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

Intentionally killing this life outside of acting to save another life directly is a grave and mortal sin.

The enemies of the Church wish to spread confusion by getting catholics to buy the idea of life being defined as a “person”, and then getting lost in the weeds of the definition of person.
A “personality” requires a functional brain to develop - an organ, like all of the others,that an embryo has not developed yet.

Human life does not depend on the presence of a personality (which is implied in the term person), because its presence and value dies not hinge in having a specific developed organ - in this caee the brain.

Human life. Is present when the embryo forms at conception and is imbued with a soul.

My experience had been that those misrepresenting the Church on abortion often have a lot a personal stake in the issue. But you can’t argue with God Nd the Church doctrine on this is infallible snd unchanging - even liberal Pope Francis strongly upheld this.

(no message)

That’s very important for everyone to know.

Repentence is necessary. Confession is key.

Nobody with this on their soul should wait even a second to act upon to fix.

Being among a large number committing mortal sin does not protect one from hell.
This isn’t politics.

God’s Will will be done. Only the foolish would think that they can flaunt it when they disagree.

(no message)

...from the "Where Peter Is" article I presented...complete with references to that document..
-----------------------
During the papacy of Saint John Paul II, the Magisterium began to insist that we consider personhood as if it begins at the moment of conception, however. In Evangelium Vitae, John Paul taught this forcefully: “The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life” (60). A few years earlier, the CDF produced a document, Donum Vitae (“Instruction on respect for human life”), which made a similar point: “The human being must be respected – as a person – from the very first instant of his existence” (5.I.1).

Note however, that both the encyclical and the instruction call for the child in the womb “to be respected” as a person from the moment of conception, without definitively teaching that the embryo is a person. Donum Vitae mentions the personhood debate later in the section, stating, “This Congregation is aware of the current debates concerning the beginning of human life, concerning the individuality of the human being and concerning the identity of the human person.” Donum Vitae then quotes from the 1974 CDF document and adds the conclusion, “The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature, but it constantly reaffirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion. This teaching has not been changed and is unchangeable.”

In 2008, this point was again reiterated by the CDF, then led by Cardinal William Levada under Pope Benedict XVI. In the document Dignitas Personae, the Congregation stated, “If Donum vitae, in order to avoid a statement of an explicitly philosophical nature, did not define the embryo as a person, it nonetheless did indicate that there is an intrinsic connection between the ontological dimension and the specific value of every human life” (5).

What does all of this mean? Well, for one thing, it is clear that the Magisterium has acknowledged on multiple occasions that there is a debate about personhood. It is also clear that the Church has not always considered the life of a human person to begin at conception, nor has the Church definitively taught this. That said, the Church has always regarded abortion to be evil from the moment of conception. More recently, the Church has pushed back against the idea that “delayed personhood” is relevant to its position on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. It has taught instead that life, from the moment of conception should be treated and respected as a human person. And in this, Pope Francis has always been in line with Catholic Tradition.
------------------

As with the "Just Wars" issue, the Magesterium leaves room for "Prudential Judgement" of 'nuanced' situations...like forced or coerced pregnancies on women who never wanted them.

"Note however, that both the encyclical and the instruction call for the child in the womb 'to be respected' as a person from the moment of conception, without definitively teaching that the embryo is a person."

What??? Under that "reasoning," no one is a person because there was no age given for one "becomes" a person.

And your statement that the Church leaves room for "Prudential judgment" on whether abortion is okay by a rape victim is just wrong, too. From Google AI: "The Catholic Church holds that direct abortion is a grave moral wrong in all circumstances, including pregnancies resulting from rape, because it considers all human life sacred from the moment of conception. The Church teaches that the child is an innocent victim of the violence, not an aggressor, and should not be punished for the crime of the father."

Why do you constantly come on here and misrepresent this all the time?

(no message)

Very concrete thinking there .

Nihilistic.

You’re a secular humanist. I expect the flippancy but I do not embrace it.

highlights the preeminence of the Woman's (un-debated Person's) Right to decide on whether or not to continue a totally unwanted pregnancy.

up on "Limbo" quite awhile ago.

personally, and engage in discussion. What you're doing is dishonest and cowardly...there's no excuse for that.

(no message)

more, since they don't make up false accusations.

The Ultimate Heresy.

(no message)

goes for Ned...

Note that there are many other publications that have verified it as well...even if they don't like what they heard...like the website "Where Peter Is" that I've posted, which also quotes other Pontiffs making the same determination.

Know that I make a habit of checking my assertions before posting...you never know when the Board's 'Anal-Retentive', Hensou (AKA "Aragoto", or "GOAT") might come out of hiding.

People who have the ability to use logic understand this.

You didn't answer my question (just like you repeatedly refused to answer how Dr. Fareed successfully treated hundreds of patients with HCQ+): Is it your position Pope Francis was okay with abortion up to a certain point?

...contrary to what the Pope has said and expressed and contrary to what the church teaches and believes.

I don't care about Tyrone's views in the least as I know where they originate and what his mission is here.

I do care about a clown deliberately misrepresenting the words of the Pope on a board even unofficially affiliated with Notre Dame. That's the limit of my concern.

Those too stupid to understand what Tyrone is doing here...are why he is here.

passed away this April, and in that time never retracted or amended what he said...i.e. "Therefore, there is a living human being, I do not say a person because this is debated, but a living human being.".

As to the claim that it was an "off the cuff" slip of the tongue...that's not true either, no more than his other comments regarding "....a living human being...". Clearly you don't want to invalidate that part of his comments, so just stop making stuff up...it ruins a reasoned discussion.

btw, just two days ago I posted a complete article from the website "Where Peter Is" that took issue with Francis' "Personhood" comment...which, btw, is an example of open Critical Thinking (see the link)...and found that Pope Francis wasn't the only Pontiff to hold and maintain that position....here (again) is the concluding paragraph from that article...
------------------
What does all of this mean? Well, for one thing, it is clear that the Magisterium has acknowledged on multiple occasions that there is a debate about personhood. It is also clear that the Church has not always considered the life of a human person to begin at conception, nor has the Church definitively taught this. That said, the Church has always regarded abortion to be evil from the moment of conception. More recently, the Church has pushed back against the idea that “delayed personhood” is relevant to its position on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. It has taught instead that life, from the moment of conception should be treated and respected as a human person. Andin this, Pope Francis has always been in line with Catholic Tradition.
----------------

Now, consider that Killing of another Person is also an 'Intrinsic Evil' in the eyes of the RCC...yet, the Catechism allows for the killing of other persons (who may indeed be totally innocent) in the case of "Just Wars" , but only under 'Certain Conditions/Circumstances', and after the use of "Prudential Judgement". We cannot ignore this fact, so let's discuss its relevance to a woman's right to make decisions regarding her ability to reproduce.


Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=273902

You're trying to link up killings in combat to abortion. The Church never has and never will agree with that. So quit pretending that there is something to tie together here.

the killing of other Persons...under certain circumstances. In war, innocent people...even fetuses in mothers' wombs...will be killed. So why allow it?...the answer can only be that there are higher values, like victimized nations being able to preserve their citizens' freedom to live their own lives...so too with women victimized by forced or coerced pregnancies...they too have the right to live their own lives and choose whether or not to carry those pregnancies to term...and the RCC doesn't recognize the fetus as a person, while it does recognize actual, un-debated persons, being killed in a Just War.

This all revolves around the ability of women to make their own decision on reproduction..."While a woman CAN reproduce...MUST she do so under ANY and ALL circumstances...even Forced or Coerced pregnancies?"

(no message)

version of 'Forced'...back to the question...MUST a woman carry a pregnancy to term under ANY and ALL circumstances...even if Forced or Coerced?...Yes or No?

You posted one of your usual McStats about it, and then your source had to spill the beans about their basis for "coercion."

It's nonsense. All of it.

force, pressure"...all examples in the case of Un-Wanted Pregnancies...

Do women have NO recourse to such attacks on their reproductive decision making?...is that what you favor?

And your "supporting" source for all of the alleged coerced incidents was clearly nonsense.

You are not respected nor taken seriously here. You are failing at what your handlers are asking you to do.

If so, you are definitely on the outer fringes of American thought on women's rights when it comes to abortions...let's hear you clearly state your position on the question...

You're trying to hide again now that you've lost (again).

...by repeating debunked fallacies and introducing topics wholly irrelevant to his initial deliberate misrepresentation (like polls of Americans would have some sway here) in order to prolong the dialog.

Maybe he does...from those who directed him here.

He’s now calling everyone who dismisses him a coward.

As if he’s a victim who is entitled to gaslight.

(no message)

circumstances...and this includes Catholics...in fact the Majority of Catholics support the legality of abortion in All or Most Cases.

It's YOU who are in the minority...now try to understand why you're NOT on the 'Moral High Ground'.

One can favor making this legal in society for various reasons, while still opposing it morally. This applies to almost anything.

You're trying to pretend that the Church has an ambiguous position. You know that they don't (and shouldn't). So don't pretend that there is room to "engage" you on the point.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

months before I joined the OF...it's over...move on.

And...I have never claimed to ignore you while posting about you...see the difference?

(no message)

in a discussion. If you don't want to engage then stop 'sniping' from the sidelines like a coward.

Nothing will stop him from lying about this. His main purpose is to misuse Catholic teaching to support the Democrat Platform. The Democrat Platform is the source of his "morality," not Church doctrine.

right of all women to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy they never wanted to term.

With that in mind, I'll repeat my question..."While a woman CAN reproduce, MUST she do so under ANY and ALL circumstances?"...Keep in mind that the RCC sanctions the killing of other persons, even totally innocent debated persons in "Just War" circumstances, provided certain conditions are met and that "Prudential Judgement" has been used.

If a woman "chooses" to abort I "feel" that she should so before the fetus is viable.

As to when "life" begins.... that seems like a very arbitrary "legal" decision.

There have been societies in which infanticide was legal.


Link: https://ebrary.net/89446/history/history_infanticide_cultures_time_periods#google_vignette

...after Roe there was much less need for late term abortions...and none for "Back Alley" abortions. Which is the better scenario?

Link: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/women-reflect-on-what-life-was-like-before-roe-v-wade

(no message)

(no message)

a) Make contraceptives widely available and affordable
b) Increase Sex and Sexuality Education for Everyone, including age appropriate lessons for kids, as well as adults.
c) Pass legislation for programs that make it more tenable for women with unwanted pregnancies to carry them to term.

i.e. Tackle the Root Cause for Abortions...Unwanted Pregnancies...and not use government force on women to give birth to them.

(no message)

...spread the news...