(no message)
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". The Jewish religion does not recognize "Personhood" until birth, and even the Catholic Church's 'Magesterium' does not teach that a fetus has "Personhood". Therefore, just as in France...or Mexico...our government needs to guarantee a woman's reproductive choice, whether it be to have a desired pregnancy by IVF, or to reject one that was forced on her against her will...and not let any one religion make such determinations for ALL American women.
Unfortunately, we have a Supreme Court majority that uniformly takes an extremist Catholic perspective that is not supported by actual teaching. Let's talk about this.
You're free to argue the issue from a liberties standpoint, but don't pretend that you have any support from the Church.
rights of others when it comes to such things as Abortion and IVF?
I don't like I.V.F. being outlawed. It does need to be regulated.
And I don't look at abortion as a religious issue. While I don't like it, I think the greater net overall good is served with allowing it very early in the term. Never when the baby can be viable outside the mother. I don't like the idea of trying to legislate "only in cases of rape," because that opens a whole new bunch of issues.
I do not believe the Constitution in any way guarantees abortion as a right. States should do it.
would you agree that a woman should not have to fear for her well-being in any U.S. state?...and if so, why not 'enshrine' that right under federal law?
btw, it sounds as t hough we're close on the objective...if not the rationale.
If Oregon says that a woman can have the procedure in question up to 20 weeks, and South Carolina caps it at 12 weeks, what is it exactly you want the federal government to do? Codify the procedure by name? Implement their own cap?
You keep arguing with me as if I'm pushing for a blanket national ban. I have never in my life said that.
with my secular argument that abortion and IVF are women's rights and should not be infringed ANYWHERE in the USA, and certainly not on the basis of narrow religious grounds...yet they ARE being restricted by numerous STATE laws...given this chaos...reminiscent of the period before Roe v Wade...my position is that the federal government needs to step in again and right this wrong.
I'm hoping I misread you, and if so, would you mind explaining why you posted what you did?
I said that there is no wiggle room in Catholic doctrine on this one. I also don't believe Catholic doctrine is nor should be the basis for the Constitution of a free republic. Those things seem cut and dry.
I then said that you're free to argue the issue from a personal liberties standpoint. I don't agree that this is something that the federal government should be getting directly involved in. You feel otherwise, and that's fine - hence "you're free to argue."
There are states that outlaw plastic straws and want to mandate electric vehicles. There are states that want to recognize "self-identified gender" over biological realities. There are states that want to add all kinds of regulations that grant privileges to illegal immigrants over their own tax-paying citizens. I think these are insane, but I don't like the federal government stepping in. And I believe that the state and local governments would do better to handle this issue.
the "Personhood" of a fetus was under debate...since that time, even critics admit that the Magesterium of the RCC has never taught that personhood begins at conception ...and I've posted such documentation more than once, so it isn't me making stuff up (I make it a point to do my homework before posting). If you'd like to debate the "Wiggle Room" issue, just let me know...I'll be glad to join in.
When it comes to states vs the federal government on such issues as abortion, IVF...If you educate yourself...i.e. reading and Critical Thinking...you'll note the myriad of laws in various states prior to the enactment of Roe v Wade...we've been down this road before...and only federal protection (i.e. law) can ensure that ALL women are free to live their lives and make reproductive choices that are theirs and not someone else's.
There are examples being shown right now of women who need abortions due to pregnancies going wrong ('naturally') at 20 weeks and their survival is being compromised because their state won't allow it...and...they don't have the finances to enable them to seek them in another state..........then there are the couples seeking a child through IVF who have already invested thousands of dollars on top of a ton of emotions who are faced with tremendous loss all because their state has chosen to intervene in their laudable and very private reproductive decision.
There are times when federal laws make the most sense...this is one of them.
As for your wide range of other "hypotheticals," spare me. We can what-if just about everything on the planet and determine that we need a Constitutional Amendment if we try hard enough. No thanks.
(no message)
He keeps twisting and spewing lib vomit on his shoes.
(no message)
(no message)
The erosion began long ago and there's nothing you can do about it. As the Church gives in to The Cult, like the rest of the institutions, its softening of stances on other issues will eventually migrate to the abortion issue.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
He didn't come to repeat everything, and if he failed to mention each one of the 10 Commandments (for example), then the one He failed to mention was null and void. I would say that you don't quite understand why He came if you think that.
Regardless, it is notable that we celebrate the Annunciation (the announcement of Jesus's conception...Jesus was Jesus from the moment of His Conception), and the Visitation (the beginning of John the Baptist's ministry, while he was still in the womb). What does Jesus say?...Jesus spoke (and speaks) through His Church. Jesus established the Church, and gave the first Pope, Peter, the keys to the kingdom of heaven, the authority to bind and unbind on earth, and he stated that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. The Church wrote the Gospels and codified the New Testament. The Church has been consistent that murder (and abortion as a subset of that) is morally illicit.
It's an interesting trick of debate you try to use. Can I assume you are an atheist? Just asking. I was for a while. Just wondering if you are now.
(no message)
gestational development are likely to be killed?
As a non-practitioner, Jesus is a great example of how to live your life. But other than that, it's all political bullshit, and you exemplify that cartoonishly.
Inauthenticity is a prison of your own design.
He did talk about the poor all the time. But screw that - let's focus the culture war on the zygotes and gays and pretend that He seemed to give a shit about them.
I think there's some stuff about "love thy neighbor" in the book. Jesus would totally support gay people. Abortions seem like a completely different philosophical argument. In your mind, how are the two issues remotely similar?
Maybe, hypothesizing here, in your mind gay people have more abortions than cis/hetero/whatever we're calling it?
(no message)
Good luck with this philosophical crusade. You would find more ammo for this argument by listening to folks like Sam Harris.
(no message)
From CNA:
The phrase "conceived and bore" is used repeatedly (see Gen. 4:1, 17) and the individual has the same identity before as after birth. The same word is used for the child before and after birth ("Brephos", that is, "infant" is used in Lk. 1:41 and Lk. 18:15.)
God knows the pre-born child. "You knit me in my mother's womb . . . nor was my frame unknown to you when I was made in secret" (Ps. 139: 13,15). God also helps and calls the pre-born child. "You have been my guide since I was first formed . . . from my mother's womb you are my God" (Ps.22:11-12). "God . . . from my mother's womb had set me apart and called me through his grace" (St. Paul to the Galatians 1:15).
Scripture repeatedly condemns the killing of the innocent.
This flows from everything that has been seen so far. God's own finger writes in stone the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," (Ex.20:13, Deut. 5:17) and Christ re-affirms it (Mt. 19:18 — notice that He mentions this commandment first.) The Book of Revelation affirms that murderers cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven (Rev. 22:15).
The killing of children is especially condemned by God through the prophets. In the land God gave his people to occupy, foreign nations had the custom of sacrificing some of their children in fire. God told His people that they were not to share in this sin. They did, however, as Psalm 106 relates: "They mingled with the nations and learned their works . . . They sacrificed their sons and their daughters to demons, and they shed innocent blood, the blood of their sons and their daughters, whom they sacrificed to the idols of Canaan, desecrating the land with bloodshed" (Ps. 106: 35, 37-38). This sin of child-sacrifice, in fact, is mentioned as one of the major reasons that the Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and the people were taken into exile. "They mutilated their sons and daughters by fire . . . till the Lord, in his great anger against Israel, put them away out of his sight" (2 Kg. 17: 17-18). Not even for "religious freedom" can the killing of children be tolerated.
gestational development are likely to be killed...right?...and this is approved under "Certain Conditions", provided "Prudential Judgement" is exercised.
IMO and others, that same Prudential Judgement comes to bear on unwanted pregnancies, especially since our Pope FRancis, the head of the Papal Magisterium for RCC teaching, states that a fetus is not defined as a Person...if he wanted to cement the notion that "Personhood" begins at conception, he could have just said so and be done with it...he didn't...now you have to deal with that distinction....how do you explain what was said?
28
n Jesus turned to them and said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep instead for yourselves and for your children,
29
for indeed, the days are coming when people will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed.’
30
At that time people will say to the mountains, ‘Fall upon us!’ and to the hills, ‘Cover us!’o
31
for if these things are done when the wood is green what will happen when it is dry?”
This and multiple other biblical references have been covered specifically with you before.
Also, do us a favor and watch the State of the Union on Thursday, and tell us if a person with dementia could do what BIden is about to do. You know, with your expertise.
Your claim that Jesus never mentioned it is false, and it is not the first time that you have been corrected on this.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
To him, cult = "people I disagree with"
Surprising, since he is the Expert on Everything.
(no message)
He’s an unhappy person.
(no message)