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

Assume one’s faith subscribes to no alcohol, no pre-marital intercourse, no meat on Fridays. Does it make sense such tenets should be codified as state or federal laws? That is, should a particular religious faith be the North Star for legislation?

Or, should legislation, consistent with separation of church and state, be faith neutral?

Why can’t one reject abortion in their own lives as part of their Catholic faith, yet recognize that women remain best positioned to make reproductive decisions about their bodies per their faith or non faith?

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

religions differ in their views on abortion, it is wrong for our government to impose and enforce laws that support only a small minority's opinion...this is not the 'Catholic States of America'.

btw, it is ludicrous to assume that only 9% of Americans own the moral high ground on this issue.

Hopefully, someone will Bmail this post to Baron ;-).

The issue is simple: Is a human being formed at the moment of conception? If yes, abortion is murder and should be illegal. If no, then abortion is no different than removing an appendix.

made up of many different people representing several religions...or no religion at all...the Jewish faith believes that "Personhood" begins at Birth, while Muslims, Hindus and other Christian sects accept Personhood as beginning at "Quickening"...do a search with my name and the key words "Personhood" or "Quickening"...you'll see the documentation I used to verify those statements.

This is not the "Catholic States of America"...we, as a country, work as a democracy with each citizen getting a vote...and 80-90% of Americans have consistently expressed their moral view on abortion since at least 1975...they want abortion to be legal.

Now try doing what no other Pro-Life poster here has been able to do...tell me WHY this is so...

You need this to be about religion, because you are playing a game with multiple religions. But, murder of unborn humans is no more a religious issue than murder of any other subset of society not based on age, say, murder of humans based on race. If murder based on race (instead of age, or physical location, or state of dependency) were legal in the United States, rest assured, the religious pro-life movement would be fighting to ban raced based murder. Would you oppose them because they are trying to impose their religious views on others? But, the fact that they oppose it doesn't mean it is solely a religious issue. It would be wrong by secular standards, too. The same secular reasons for banning one also apply to the other.

If you think age killing is fundamentally different than race killing, please explain why? I think both are wrong morally for religious reasons, and both should be illegal for secular societal reasons.

Democrats, Libertarians, Independents, etc. say abortion should be legal...that's 'Common Ground' enough for me...why can't you see this? Every last one of them knows what "Murder" is, and what "Abortion" is...yet their decision is clear...make abortion legal.

btw, none of those 91%ers believes that unwanted pregnancies are "Gifts from God"...especially not those due to rape, incest or marital abuse...they are plain and simple physical attacks on those women and they should never have to bear the lifetime burden as a result...IF they don't want to.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

access, and threats have been made by legislators to make abortion for any reason illegal.

(no message)

them...sound like a deal?

You're an evil man. I was busting chops before. It wasn't clear to me until now what you truly are.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

You do that a lot here...say that something is Catholic when it is not...you use the sins or just lack of knowledge of Catholics to define Catholic doctrine, which is obviously insane, not to mention disingenuous. You should stop doing that. Make your positions stand on their own. Don't use Catholicism to support something that is not Catholic.

Now, as to what we should do in a pluralistic democratic republic...

Laws properly address consequential morality (which is primarily secular, albeit with religious overlap): Abortion is as much of a religious issue as burglary, theft, assault and murder. These are sins, but they are also crimes because there are victims. We don't outlaw them because they are sins. We outlaw them because there are victims. No one thinks laws that protect victims are forcing religion on other people. Disagreement by religions about abortion should be entirely irrelevant to abortion laws, since this is not a religions issue. It is a protection of victims issue...the primary function of government.

Laws should not address non-consequential morality (which is purely religious):Abortion is not a religious issue like contraception is a religious issue. In contraception, there is no victim. With successful contraception, no conception occurs, so there is no victim. Passing laws to force religion like that on people is wrong, and I would vote against that as a violation of the 1st Amendment.

I believe the Church in all things. I don't enforce my religion on anyone. I do support laws which protect victims.

their will?...that's the problem we have here, the supposed Pro-Life advocates like yourself condemn those women and every other woman yet to be born who has and Unwanted Pregnancy to a lifetime burden they never wanted, because of your religious belief...that is not shared by other religions...in fact it is a minority belief...again the Jewish faith believes that Personhood begins at Birth...while other major religions believe it occurs at "Quickening" and not conception...for the government to use its civil powers to fine and imprison victims of crimes is bizarre, not to mention incredibly cruel.

btw, the RCC teaching (Humanae Vitae) says that artificial contraception is "Intrinsically Evil"...yet you and I both would agree that makes no sense...I'll be glad to talk more about that if you or anyone else wishes to.

Also, if the conception was due to a voluntary act, and not by victimizing the mother, then are you willing to accept greater restrictions on abortion? if not, then all abortions are the same to you, and we don't need to address the special cases in which the woman was victimized, because you want abortions in all cases no matter what.


The reason Humanae Vitae should not be codified into law is that it sets forth non-consequential morality (NCM...victimless morality). The Church can legitimately address NCM with its powers of persuasion; but the State should not address NCM (victimless crimes) with its powers of coercion. Separation of Church and State means no codification of NCM.

But, CM, or consequential morality, is different. It can be legitimately addressed both by the persuasion of the Church and the coercion of the State. There is no controversy on this point. Every sane person believes that theft, assault, burglary, murder (all condemned by secular CM) can legitimately be made illegal by the State regardless of whether the Church condemns it as sin or not. Abortion is just one type of homicide. You cannot argue it is not without denying science, or denying basic human rights to an individual (the child).

Moreover, we do not, as a general rule, allow a victimized person to take out their hardship on another innocent person. Abortion is an exception to that rule. You are arguing for that exception to the normal rule. We have allowed, and we still allow, many evils in society. We used to allow slavery. We did away with that, even though I'm sure slavery supporters were able to use polls of Christians to support slavery. Hopefully we can do the same with abortion.

Abortion has an innocent victim. We can ans should stop making more victims, and we should focus on helping mothers with crisis pregnancies.

Off to Vegas now. Pardon typos. I did all of this post on my phone.

abortion as "Killing"...that's a fact..what's your response to that?

Seems to me a pretty clear-cut case of the definition.

The message is very clear on those who are true believers and those who are not. Let the truth abide in you, brother Baron!

15 Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father[d] is not in them. 16 For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world. 17 The world and its desires pass away, but whoever does the will of God lives forever.

(no message)

Link: https://youtu.be/f3VHK1NXIBw

ONE: Ceremonial Law
The ceremonial law related specifically to Israel’s worship (see Lev 1:2-3, for example). Its primary purpose was to point forward to Jesus Christ; these laws, therefore, were no longer necessary after Jesus’ death and resurrection. While ceremonial law no longer binds us, the principles behind them—to worship and love a holy God—still apply. The Pharisees often accused Jesus of violating ceremonial law.

TWO: Civil Law
The civil law applied to daily living in Israel (see Deut 24:10-11, for example). Because modern society and culture are so radically different from that time and setting, all of these guidelines cannot be followed specifically. But the principles behind the commands are timeless and should guide our conduct. Jesus demonstrated these principles by example.

THREE: Moral Law
The moral law (such as the Ten Commandments) is the direct command of God, and it requires strict obedience (see Exod 20:13, for example). The moral law reveals the nature and will of God, and it still applies today. Jesus obeyed the moral law completely.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL
God gave His laws to help people love God with all their hearts and minds. Throughout Israel’s history, however, these laws had often been misquoted and misapplied. By Jesus’ time, religious leaders had turned the laws into a confusing mass of rules. When Jesus talked about a new way to understand God’s law, he was actually trying to bring people back to its original purpose. Jesus did not speak against the law itself but against the abuses and excesses to which it had been subjected (see John 1:17).

“Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God’s law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. So if you ignore the least commandment and teach others to do the same, you will be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven. But anyone who obeys God’s laws and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven!” — MATTHEW 5:17-20

Now, are you going to go tattle on me again?


Link: Does the Law still apply?

demonstrates your incredible Hubris...America is a land where ALL religions are RESPECTED, yet you are imposing YOUR set of values on everyone else. This country conducts its business, and writes its laws based on the interests and votes of ALL Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs.

In your vain attempt to discredit Scripture I showed precisely why you are wrong. You are the very spirit of the antichrist.

Non-Christians to endure a lifetime burden that their faith does not consider necessary....in America, that's wrong.

My use of that West Wing video also shows how truly antiquated some scripture passages can be...and that includes New Testament passages...btw, I took the time to look at a few reviews of Paul's writings (e.g. Romans 1) and several, if not all of the theologians agreed that they included his 'Personal Opinions' formed at the time he lived, with the knowledge available...therefore, it gets murky trying to ferret out what parts are his own opinions and what is considered 'divine' revelation...in this life, we'll never know., so to me it is wise to not take them too literally. Irregardless, it is inappropriate for one religious set of beliefs to be the sole guide for government laws.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

Or any of the other things you guys obsess about.

“ 28 But Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, stop weeping for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. 29 For behold, days are coming when they will say, ‘Blessed are those who cannot bear, and the wombs that have not given birth, and the breasts that have not nursed.’ 30 Then they will begin to say to the mountains, ‘Fall on us,’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us.’ 31 For if they do these things [a]when the tree is green, what will happen [b]when it is dry?”
- Luke 23: 28-31

believe ti occurs at "Quickening" (e.g. ~21 wks)?...or the Protestant sects the share such a view?...or Hindus who allow abortion?

Are you trying to say that God has already chosen sides here and folks with your narrow view are the WINNERS!?...sound a bit pretentious to you?...even a little bit?

(no message)

27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Abortion - Galatians 1:15 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased

And the second one is only about abortion if you twist and stretch.

But go ahead and throw your country away for it.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

He must have talked about it all the time, given the priority you all give it.

(no message)

There are all kinds of passages where babies in the womb are mentioned in the bible. I went looking for the visitation passage, and stumbled on this one, where Jesus refers to "the children within you" in Luke 19.

The Visitation:
Recall that ministry of John the Baptist, to proclaim the coming of Jesus Christ, began while he was still in the womb, as told in Luke 1:
"And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

The babe leaping in the womb for joy is John the Baptist...his first proclamation that the Messiah, also in the womb, had come to the world.

There is the famous passage where God said "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart."

Also, realize that the Bible gets its legitimacy from the Church, and not the other way around. The Church compiled the Bible. If the Church had no authority to proclaim doctrine, then the bible is just a bunch of chicken scratch. The Bible is just scriptural tradition. There is other tradition as well, and together, they make up Catholic Doctrine. So, we don't need to find Jesus saying something to know what is Catholic (or what was Christian for 1500 years, until Luther came along).

Granted, all this only speaks to whether Catholics can pretend that abortion is moral (which they cannot legitimately do). The above says nothing about whether abortion laws are proper under our system of government. For that, you have to consider that we generally only allow consequential laws (laws to stop aggression, to prevent victimization), and the abortion laws are consequential in that they do protect a victim, so they are justifiable with purely secular and legal reasoning.

abortions...in fact, based on polling of ALL Americans for nearly 50 years, somewhere near 90% of ALL Americans believe abortion should be legally available..

(no message)

legal or not?...I hope you aren't so deep into your own faith that you can't respect any else's right to vote on such an important issue.

But those "Christian" scriptures you loathe are actually pretty important to Catholics too as I understand it.

You've revealed your true nature this evening. You are a false believer. The spirit of the Antichrist.

as the basis for all laws...or, should all our laws be based on the votes of ALL Americans, regardless of their religious beliefs?

I dutifully showed him where Jesus does discuss this in Scripture. You thought you'd be equally clever and post a clip to a TV show. That was Biblically swatted away as well. You started in with all the legislation and Hindu nonsense.

People are free to vote however they like. The legislatures can enact laws they feel are representative of their constituents wishes. People are free to take advantage of the legal process afforded them in those laws.

But as someone who claims to be a believer, do not claim there isn't punishment on an eternal scale for those choices.

So, it’s A-OK with him. Morality or logic has nothing to do with it.

number of abortions, thru 'Making Contraception widely available' (vigorously opposed by the USCCB)...providing Sex/Sexuality education to kids (Vigorously opposed by Republicans)...and $$ for parental assistance that makes having a child more affordable (Vigorously opposed by Republicans)

All the GOP can come up with is criminalization of unwanted pregnancy abortions, with fines and jail terms...while knowingly creating unsafe 'Illegal Abortions' .

The Argument Doesn’t Hold. The statement that abortion is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible is technically correct. However, this allegation falls prey to the logical fallacy of assuming that because an act is not mentioned in Scripture, the Bible therefore approves of that act. After all, Scripture does not specifically condemn many other evils, such as pyramid schemes, terrorism, carjacking and kidnapping. Does this mean that Christians should not oppose these evil acts either?

The “Bible and abortion” argument is a mere diversion, like all of the other pro-abortion slogans. Some people mock Christians who look to the Bible for moral direction, claiming that people should not need the Bible in order to know that certain acts, such as murder and stealing, are wrong. Of course they are half-right ― these sins are against the law of nature and nature’s God, so they are unjustified by any means. But we can also extend such reasoning to include abortion. Christians do not need the Bible to tell us that abortion is wrong, because science concludes without a shadow of a doubt that the preborn child is a human being and reasonable people can agree that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings.


Link: Read...

The entire Bible is the inspired word of God. Since Jesus is God, He DID speak about it. Directly. And authoritatively.

And the Bible being divinely inspired. So yes, Jesus did in fact did make an appearance in these books. I am not sure what your point is here? In fact, the entire Bible is about the Messiah That's Jesus. All 66 books. I am sure at some point at ND you did hear at least THIS much, yes?

Not sure exactly how this is throwing away the country. Seems as though a culture of death and LBGTQ issues are doing precisely that on their own. Again, not clear what your point is here.

(no message)

(no message)