Point of fact, I didn’t even mention it. We lose thousands of people every year to the ravages of alcohol, shall we prohibit? Seeing how well that worked out the last time?
Nope, not a good thing. Your solution is worse than the problem.
Not going there. An embryo is no more a human being than a blueprint is a building. No one will charge you will arson for burning a blueprint.
Personally? I keep my own counsel, I kill it, I eat it, I beget, I raise. Did a reasonable job of it, for an amateur without previous experience. Not entirely successful, but he had a mother, and she insisted on authority to countermand. I even read her from St. Paul on the subject of woman’s rightful subservience, I shudder to report that she laughed in a most impious fashion. Women simply cannot be depended upon to grasp the subtle intricacy of theological thinking. Testosterone deprivation has a devastating effect on cognitive capacity…
(Me? Just surfing the net…no, haven’t forgotten…right away, of course…yes, dear…)
Your argument is based on a dogma: that all embryos are equivalent, morally and factually, to a complete human being. You are welcome to your dogma, and to the moral certitudes it impels. You are not welcome to impose it with the force of law, any more than an extreme Christian Scientist is entitled to abolish medical schools.
Point of fact, it is not merely dogma if it can be shown to be the case without a religious argument. That case can be made, and indeed there are many atheist pro-lifers.
Now, the nature of the political process is the battlefield of ideas. The losing side in this process can always have a complaint that certain beliefs are being forced upon them. I’ve felt this way from time to time, unsurprisingly.
Pro-lifers are perfectly entitled to press for success in the political sphere, especially since the pro-life position is not in and of itself a religious one. Your desire to see this position shut out of politics is not legitimate.
An assertion without substantiation or relevence. I assert that the vast majority of “pro-life” adherents base their positions on religious grounds. If it were not for the civility and reason of your argument with me, I might suspect disingenuousness. Naturally, the definition of “many” is subject to variation. Are there two? Fifty? A thousand? And are you entitled to define any such number as “many”? And even if fully half of all “pro-lifers” are militant athiests, what possible bearing could that have?
The yellow flag hits the grass, foul, ten yards, unsportsmanlike conduct. I have not asserted, nor even suggested, that the question of abortion rights can, or should be, “shut out of politics”. If you can cite otherwise, do so.
The OP premise (based on the mistaken view that every rule and doctrine of the Catholic Church has as its intended end the observance of such rule and doctrine by all persons in the country) was that politicians’ voting based upon the doctrine or instruction of their church might pose a risk of theocracy and that (inferentially) such a mode of voting by politicians (or informing politicians how they may vote and still comply with their religious duties) was not a good idea, and perhaps not legitimate.
The resistance to slavery was religiously-inspired in very large part. (Interestingly, pro-slavery arguments also invoked religion). Since the doctrine that all humans are created equal in God’s eyes is religious, and the doctrine that servants should be obedient to their masters is also religious, we could have avoided the whole Civil War if the OP-type view prevailed (viz., if your political position is religiously inspired, you need to stay silent on it). That we did not avoid the Civil War suggests to me that most people don’t share this view of which political policies may be legitimately advanced and which may not. In a democracy, renouncing some views as less legitimate or valid based on their being (or not being) endorsed by some church is pretty much a poster-child case of the Genetic Fallacy.
I lived in a dry precinct for a period of many months. I also enjoy the odd nip or twelve. My precinct was dry for no other reason than that the Baptists and Methodists who predominated there had voted it dry because their churches (the local variety, at least) had informed them that drinking was sinful. I had absolutely no problem with this democratic outcome even though I find the premise of alcohol being sinful to be ludicrous. Their decision to ban alcohol on grounds that arose solely from religion strikes me as no less (or more) politically legitimate than another community’s (hypothetical) decision to ban it on grounds that arose solely from health concerns.
In other words, in politics we need to debate the idea, not the source of the idea.
No, I have already explained this; RCC dogma is not by itself a good enough basis for law (and I’m Catholic). It must also have a secular basis–i.e., society has a compelling interest in resticting behavior that egregiously harms the rights of another. I believe this is axiomatic, and I also believe you needn’t have affection for any particular religion to believe this. As I’ve pointed out, there are atheists who hold this.
In the end, all laws are the result of someone’s axioms (such as the one I use), your favorites included. Your assertion that embryos are not morally equivalent to a “complete” human being is even more so, IMO. My axiom is pretty straightforward: all human beings have the right to live. A fetus/embryo is unquestionably a human being, albeit one who may not have yet developed consciousness. Feel free to develop calculations for how much “personhood” to assign at various stages of fetal development, but there’s no need to do so for me.
Yet you are so certain you would impose your belief on society, despite the fact that in the event your dogma is false, millions of innocents will die. This is caring? This is compassion? You are welcome to your “dogma,” but you are not entitled to make this the law of the land, any more than a Peter Seeger disciple is entitled to make infanticide an acceptable practice.
Nonetheless, your assertion that an embryo is fully a person rests entirely on your insistence that it is so. Equating abortion with infanticide is emotional propaganda. I understand that it is, in your eyes, entirely justifiable. But that also rests on your insistence that it be accepted without demur. It virtually demands divine endorsement, for there is little enough that is human about a fertilized egg. I could show you pictures of all manner of embryo in the first hours after fertilization, and to save your soul you could tell me which was human, which was iguana, and which kangaroo. Clearly, therefore, it is not the present humanity of the embryo, but the potential humanity.
Now, if you wish to insist that a freshly manufactued soul is installed into the embryo at the moment of conception, you are certainly free to think so. But that is a religious dogma, having no foundation but your faith. Respecting your right to a faith is very different from respecting your insistence on giving your faith the force of law.
He is a Princeton professor and philosopher who believes that infanticide can be a permissible act.
Can you really be missing my point? Your assertion that an embryo is something less than a person rests entirely on your insistence that it is so. You see? You can strongly believe this, but that doesn’t make it so. Why do your axioms “win”?
Please! You can disagree with the position, but I know from prior exchanges with you that you’re intelligent enough to understand that pro-lifers by and large see infanticide and abortion as analogous in the sense we are debating the acts. This is not propaganda–it’s fundamental to this belief.
No, I disagree stenuously. An embryo or fetus is currently human. What else would it be? An ostrich? A toaster oven? It is human. You seem to be trying to define some form of “personhood.” Fine, many have tried. But a fetus is human (check the DNA), and it is a distinct, developing entity–a being that is much more than potential. He is. I don’t need faith for this, since I am not asserting anything other than the fact that a fetus is a human being–which is indisputable.
I have offered no such assertion as a basis for legally banning abortion! It seems as if you very much want me to take that position, but I have emphatically explained that this is not the case. Have you read what I posted? My church teaches that gay marriage is evil, but I don’t believe we have the right to impose this–whether I believe it or not. Please stop trying to reduce my position to, “Well, you simply accept church dogma, and in doing so believe that should be law.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
“Is X a good/bad, acceptable/unacceptable legal policy/principle?”
“Hmmm. I can’t answer that question until you tell me where you got the idea for X. Can’t be too careful – some of these voters and politicians have been trying to trick us into approving ideas that are approved of by their religions.”
That’s the issue indirectly raised by the OP, unless we’re just having the 967,423rd generic debate on Roe.
Just so. For that reason (as well as the entire impossibility of saying anything not already said, over and over) I will drop this argument. This is not to be considered disrespectful of either Moto or Stratocaster, but only that no progress can be made.
In ordinary matters we let the most votes prevail. That’s why it’s okay to let Methodists and Baptists vote a county dry. However, in this matter there are fundamental rights at stake (from the point of view of both sides). When fundamental rights are at stake, we don’t let the democratic process decide. When you are arguing that a fundamental right must be restricted, you have to make a compelling case, and your reasoning may not be based solely on your religious beliefs. That’s how the constitution works. An argument based solely on personal religious dogma may not overturn a fundamental right.
Which would settle the issue if the fundamental right were taken as a given. But because it’s not, and because both sides contend to find a fundamental right at stake (“right to choice” vs. “right to life”), all you’ve done is re-frame the debate.
I can’t keep making this point over and over. Yes, that’s why I have not made a religious argument. I have made a secular argument that is consistent with my religious beliefs. Where my religious beliefs do not support a secular argument for law (which is a secular process and should be, IMO), then I consider that within the province of the purely religious.
Despite having made this point several times in this thread, I continue to be lectured that it’s wrong to give my purely religious beliefs the power of law. I understand, and that’s why I don’t. But politicians like Kerry continue to draw an illogical line between the religious and secular when they ignore the obviously secular elements of an assertion that happens to come from a religious institution (to get back to the OP).
It’s “OK” if you take approved positions that are actively supported by some churches (civil rights efforts of the 60s, nuclear disarmament efforts of the 80s etc… Seriously, would any of the usual suspects here be telling the REVEREND Martin Luther King Jr to keep his religion out of southern politics? )
Right again, Dave. I suppose it’s human nature to assume noble motives for “righteous” activities. Not for something so obviously “wrong” as banning abortion, though. That has to have a narrow-minded foundation that ignores the rights of others in the name of religious zealotry. No other conclusion is possible. (For some, anyway–remind me not to generalize. :))
Merry Christmas, by the way. I haven’t “seen” you in a while.
The Roman Catholic church has always been accomodating and adaptive where it is expedient to their continued proliferation. You don’t grow to a billion adherents, world-wide, any other way. After all the RCC is as much a political organization (Ronald Reagan got the UN to acknowledge the Vatican as an official Nation/State) as it is a religious institution. If they perceived that the majority of Roman Catholics in the U.S. were pro-choice, I have no doubt their “official” position would change accordingly.
And you’d be wrong. The RCC has not changed its position on birth control, despite the fact that surveys have shown a majority (depending upon the survey, a large majority) of Catholics would support this change. You may want to assign political motives to church teachings (and undoubtedly there are some, even if unintentional, since we are all human), but if you’re suggesting that the curch leadership manages to polls, you’re wrong.
Refreshing, though, to see the RCC accused of being responsive to changing public opinion. Probably the first time I’ve seen them accused thusly.
You’d also be surprised by the extent to which the RCC doesn’t think the U.S. is the center of anything. The U.S. bishops, while perhaps the most liberal around, are outnumbered by the Africans, S. Americans, etc., who are uniformly (well, I’m sure there are exceptions) far more orthodox and conservative than American Catholics or American bishops. There may be an African Pope before there’s an American one. If so, you can be even more certain that Church doctrine won’t be changing with American political polls.
This may be the “constant and received teaching of the ‘church,’” but it is not the teaching of the Word of God. Noone can be separated from God’s love or his grace once they have accepted it. Romans 8 clearly establishes this: "28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?
33 Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.
34 Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.
35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37 Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38 For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."
(KJV)(Romans 8:28-39)(KJV)
To say that a particular sin, or kind of sin, could separate anyone from God does despite unto the Spirit of grace and perverts the gospel of Christ (Rom. 1:16). The above statement is often countered by saying this doesn’t cover our own willful disobedience. If you believe this consider Romans 7:
**"18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. "(**Rom 7:18-21)(KJV)
Here is a statement made by the apostle Paul about his own condition, at least twenty years after his conversion. If this is the case with him, can anyone say it isn’t with them? The fact is folks, sin dwells in us…evil is *present * with us. But Romans 8 says “things present” cannot separate us from God. We–those of us who have accepted God’s offer of salvation through Christ–are “sealed unto the day of redemption.” (Eph. 4:30) This is a seal God, the Holy Spirit, places on us that cannot be broken by anything–including our sin(s).
)