOULDN’T HAVE HAD TO GO!!!
You’re going to have to get off these conspiracy theories, Dennis, they’re not healthy, and they breed more hatred.
51. Dennis | August 26th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
You are a coward, Jeremiah. You will not touch the root of the matter. This is the fundamental problem with all the “pro-life” rhetoric of the evangelical and far right. It is just rhetoric - nothing more.
You are not “pro-life.” You are merely anti-liberal. You excuse killing the innocent when it suits your political agenda. You would kill liberals if there were a legal way to do so.
You almost had me persuaded that you were a sincere Christian. But no man can be tool for the carnal powers of war and destruction and a servant of the Prince of Peace. Goodbye and good luck.
52. Jeremiah | August 26th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Dennis,
I believe in the Death Penalty for anyone who would harm another person…in which case, would be Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda killed and maimed we know how many … so they deserved what they got.
And I’m not the coward here, you are. You are are deathly afraid to fight back against the real enemy, Al Qaeda, much the same as Obama who would mess his pants if he were amongst Al Qaedan tribes. And believe me, Al Qaeda’s not afraid at all, because they’re trained from child hood to be fearless, with the carnal instinct of blood lust. They teach little kids to stab the Jews and Americans.
It’s really sad,t hey need Jesus Christ, but they’ll never know him until they stop thinking that they have to kill to get to heaven.
As for you, Dennis, I see a hatred in you, a hatred of the United States, and the freedom that we so cherish, and because we defend that freedom.
Well, you are free, Dennis, to slander our United States military all you want…and they will even defend your defamation of their efforts. How ’bout that?
I pray you see the light, and see it soon, my friend, before all is lost. If Obama should become our President in November…if those Muslims try to take over, I say ‘God help ‘em’ because nothing Obama can say will suffice to stop the good ‘ole boys of the U.S.A.
So please do not side with the Muslims as Obama has said he will do, that would spell disaster.
We will not sacrifice one ounce of our freedoms!!! None!!!
ISLAM DELENDA EST!!!