My position is that I am personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t think I have a right to impose my few on the rest of society. I’ve thought a lot about it, and my position probably doesn’t please anyone. I think the government should stay out completely. I will not vote to overturn the Court’s decision. I will not vote to curtail a woman’s right to choose abortion. But I will also not vote to use federal funds to fund abortion.
–Sen. Joe Biden, Promises to Keep (2007), p. 104-105
This is Sen. Joe Biden’s official stance on abortion — a common one among Democrats, whose party platform includes a pro-choice stance as a key plank. Biden was asked to defend his fence-straddling position recently on Meet the Press, and what he said raised the ire of the Archbishop of Denver. The archbishop thinks that politicians like Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are misrepresenting the church’s beliefs on abortion to the American public, and he’s published a letter to set the record straight and expose these politicans’ “flawed moral reasoning”:
Public Servants and Moral Reasoning:A notice to the Catholic community in northern Colorado
To Catholics of the Archdiocese of Denver:
When Catholics serve on the national stage, their actions and words impact the faith of Catholics around the country. As a result, they open themselves to legitimate scrutiny by local Catholics and local bishops on matters of Catholic belief.
In 2008, although NBC probably didn’t intend it, Meet the Press has become a national window on the flawed moral reasoning of some Catholic public servants. On August 24, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, describing herself as an ardent, practicing Catholic, misrepresented the overwhelming body of Catholic teaching against abortion to the show’s nationwide audience, while defending her “pro-choice” abortion views. On September 7, Sen. Joseph Biden compounded the problem to the same Meet the Press audience.
Sen. Biden is a man of distinguished public service. That doesn’t excuse poor logic or bad facts. Asked when life begins, Sen. Biden said that, “it’s a personal and private issue.” But in reality, modern biology knows exactly when human life begins: at the moment of conception. Religion has nothing to do with it. People might argue when human “personhood” begins – though that leads public policy in very dangerous directions – but no one can any longer claim that the beginning of life is a matter of religious opinion.
Sen. Biden also confused the nature of pluralism. Real pluralism thrives on healthy, non-violent disagreement; it requires an environment where people of conviction will struggle respectfully but vigorously to advance their beliefs. In his interview, the senator observed that other people with strong religious views disagree with the Catholic approach to abortion. It’s certainly true that we need to acknowledge the views of other people and compromise whenever possible – but not at the expense of a developing child’s right to life.
Abortion is a foundational issue; it is not an issue like housing policy or the price of foreign oil. It always involves the intentional killing of an innocent life, and it is always, grievously wrong. If, as Sen. Biden said, “I’m prepared as a matter of faith [emphasis added] to accept that life begins at the moment of conception,” then he is not merely wrong about the science of new life; he also fails to defend the innocent life he already knows is there.
As the senator said in his interview, he has opposed public funding for abortions. To his great credit, he also backed a successful ban on partial-birth abortions. But his strong support for the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and the false “right” to abortion it enshrines, can’t be excused by any serious Catholic. Support for Roe and the “right to choose” an abortion simply masks what abortion is, and what abortion does.
Roe is bad law. As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation. In his Meet the Press interview, Sen. Biden used a morally exhausted argument that American Catholics have been hearing for 40 years: i.e., that Catholics can’t “impose” their religiously based views on the rest of the country. But resistance to abortion is a matter of human rights, not religious opinion. And the senator knows very well as a lawmaker that all law involves the imposition of some people’s convictions on everyone else. That is the nature of the law.
American Catholics have allowed themselves to be bullied into accepting the destruction of more than a million developing unborn children a year. Other people have imposed their “pro-choice” beliefs on American society without any remorse for decades. If we claim to be Catholic, then American Catholics, including public officials who describe themselves as Catholic, need to act accordingly. We need to put an end to Roe and the industry of permissive abortion it enables. Otherwise all of us – from senators and members of Congress, to Catholic laypeople in the pews – fail not only as believers and disciples, but also as citizens.
+Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver+James D. Conley
Auxiliary Bishop of Denver
It about time the Bishops stopped pandering to the “Catholics” who support abortion. Biden’s logic is as thin as his hair. This is the main reason I last voted for a Democrat (when I was young, stupid and agnostic in 1992).
Well, good! Now, if they would take a stance against all Catholics who use any type of birth control besides “natural” and any male member of the church who has had a vasectomy there will be no one left at the alter since these too, are against church doctrine.
If this government was a religous theocracy, then the bishops are correct, abortion must be banned. However, because we are not and there are many who have no spiritual beliefs (and we must treat them the same as all citizens) I agree with Biden.
Pelosi and the rest of them can have whatever view they want to, but when they try to claim their view is anything but inconsistent with the Catholic Church, they are being dishonest. That is problem. The Catholic Church, the Baptist Church, and any other Church or voluntary organization can believe what it wants. If that means no one is “left at the altar,” so be it. But you can’t have it both ways. Doesn’t mean you have to be perfect. None of us are perfect. The recovering alcoholic may take a drink once in a while, and still be a Mormon, but if he starts a group called “Mormons for Excess Drinking,” the Mormon Church can and should expell him as a fraud.
I am a Christian, and do not believe in abortion. I also do not believe in voting for someone on that issue alone. I agree with John McCain on this issue, but he is wrong on every other issue. I also do not believe in stacking the Supreme Court just for this one issue. Under GW Bush, we have already lost several of our Constituitional rights, I don’t think we should lose anymore. The US Constitution gives us rights, it does not take rights away. While banning abortion would give the unborn child a right, it would take away the rights of the mother and her family to make that decision.
What is interesting is that even though women who have never had abortions, nor would they every seek to have an abortion, are still being penalized by the Catholic Church for believing back alley abortions are reprehensible and safer alternatives should be available.
So Biden and Pelosi want to call themselves catholics, but they don’t want to accept the authority and teaching of their church. Too bad there isn’t some other religion they could join. There is. Here’s a list:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist1.htm
Hey, Ben, I would like to know specifically which constitutional rights Bush has taken away. This is not a dictatorship, if he has taken rights away it is in conjunction with others, such as the House and Senate as well as the courts. BTW here is a quote from Camille Paglia on abortion. I completly disagree with her, but you can appreciate her honesty.
“But the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand. My argument (as in my first book, “Sexual Personae,”) has always been that nature has a master plan pushing every species toward procreation and that it is our right and even obligation as rational human beings to defy nature’s fascism. Nature herself is a mass murderer, making casual, cruel experiments and condemning 10,000 to die so that one more fit will live and thrive.
Hence I have always frankly admitted that abortion is murder, the extermination of the powerless by the powerful. Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion, which results in the annihilation of concrete individuals and not just clumps of insensate tissue. The state in my view has no authority whatever to intervene in the biological processes of any woman’s body, which nature has implanted there before birth and hence before that woman’s entrance into society and citizenship.”
Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index3.html
The issue of abortion carries over into other [ethical] issues. Stem Cell research is the most prominent. The ethical debate over abortion will go on forever: Libs and Cons fighting it out. My problem with Bush [or any Republican] is how they IMPOSE their ethics, beliefs, etc on society. Bush and his stand on Stem Cell made me sick. The medical benefits of stem cell are apparent, yet Bush continues to ‘thump’ his Bible.
Ben,
I would like you to note that your interpretation of the Bill of Rights is not accurate. The Constitution was originally designed to define the powers of the Federal Government, and not define our rights as citizens. The Constitution defines the 3 branches of government, what jurisdiction they have over the States, their role in national defense, and how the Federal government is to execute its powers. By definition, the only powers that the Federal Government has are those spelled explicitly out in the Constitution. This is why many of the Founding Fathers resisted putting the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. They wanted to avoid this exact misinterpretation. The Bill of Rights is implied in the Constitution because, for example, no where does it say the Federal Government has the right to regulate free speech. It also is why there was an 18th Amendment banning the sale of alcohol, and not a Federal law. No where it the Constitution does it says that the Federal Government can regulate the sale of alcohol. In the 1917, they still respected Constitutional authority, and had to authorize it through the Amendment process.
Moreover, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Federal Government has the right to regulate abortions. As pointed out by this very wise Archbishop, this should be up to individual states to decide. We all talk about lost rights, well this is a good example of how the Federal Government made law (through the court system no less) that they had no right to make. I would be more worried about that than George Bush. He will be gone in less than a year, and this law has stood for 35 years.
Lastly, I am pro-life; I am for the right of the child to live, as I am for any human-being. In my opinion, it is a horrible state of affairs when there are those in this society that justify the death of another innocent human-being for another’s convenience.
For the sake of consistency, Archbishop Chaput and Auxillary Bishop Conley should be confronting Biden and Pelosi about the following issues as well- and demanding that Senator Biden add these proposed laws to the Democratic ticket’s platform (remember, these rules will apply to everyone in the country if they get passed, not just Catholics):
no sex outside of marriage (even if you’e not married!);
if you are married, no birth control other than the rhythm method;
no IVF treatments for couples who cannot conceive naturally;
as noted above, no tubal ligations or vasectomies for anyone;
no meat on Fridays during Lent (this includes those gondolas from Avanti’s, which I assure you would be banned from Italy altogether, religious issues aside, if an actual Italian had ever eaten one);
turn a blind eye for as long as possible, and do as little as possible, about the problem of certain Catholic priests sexually assaulting young children.
Do I need to go on? Assuming, hypothetically, that at some point, the number of Catholics in the House and Senate reached critical mass and these rules became U.S. law, would everyone be ok with that? My guess is that someone with a palpable pulse and some brain activity might raise an apparently unheard of concept in some circles – separation of church and state.
Good grief.
p.s. ditto to what bbbb and Imaswede said.
Cosmo Kramer,
The church has said all those things you mention are wrong. Many, many times, in fact. However, when a big mouth public figure belligerently contradicts teachings he himself professes to believe, then church leaders must respond publically. Many of those items ivf, tubals, etc, are done in PRIVATE, and often involve situations of great difficulty. Bidin insists on yelling his opinion from the top of the mountain, then he had better be prepared for some rebuke. Also, the church has also paid a great price for the sins of those homosexual priests allowed to remain in ministry. The church has also gone through great pains to make amends for the wrongs done. Several dioceses have filed bankruptcy and paid out millions to the victims.
Mike,
I actually understand why these representatives of the church have spoken out. The fact that someone OUTSIDE of the church finds it worth blogging about, I thought, meant that the topic was open for further discussion, especially as it pertains to the upcoming election.
I am also well aware that the acts I mentioned are considered wrong in the eyes of the church – that is precisely why I brought them up.
The numbers of victims, as well as the price paid by the church, was exacerbated by the way so many of theses priests were shuffled around – multiple times, for years.
Kramer,
One thing I would like people to remember; the Catholic Church does not IMPOSE its will on anyone is is NOT Catholic. If you are not Catholic, don’t worry about what goes on in the Catholic community. As Mike wrote, the Church is doing everything in its power to make amends [which is more than the government is doing for military vets!]. Show me a state or religious institution that doesn’t have “sins” to pay for. The clergy and members of the Catholic Church are human. They take a stand and do their best to adhere to it. The same might be said of most churches, etc.
Now. Don’t make me find you and open a can of ‘crusading whoop-ass’ all over you.
Why Paglia is a little on the ‘outside’……
“Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion…”
Correct me if I am wrong, but NO Liberal has “embraced” abortion. Pro-Choice is hardly embracing anything.
Question: What are – ethics, morals, laws – and where do they come from?
New Voice – I think it’s fair to say some liberals have embraced abortion, but, you raise a good point about where ethics, morals and laws come from. Historically, America has held that they come from God (by whatever name) – That we are endowed by our Creator with inelienable rights. Most liberals reject that now and seem to believe that the cultural elite, judges, or whomever, can devine, somehow, what is morally right, and what laws we all ought to live by. They are very fuzzy about how that comes about, but they are not fuzzy about the moral imperative of following their dictates. Dare to cross the line on their idea of political correctness and you probably lose your job and are forever reviled by the establishment media, at a minimum. Cross the line in Canada and you get fined and maybe jailed.
New Voice,
Um, I actually happen to BE Catholic -why you would assume otherwise, based on what I wrote,is unclear to me.
I would like to thank you, though, for summing up one of my points when you said “the Catholic Church does NOT impose its will on anyone who is NOT Catholic.” Exactly, as it should be. I was, I thought, simply illustrating how absurd (to some) the results would be if the beliefs of Biden’s particular faith were made part of the Democratic platform, and then voted into law if in fact there were enough Catholics in the House and Senate.
My inclusion of the problem with certain priests molesting children was meant to be tongue in cheek (but not in jest).
Hopefully I have cleared this up for you.
I actually agree 100% with Biden on this has been my belief for years. If my daughters get pregnant and we find out, they are having the baby and not aborting it. But if my neighbor’s daughters get pregnant, its not my job or right to impose my belief or tell them what to do. The beauty of America is people can have different religious beliefs or no religious beliefs at all. Therefore we shouldn’t have a law that makes everyone follow a certain religious belief. Saying abortion should be illegal is like saying we should pray 5 times a day towards the direction of Mecca.
And people that think if you don’t agree with your church 100% you shouldn’t belong are a joke. So do you agree with either Presidential candidate 100%? No. You would be hard pressed to find any group that 100% of the membership agrees with 100% of the groups beliefs, mission, goals, etc.
Mouse-
There you have it. Nicely put.
Kramer-
I see. Now you are chastising me in public! Make that TWO cans of ‘crusading whoop-ass’.
I think it is very important to point out that this statement from the Archbishop of Denver represents only ONE point of view on ONE aspect of a very complex topic of thought and discussion in the Catholic Church this year. I would urge those who want the whole picture to do some more reading on this.
As much as I wish I had time to provide all sorts of articles and links, I don’t – so for those who are interested in this issue, do some searching about Catholics and “single issue voting” – you’ll find plenty to read. There are a multitude of OTHER issues the Church is equally concerned about – including, but not limited to, anti-immigration policies (the Church has actively spoken out against these as being racist), the death penalty, “just war” (the Catholic Church does not think our war against Iraq falls into this category),torture, and social issues (i.e. poverty, access to health care, etc) – any many others.
One think the Church is quite clear about – candidates on BOTH sides have taken stances on issues that fly in the face of Catholic teaching. This is most certainly NOT just about abortion.
Happy researching.
I have a real problem with a institution like the Catholic Church that not only hid, but enabled pedophile priests calling out any Catholic.
And yes I’m a Catholic.
Years ago Bishop Myers came out and said that any pro-choice Catholics were not Catholic at all, etc. etc. There was a huge uprising when many women from NOW and others from the community protested. I wrote in the the PJStar opinion page stating my views. In the next week I literally had 3 people call my house, one threatened my life and two threatened my child’s life, even to the extent of kidnapping her when she got off her school bus and killing her.
It scares the crap out of me that Palin is a creationist. Science programs down the tube with this woman while big oil wins.
God save us!
Here’s the problem I have with this logic: We’re talking about taking a human life. It’s like saying, “I wouldn’t personally kill my infant daughter, but who am I to tell my neighbor not to kill his infant son?” Civil societies have always had laws protecting human life and, yes, imposing that protection (or “belief,” if you will) on others. I don’t believe anyone, including mothers, have the right to take an innocent person’s life — even their own child’s.
Like the archbishop says, it’s been established when life begins. The argument among ethicists is when that life becomes a “person” — a person with rights and protections. And the trouble with making a distinction between human life and personhood is that you’ll go crazy trying to come up with a consistent definition that doesn’t relegate to “non-person” status people like invalids, the severely injured, or the disabled. The implications are truly frightening. Try reading Peter Singer sometime.
First of all, if Biden or Pelosi were to misrepresent Catholic teaching about these items on national talk shows, then I’m sure the archbishop would confront them on it. But these items are not at issue, so there’s no inconsistency in his not addressing them.
Secondly, you’re mixing Catholic religious practices (e.g., no meat on Fridays during Lent) with public policy issues (e.g. abortion law), perhaps to intentionally muddy the waters. One could just as easily turn the tables and say, since you want the total separation of church and state, and in order to be consistent, the state should not have any laws against murder or theft because these prohibitions are written in the Bible. Ridiculous! Of course public policy and religion overlap on fundamental issues of human dignity. Abortion can’t be casually swept into the “church” category like Catholic dietary practices as if the nature of personhood is merely a religious tenet that doesn’t affect the state.
C.J.
Nowhere in the quotes you have cited, nor in anything have I heard from Joe Biden anywhere, demonstrates to me that he has “misrepresented Catholic teaching.” Nor, in fact, do I see where the Archbishop said that – according to your quote, he said that Biden “compounded the problem”- whatever that may mean – that was created, in his view, by Pelosi. I have not actually heard anything Pelosi has to say on this matter, so I can’t speak to the question about her. I trust you have, since you chose to raise this subject and quote the Archbishop’s criticism of her.
The idea that what Biden said somehow misrepresents Catholic teaching is news to me – and after 19 years of Catholic education and a number of years teaching at a large Catholic university, it’s hard to surprise me about this sort of thing.
With regard to the meat during Lent comment – that was a joke – I was simply using humor to illustrate a point. I even threw in the Avanti’s comment to make that clear in case anyone who takes themselves too seriously were to read my remarks. Apparently it didn’t help.
I would agree with you, actually, that it WOULD be ridiculous not to outlaw murder and theft because these prohibitions happen to be condemned in the Bible. I’m sure you know that there are non-biblical sources and non-religious theories that address these tenents. That would certainly explain we have as many atheists, skeptics, non-believers as we do who are NOT running around murdering and stealing (and, sadly, many churchgoers and Bible believers who are.)
On that note, I am done for the night. Peace.
How many women are arguing here?… looks like mostly, if not entirely men.
Interesting…
That is because women [at least MY women] have no business discussing heady issues such as these. Look at Sarah Palin. See what happens.
LMAO…. did you just say that??
C.J., and all of the rest who think as you do… if you’re 100% in favor of mandatory prison sentences, of at least 20-50 years, for EVERYONE involved in an abortion, from the doctor on down to the WOMAN; including the potential father, if it’s proven that he knew of the abortion; or even mandatory death sentences in those states that get into that sort of thing… THEN, and ONLY THEN do I think you can support your abortion “arguments.”
If you don’t stand by that, then you’ll be just like the rest of the “pro-lifers” in politics… all talk, no action.
While it would suck if my neighbors daughter had an abortion, it’s their right. Yes, I would not kill my unborn child, but I don’t have the right to stop my neighbor from doing it. Abortion is a belief. Either you believe in it or against it, it’s a belief and in America you can have different beliefs. Again, some believe you should pray 5 times a day towards the direction of Mecca, should that be a law also? I know you’ll say it’s different but it isn’t. They are both beliefs of certain people.
How do you feel about pregnancies that come from rape and incest?
Mahkno, my wife and I agree 100% on this.
“How many women are arguing here?… looks like mostly, if not entirely men.
Interesting…”
Just trying to get a little response….
mike,
Let’s start with Habeas Corpus. Your basic right to a fair trial. If Bush wants to call you an enemy combatant, you are hauled off to jail, no rights to speak with an attorney and no rights to a trial. Even American citizens born here have been picked up under this ridiculous rule. How about right to privacy. They will now tap your phones and monitor your email. Bush has been quoted saying,” The Constitution is just a piece of paper.”
The Catholic Church does not pretend that children have rights let alone an embryo!?!?!?!
People are pawns to the Catholic Church and always have been.
Ben,
Your post is weak and empty. If you’re talking about the Patriot Act which was passed by both the House and the Senate by wide margins, how can you place the blame solely on GWB? You should have the same criticisms about the elected representatives of both parties who authorized the bill. Also, we are at war and I don’t give a rats behind about the rights of enemy combatants. Let the water boarding began. Good crimeny, if people like you were in charge during WWII, we would be saluting pictures of Hitler today. Additionally, that phony unproven quote by GWB is lefty blogger fantasy. There is no record of GWB actually saying it, only speculation. There are real criticisms of GWB you could make instead of the silly stuff you brought up.
I am a woman, I have a child, I am Catholic and I am pro-life.
I think the real problem here is that some, actually quite a few, politicians who claim to be practicing Catholics go out of their way to DEFEND the “right” to abortion at all costs, and do absolutely NOTHING to alleviate or limit it in any way.
They vote down partial-birth bans, parental notification statutes, “Born Alive” measures, they insist on approving taxpayer funding for abortions, they reject even the most minimal restrictions the majority of Americans — even those who call themselves pro-choice — favor. In my opinion, these are the ones who are truly causing scandal.
In fairness to Biden, I understand he does oppose taxpayer-funded abortion and he did vote for the partial birth ban. (Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) So he isn’t quite as “bad” on this issue as Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, et al, but still he actively defends abortion as a civil right.
If a Catholic politician were to say that they believe abortion takes a human life, that every abortion is a tragedy, and that they will do the best they can to enact whatever rules/restrictions the people are willing to accept — because no single officeholder, not even a president, can or will ever be able to end abortion singlehandedly — I could accept that, and I think most bishops could too.
If you read Bishop Myers’ pastoral carefully you will see that he realizes there is only so much a single legislator or officeholder can do, but they should do the best they can to uphold what is a fundamental moral principle of their faith, if they wish to be recognized as a fully practicing member of that faith. He also acknowledges that pro-life officeholders can vote for a less-than-perfect or less-than-consistent abortion law, for example one with a rape and incest exception, if that’s the best they can reasonably expect to get.
Abortion is a matter of public concern because it is literally a matter of life or death. It is more than just a private church rule like Friday abstinence, bowing toward Mecca, etc. It involves harm (or, depending on your point of view, at least potential harm) done to an innocent third party. That is why the Catholic Church and evangelical churches are so emphatic about it, just as the Quakers were emphatic about ending slavery and African-American churches were emphatic about ending racial segregation.
And Swede, I am very sorry and very much ashamed that anyone ever threatened you for your opinions on this matter. For what it’s worth, I apologize on their behalf.
KCDAD,
Your a Communist, Socialist, ultra-leftwing who leans to the right,
St. Louis Cardinal fan.
Your opinions do not count and/or matter.
QUESTON:
If a family follows a particular belief [faith if you will], that does not condone any type of outside medical aid, and the children of this family become gravely ill; does the govt. have the RIGHT to take these children from their parents and treat them? Of course if DCFS comes knocking…….
LAST:
I would love to see people who are COMPLETELY against abortion spend as much time, energy, and effort making adoption…’easier’ [understatement]? Considering the cost, red-tape, emotional strain on children and families, I am sometimes amazed that adoption is even considered by people in this country. The entire process, from birth to placement must be a smoother process for ALL involved. This is not an all encompassing solution, but it will provide better alternatives for ‘unsuspecting’ mothers-to-be…?
Here’s the way I look at the pro-life/pro-choice argument:
I am a male. Therefore, there will never come a point in my life where I will be forced to decide whether or not I should keep the fetus growing in my belly, and therefore I really don’t think I should be part of any process (or moreover, legislation on any level) regarding the big “A”.
Let the women do what they want. If they want to start fighting about pro-life or pro-choice, have at it, but I’m staying out of it.
Why Paglia is a little on the ‘outside’……
“Liberals for the most part have shrunk from facing the ethical consequences of their embrace of abortion…”
New Voice wrote “Correct me if I am wrong, but NO Liberal has “embraced” abortion. Pro-Choice is hardly embracing anything.”
So what would be your definition of Pro-choice?
Karrie,
Good question. I call Pro-choice…PRO-CHOICE. Someone has already questioned my statement. I am merely implying that Pro-choice is not the same as ’embracing’ abortion. Libs are not defending ‘abortion,’ but the ‘rights’ of the individual woman to decide. I use several terms loosely [embracing, rights, etc].
I can’t speak the mind of every Democrat or liberal politician in the U.S., but I would hazard a guess that most Dems find the basic tenets of abortion appalling.
Oh, I have lots of criticism of GWB..I agree the Congress was involved in the ill formed Patriot Act. But at that time, the Congress gave him anything and everything he asked for. He is the only one though, that has authority to have you locked up because you are an enemy combatant.
I am not a liberal. I am very moderate. I do oppose abortion.
I disagree with the monikers Pro Life and Pro Choice. Everyone is Pro Life. It should be Pro Choice and Anti Choice.
Mike,
So our constitutional rights only pertain when we are not at war? Who decides if someone is an enemy combatant? You? Me? That is for a court to decide. I’m not talking about foreigners here, I’m talking about American born citizens, who have been locked up for several years and then released. Oops, Sorry, wrong guy. I know it happned at least once, and one time is too many. That’s why we have a system of justice in this country. Ben Franklin once said “If you give up liberty for freedom, you have neither.”
And no, we would not be honoring Hitler. We would be standing up for our country and our freedoms, like not enough of us are doing today.
Please name the citizens who were mistakenly locked up for years and then released.
Ben,
You just keep dumping incorrect information in your posts. Answer the question from nontimendum and apologize for the false quote.
Another woman coming in late. I have two children, I was raised Catholic but am now UU as the abortion issue is one (of MANY) reasons I left the Catholic Church.
1. IMHO, the Catholic Church has been rife with hypocrisy for ages and ages. There’s that joke in Shakespeare’s Hamlet – where Hammy himself tells Ophelia “Get thee to a nunnery!” the gist of the line being that nuns were whores to the priests. It was a popular enough notion during Shakespeare’s era that it made it into his play! There are plenty other such lines in his work.
2. I remember when the big ruckus started over Catholic priests molesting kids – my first thought, having been raised Catholic, was “Dude, you’re a little late to the issue, aren’t you? Like three centuries late!” It was, very sadly, not news to me. I have friends who were molested by priests (that I knew) when we were kids (didn’t find out until adulthood). I’ve heard jokes about priests and little boys since I was old enough to “get” sex jokes! I just read Norman Mailer’s “Harlot’s Ghost” and that has a tale about a Catholic priest abusing a teen boy. I grew up thinking this was just some weird part of the church. Really. Since no one really did anything about it or seemed to think it was particularly wrong.
My point – Catholicism is an ideal, but the reality is that few followers (no matter how faithful they profess to be) “live the ideal.” Even the damn priests. And from what I learned, neither Jesus nor God expected us to be perfect or actually achieve that ideal. From what I’ve studied of other religions – it’s all the same. The reality of faith is much messier than whatever ideals and morals said religion proscribes or teaches.
I am NOT excusing sexual abuse of children by any degree. It’s a tragedy and a crime and a horror. There are no excuses. But it has been a part of our society for hundreds of years and it’s just now coming under prosecution? I think it’s awesome that someone, somewhere finally did something – God bless them. But who is this Catholic Bishop to damn politicians for something they have never done -but on a point of religious theory? I make my peace with God, and not you, not any politician – and nor are they responsible for making their spiritual peace with us or that Bishop in Denver. The responsibility of the priest is to teach and counsel us in the ideal – but even they don’t have the ability, under Catholic theory, to judge or make a proclamation about who is wrong or who is right.
As for abortion, first, a quote from John Paul II
“Extremely sensitive situations arise when a specifically religious norm becomes or tends to become the law of a state without due consideration for the distinction between the domains proper to religion and to political society. In practice, the identification of religious law with civil law can stifle religious freedom, even going so far as to restrict or deny other inalienable human rights.” – John Paul II, Message for the World Day of Peace, 1 Jan 1991″
Science can show us how a human being begins – egg and sperm. How those cells grow into something. That is all that science tells us.
Where “life” begins? Well, which school of science do you subscribe to? How do you define a bunch of cells interacting? Mold is a bunch of cells interacting. The flu is a bunch of cells interacting. Does the bible differentiate? Did Jesus differentiate? Do those interacting cells in a womb have thought capability or independent functioning ability any more than the beginning of mold growing on a bad apple? Do they deserve more protection than mold or the flu because we value them less? Because they won’t grow into an independent creature? Any of those developing, interacting cells – taken out of the environment in which they are nurtured in some way – will die.
Hence, does this mean that the baby bird in it’s egg that I accidently knocked out of a bird’s nest when I was 8 and climbing a tree – was I responsible to take and somehow nurture that bird to life? Does that bird deserve less to become a life? Because we all eat eggs, and a damn lot of them – and technically, this is the abortion, millions of times daily, of chicks. Is this not a slippery slope? Should we not eat any more omeletes, come up with a different way to make bread? We’re killing babies that have passed the moment of conception here, too.
Science merely defines the process. The concept of “when life begins” is a human imposition. The concept that it has rights from the moment of conception, when that sperm enters that egg – rights are an entirely human concept. A legal concept. OR a religious concept herein.
Rights and laws in the legal sense do not exist in any other part of nature. Nature, in terms of non-human entities, is far more brutal and seemingly barbaric on the abortion scale. Only patterns and standard operating procedure. Deviations tend to be rejected or aborted by nature. There are the “laws of nature” but they are not “legal” in the sense of a legal system, nor are they without myriad exceptions.
Also, those cells don’t always grow the right way and you have women whose lives, reasonably good health, and reproductive abilities for future children are threatened by some pregnancies. And 10 year old girls who get raped by their uncles or teachers or priests. Certainly God didn’t intend for women who plan their pregnancies carefully, who want more than anything to have a child, certainly He didn’t intend for that fetus to develop with spina bifida so severe that the child might not even make it through the birth process, let alone live for any length of time approaching what one would call “a life”, and shredding it’s mother’s reproductive organs during said birth process so that she will not ever be able to have children (as this is her first pregnancy). Surely God didn’t intend for a 10 year old girl’s parents to die, sending her to live with her uncle who decided to rape her, and impregnate her. Surely God didn’t intend for women to be simple “baby machines?”
We are an advanced, thoughtful, and extremely complicated creature. Do you think God didn’t intend that? Do you think God didn’t intend evil to happen (didn’t He create the devil, or the fallen archangels, or what have you), in the case of rape and incest? DO you think He intends for little girls to have to go through the psychological trauma that a pregnancy is/can be, especially to one so young, immature, naive/inexperienced and relatively fragile? And for them to live forever with that scar, knowing there’s a child somewhere that is/was theirs? Is that preferable to God vs. allowing that 11 year old to have an abortion? Is he punishing some women by creating babies with severe and life threatening birth defects that are NOT detectable until the second trimester? Did God intend for animals to eat their young?
My answer to all of this is that NO ONE can know what God, Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, or any other deity intended. None of us can presume to be that important, to judge in such a manner, or we shouldn’t, imho. Is it defined in any scripture from any religion anywhere that abortion is murder? Is the beginning of life defined in the bible as the moment when egg meets sperm? Or did some Pope at some point proclaim conception meant “a life”, once science had figured the process out?
Women miscarry all the time. My own mother had a still birth at seven months term. She didn’t do anything to cause it – it just happened. She wanted the baby. So that’s the body aborting all by itself. Her body somehow killed a baby that would even have been viable if she had died herself. It was a girl, and they would have named her Linda. She’s buried on top of my Nonno. And my mom is a devout Catholic by anyone’s definition. Miscarriage is the same – the body kills the fetus. Does God intend that to happen?
God, if you think of things that way, gave us all these abilities. The ability to think, to discover things via science, to do everything that we do – all of it. The freedom of choice – yeah, technically I think, God gave us that since he gave us our brains, right?
All this said, I strongly believe that we should do everything possible to discourage, prevent or otherwise educate girls about pregnancy, how to prevent it, and what ALL the options are in the event of an unwanted pregnancy, by whatever means. Both how difficult a commitment it is to become a parent, how emotionally awful it can be to give up a child for adoption, or what kind of scars will result if you choose abortion.
But as what is a medical, scientific procedure upon which no one should be allowed to opine save the mother, her family and her doctors – all of whom are protected under law btw from disclosing info she doesn’t want them to – no one else should be a part of that decision. Especially the government – an entity created and purposed for the entire citizenry, regardless of religion or spirituality – as was intended by the founding fathers. If you don’t like that intention, there are lots of countries ruled by various religious leaders that you can move to, if you want that kind of ideal or society.
And the word “convenience” should NEVER be used in association with “abortion” IMHO. I have never had one, but I know women who have. And the idea that abortion is a “convenient” option is a flat out lie. A myth. The women who find themselves making this choice – or little girls as the case may be – from everyone I’ve ever heard from or read about (actual cases, not theory), it was a very difficult decision. And a painful procedure.
Are there a handful of women out there who use abortion as a method of birth control, well, that’s really sad. And I think that we should teach our children that it is sad. I think we should teach our children to respect life in that they are careful with the process of creating it – animals included. And come to think of it, plants too, since I have more than a few invasive species plaguing my yard. But it is not for us to judge people regarding how they treat life – they will be judged in the afterlife, no?
I respect anyone’s belief that abortion is morally wrong. That it is counter to their religious beliefs. But it is NOT something that falls under the purview of our legal system, not by any stretch.
“most Dems find the basic tenets of abortion appalling”? Sadly, New Voice, I doubt it. Increasing numbers of them are buying into this suicidal notion that the world would be better off without people, and they actually like the idea of killing babies, or anyone else they can find an excuse to kill. Sadder yet, the world WOULD be better off without many of these arrogant, self-absorbed, holier-than-thou politicians, “journalists” and Hollywood “celebrities” that dare preach to ordinary people like us about morality.
Mouse,
I will freely admit, I am only making assumptions. My opinions are not based on any polls, etc. I am thinking though, that you are taking a few too many liberties here.
Sure, you have goobers, Dems and Reps, who swing so far to the left or right they bump heads in the middle! There are people in this country who think the world would be a better place if every ‘nigger, Jew, Catholic, or whatever’ were dead. At least sterilize the stinking lot of them [as if the world hasn’t seen enough of this already]!
I will stand by my opinion, but add most NORMAL Dems, or people in general find the basic tenets of abortion appalling.
Just so you know; if you continue to question me, I have extra cans of ‘Crusading Whoop-Ass’ left over from dealing with Kramer [see above].
This may be like trying to put out a raging forest fire with a squirt gun, but I think the whole abortion debate MIGHT be a little less contentious if everyone agreed on this premise:
Abortion takes a human life, and therefore is an “evil”, a bad thing that we really strive to avoid, like war.
The question, therefore, is not whether it’s good or bad, but whether it is ever justifiable or necessary to prevent a greater evil.
If you are pro-life, you will say that directly taking the life of a human embryo or fetus in this way can never be justified. If you are pro-choice, you will say that some evils are worse than abortion and therefore abortion, even though it takes a human life, can be justified in a variety of circumstances.
Or it could be agreed that abortion is homicide (I didn’t say “murder” because that implies a degree of malice and premeditation that doesn’t necessarily exist)and the question is whether it is ever justifiable homicide. I think Camille Paglia’s statement is along those lines although she comes to a different conclusion than I do.
By the way, New Voice, adoption ain’t what it used to be — an extremely secretive process that requires the mother to surrender her baby at the moment of birth and never know what happened to him or her.
Many, probably most, adoptions nowadays are “open” processes in which the birth mother chooses the parents she wishes to place her child with, and the birth and adoptive parents agree on a level of contact that they are all comfortable with.
Unfortunately, many prospective mothers still have an outdated notion of what adoption involves, and this makes some of them think abortion is preferable to going through life not knowing what happened to their child. There’s still work to be done on increasing awareness of what adoption really involves.
These are the people telling Catholic’s what the can and cannot do in the bedroom???
Former Peoria Priest Arrested on Drug Charges
Reported by: WMBD/WYZZ TV News Staff
Thursday, Sep 11, 2008 @03:21pm CST
WMBD/WYZZ – URBANA – A former Peoria Catholic priest now serving on the U of I campus is in jail for drug possession. 33-year-old Reverend Christopher Layden was taken into custody following police searches of his rectory residence and the nearby St. John’s Catholic Church Newman Center. Urbana Police claim they confiscated three grams of powder cocaine, along with drug paraphernalia, during their search. The arrest followed a two-week police investigation of local drug sales.
Puhleeze!!!