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

(no message)

they are special in their own way. How could any parent regardless of their religious association support abortion. Every child is special.

Don’t you love hearing a mom say that at the grocery store or a restaurant or at a school function?

Cracks me up every time.

think that's funny? What point does it prove, other than " I know how the homeys roll and that's how it will go down" White bread pos

For example, there have been a number of studies that have shown that Roe v Wade is what caused crime rates to drop significantly. (Too lazy to look 'em up at this hour, but it's convincing.)

You're also ignoring concepts like nurturing, bonding and imprinting and such (again too lazy to make this somewhat accurate). The point being, almost no one misses the unknown "child" they chose to abort. Yet some people have funerals for miscarriages and such. Seems like the wanting is important in this dynamic.

I am sure there is more that could go into this discussion, but my point is that just because in most cases people who chose to keep the children they did, most often because they were wanted, doesn't mean that the unwanted children and their unwanting parents would be better off.

I'm not sure about the gestational threshold stuff, like after a certain point it's wrong.

I'm not sure about the ethics of aborting a baby that was a result of incest, rape or is found to have defects.

But I wonder if it's ethical to force an unwanted baby, because it would seem like the potential to damage two lives is worse than one on the surface. The concept that it may be better not to be born than being born into a situation without a loving and nurturing parent is real. There is also the environment this child is brought into. Edge case: would it be ethical for a malnourished, raped and impregnated North Korean prisoner to choose to keep the child (assuming they had a choice)?

These are tough questions, and no easy answers.

(no message)

(no message)

became leaders in the world with major contributions to society. Who are you to decide that an infant is better off dead?

And it isn't my choice at all.

"Straw Man"...here is another Catholic theologian's writing on this very topic (see link)...and an excerpt from it...
------------------------
"It is commonly assumed that so called “pro-life” Catholics, by virtue of our acceptance of the church’s teaching on abortion, are morally obligated to vote for political candidates who support the appointment of Supreme Court judges intent on reversing Roe v. Wade. The pursuit of the reversal of Roe v. Wade is, in my view, a legitimate and defensible strategy for implementing Catholic teaching. Although I claim no special expertise in constitutional law, I believe a good argument can be made that Roe v. Wade is based on flawed constitutional interpretation. However, we cannot forget that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would have as its only direct effect a return of the issue to state legislatures. It is far from clear that even the majority of the fifty state legislatures would vote to criminalize abortions. And this is to say nothing of the practical problems associated with legal enforcement of anti-abortion laws or the fact that illegal and unsafe abortions would almost certainly continue.

My larger point is that, as a matter of binding moral principle, what Catholic teaching demands of a conscientious Catholic is a commitment to oppose abortion, not just privately, when faced with such a decision in the life of one’s family, but publicly as well. But, might a conscientious Catholic, precisely because of their convictions regarding the evil of abortion, pursue alternate strategies that in their judgment might be more effective in reducing the number of abortions in our country thancriminalization?

To put the matter simply, could not a Catholic decide that it was more fruitful to change the culture rather than changing the law? I believe the answer is yes. Catholics can quite plausibly and defensibly act on church teaching by committing themselves to the cultivation of societal values that support not only the life and dignity of the unborn, but also the life and dignity of the already born, including the dignity of poor women who, having become pregnant, often find themselves in an impossible situation.

Many Catholics have made the reversal of Roe v. Wade bear the full weight of Catholic opposition to abortion. They have also made opposition to Roe v. Wade a veritable litmus test for Catholic orthodoxy. This approach, however well meaning, has undermined the exercise of prudence by suggesting that regarding certain issues, prudence’s concern for attending to the particulars of practical circumstance were unnecessary."
----------------------

Hopefully, this paper gives you a better understanding of how faithful Catholics may differ in the 'means' toward reducing abortions...certainly my view.


Link: https://richardgaillardetz.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/prudential_judgment_and_catholic_teaching.pdf

(no message)

(no message)

so you're being willfully ignorant by not reading it...IMO, solely because it contradicts your position...that's not what I'd call an example of "Intellectual Integrity"...I can't do anything about it, other than "Call it out".

You can rectify it by providing substantive material of your own that supports your position...so far, I haven't seen any.

wants to read this stuff. Compose a post based on your thoughts and readings and then post your supporting information to anyone that has an opposing viewpoint. Try it. You will get more responses.

their part. For myself, I make a point of reading/viewing what people post and link...oftentimes enabling me to point out more clearly where I believe they are mistaken (just ask Baron)...we come together on this "Open Forum" and share thoughts/opinions...hopefully in a convincing manner...that's what "Links" are for, so I use them...if you believe in good dialogue, you'll read my posts/links as I do yours and others....sound reasonable to you?

As to your asking for my opinion...I agree wholeheartedly with the authors of the linked articles...plus, they go into the issue in more detail and with more insight due to their professional backgrounds than I could...therefore, you are getting a much deeper understanding of what I believe in...and frankly much more than you are providing...which from my vantage point is simply one man's not very well informed opinion.

btw, here's a prime example of using "Judicial Prudence" when deciding who to vote for...we both recognize by now, I trust, that DJT is a malignant narcissist who only seeks to serve himself and is totally unqualified to be the nation's #1 Public Servant...although he says he's "Pro-Life", he has also shown himself to be not only morally corrupt, but a sycophant for our most dangerous foe (Putin), and IMO (with emerging evidence) the planner of a seditious insurrection to overturn our democracy...so, while we all want fewer abortions, many, if not a majority of Americans would be right not to vote for him in 2024, even if he continued to espouse a "Pro-Life" stance...because of the more pressing danger to our country and the rest of the free world....That's how "Judicial Prudence" is exercised in the voting booth...it's the candidate 'In Toto' that Catholics - and all voters - need to assess

(no message)

with all the hours you spend posting on this board, there's no reason for you not to read mine...besides, you'll definitely be the wiser for it.

(no message)

(no message)