UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

Because of 2270-71, to answer the question in your last paragraph.


You have no doctrinal basis to challenge those teachings, so let's set aside the bullshit you are piling on Pope Francis' grave.

Wash hour mouth out, Ned ;-)…Pope Francis removed the “latae sententiae”…i.e. Automatic penalty of Excommunication for all those involved in an abortion, such as the one involving the 9 yr old girl in Brazil. That’s a Doctrinal Change that actually happened and that I informed you of…so it is you who is wrong on that score.

You are making a non-religious argument:

What I just noted is indeed religious…at least from a Roman Catholic perspective.

You are making a secular argument that it is permissible, even preferable, for the law to transfer harm from one innocent human being to another innocent human being. We don't typically (ever?) do this.

Not sure of your logic here…there is no ‘Equivalence’ between a fetus (non-established Person) and a pregnant woman (fully recognized Person). The fact of the matter, by virtue of almost universal recognition of the ‘Primacy’ of a Mother’s well-being over that of a fetus…and this is especially true in cases where her body has been assaulted with sperm that biologically activates her reproductive system against her will. This is also universally accepted as criminal, thus affording her the choice of remedy at her sole discretion…which can include abortion.

Further, you argue that it is morally better to kill one of two innocent human beings than to allow the other of the two human beings to suffer. I suppose this is preferable for you because the harm is visible, whereas the killing is hidden. But that is not how we judge morality...and because you know this, you are left with defining a class of human beings as "not persons." Can you think of any other circumstance in which such an argument (that some humans aren't persons) was used to justify a net good? I can't. Instead, history is full of examples in which such logic was used to justify killing Jews, enslaving blacks, killing the mentally handicapped, forced sterilization, etc. Those are the traditions which your "prudential" argument puts you in the middle of.

Here’s where Pope Francis’ actual statement asserting that ‘Fetal Personhood’ is under debate comes into play…both religiously and secularly. The RCC has no specific rites or recognition for the millions of embryos that fail to implant, nor the millions of miscarriages that befall women each year, and never has, so religiously it is understandable why fetal personhood is debated…and in the secular world as well. Therefore, asserting ‘Killing’ or ‘Murder’ is inappropriate…and btw, other religions (e.g. Judaism) don’t recognize Personhood until birth.

Let’s be clear on my moral view…I’m standing up for women’s reproductive rights, especially when they are violated through force or coercion…rights that you seem to have no respect whatsoever for. I have also repeatedly voiced my desire to reduce the number of abortions through means that do not violate those rights…a) Availability of Contraceptives…b) Sex/Sexuality Education for all age (with age-appropriate content)…and c) Funding for programs that make carrying unwanted pregnancies to term more acceptable to women.

Some times morality requires tough decisions. If we change morality when living it becomes too hard, then it is not really morality, is it. Why bother having a set of "rules" which change whenever you want? Just do what you want.

Turn your perspective around…Tough decisions are being made…i.e. Actual Killing of real Persons under Prudentially Justified special circumstances in “Just Wars”…or, removing the penalty of Excommunication for Abortions, and the ability of all RCC priests to Absolve participants through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. RCC Doctrine is a living guideline that changes and is changing in response to new and better knowledge. (Don’t confuse Doctrine with Dogma).

BTW, you like to talk about the 9 year old. I get it. That is a terrible case. But it seems like you are using her special case to justify millions of other abortions. What about the 30 year old who wants a son and not a daughter?....or doesn't want to interrupt her career?...or doesn't want her husband to know she was having an affair? Do you think that woman should be able to get a legal, purely elective abortion?

I am “Bounding” the problem with that reference. If you can’t see the need for official RCC Mercy for those involved in that terrible case, you are sorely lacking in that quality and incapable of making “Prudential Judgements”.

As I’ve noted several times on the OF…at any point in time in the U.S., there are on the order of 6M women who have experienced a forced or coerced pregnancy, totally against their will…every bit as traumatizing, harmful, life changing and freedom robbing as the case involving the Brazilian girl. I suspect you do see the justification of abortion in such cases, but refuse to acknowledge it so that not one 30 yr old wanting a daughter instead of a son ‘gets through’ with their abuse of legalized abortion…i.e. you are willing to terrorize all the women in America, and knowingly cause them MORE harm (e.g. Self and Back Alley abortions) in your quest for a “Perfect” solution to abortion…a goal that is impossible to achieve.

I can, and will, go on as this issue arises in the future…but we can stop here in our dialogue if you wish.

BTW, I very much appreciate your willingness thus far to engage with candor, honesty and maturity…even if occasionally ‘Irreverently” ;-).