I think people need to separate religious ritual from religious ethics. A politician has no business passing laws to make everyone pray to Jesus or facing Mecca. But abortion is a moral issue. Pro-lifers think abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. People should follow their conscience wherever they are, whether the floor of Congress or their own parlor, and whether their conscience was formed by the Catholic Church, the Quran, or trying to reconcile abstract moral principles in their own head. That way, they may be wrong, but at least they’ll have integrity. When Quakers worked on the Underground Railroad because their faith said that everyone, even black slaves, is equal before the Inner Light, should they have been told they could privately think what they wanted, but keep their dumb-ass Magic Sky Pixie out of the dealings of law-abiding businessmen?
That’s sort of the point. Kerry, as I heard him, isn’t actively striving to install laws that facilitate abortion. The position appears to be that he thinks abortion is wrong, others disagree, have the law on their side and are free to choose their own path without governmental interference.
If a law banning abortions ever comes to a vote in the senate, then you can castigate Kerry and any other Catholic legislator who votes for it.
coffeecat Are you comparing this to things like the Underground Railway which was against the law but a good thing? I don’t think that applies here because Kerry isn’t actively working to facilitate abortion and even if he were it isn’t against US law. However, I would agree that if he contributed support to clinics or advised people to get abortions while still saying he believed in the Catholic Church’s doctrine on the matter he would be contradicting himself.
Why wait? I haven’t dug through every link in the cite, but he did appear to vote for the Roe v. Wade bill that came up in '99. Is that close enough?
Seriously, has he ever voted for any restriction on abortion that you’re aware of? Isn’t Kerry one of many NARAL darlings based on his voting record? You’re aware that the Senate has regularly had legislation in front of it that affects access to abortions, right? And that Senator Kerry actually has a voting record on these matters? If not, let me give you a hint: It’s not a record one would typically associate with someone who holds the RCC’s teachings on abortion close to his heart.
I’m tired of defending Kerry because, as a matter of fact, I don’t really care if the Pope grabs him by the collar and throws him off the balconey into St. Peter’s Square.
So I’ll close with this. The right of every innocent being to life is not, in fact, “inviolable.” My understanding is that the Catholic Church allows medical procedured needed to save the life of a mother even if the procedure results in the death of the fetus. This includes abortion in case of an ecoptic, or tube, pregnancy. In this case the abortion is a “medical procedure” and not murder. The Church has thus made a choice that the mother’s life comes first. It is entirely possible that Kerry has made the decision that when he is acting as a US Senator his first duty is to support what he considers to be good public policy and best for the US. In other words, if the Church can make exceptions to “inviolable” rights at its choosing, then I can decide what public policy should be, independent of the Church’s chatechism.
That’s bad darts, friend. Do you not concede that Kerry is an active participant in the existence of abortions? That point was important to you a while ago.
The church holds that the mother’s life is no less important than the fetus’s. In instances where a procedure necessary to remove the mother from grave, life-threatening danger has the secondary effect of destroying the fetus, that can be justified. If you view this as a capricious, random exception, feel free. Seems perfectly logical to me. And even if you don’t find it so, the fact is that the RCC has specific teachings on the matters, and Kerry has suggested that he believes them.
And Kerry could well have decided what you suggest. And that would mean–wait for it–that he does not, in fact, believe what the RCC teaches with regard to abortion. That’s the point. He’s a hypocritical d-head with regard to this particular position. If the matter means nothing to you, then don’t spend so much time debating it.
I’m disagreeing with Voyager’s and Kimstu’s idea that separation of church and state means that religion shouldn’t get involved in the government when it comes to ethics. I’m not talking about Kerry specifically.
Just to clarify: I didn’t mean to suggest that religious organizations shouldn’t be politically active about ethical issues. I’m just opposed to the idea that it’s adequate for them to justify their ethical stance solely by appeals to their particular religious principles, if the issue in question affects people who belong to different religious groups.
The idea that a fetus is a fully human person from the moment of conception is a matter of opinion, and an item of religious doctrine, not an objective fact. I’m cool with the Catholic Church trying to encourage other people to share that opinion, but I’m not cool with them saying that Catholic politicians deserve religious punishment if they refuse to legislatively force that opinion down the throats of constituents who do not subscribe to Catholic beliefs.
If Catholic legislators are not allowed by Church doctrine to vote for any laws contrary to Church doctrine—even when that’s the will of the constituents whom the legislators are paid (and sworn) to represent—then Catholics should simply not be seeking legislative office at all.
If the Church wants to argue that you can’t serve both God and Mammon, okay then, don’t serve Mammon. But in that case, you shouldn’t ask Mammon for a job and take Mammon’s wages while refusing to perform the tasks specified in Mammon’s employment contract. And that’s what the Church in this case seems to be telling Catholic legislators to do.
I’d expect he’d respond that he accepts church teaching for his personal actions, but rejects it for the actions of others, especially those not in the church. Would you expect him to go with the church over the Constitution? Clearly anyone who feels that way has no right to take an oath of office, so I’d expect that Kerry does not.
You can make a moral and ethical argument against murder with no investment in religion at all. If fetuses could talk, there would certainly be no issue, right? The whole controversy stems from the lack of any clear place where protected human life begins, and the desire to enforce one view of this on all people.
Murder of a walking talking person is clear. “Murder” of a brain dead person is not so clear.
And it still is. I’m just tired of defending him. It does look like you have a basis for criticisim him based on your postulates.
Assuming the Church position can be justified, the “inviolable right to life from conception” is out the window since this is a violation. If one exception is allowed there might very well be others. Possible exceptions must be examined on a case by case basis and not disallowed a priori.
I believe that the following positions are not contradictory.
a) I believe that the rules of the Catholic Church are the best way for me to conduct my life.
and
b) The best program for conducting my life isn’t necessarily the best way to conduct the affairs of the secular government of a nation with a large and diverse population.
As to the specific matter of abortion. if the Church allows an exception to the “inviolable” right in one case then is isn’t legitimate for it to insist that a politician limit everyone in the nation to that one exception. Other people might have a different definition of when that right attaches. For example, I don’t agree with the Church’s rule as to when the right comes into being.
At the moment of conception there is a single cell. Later that becomes a small cluster of cells that have no more humanity about them than a small piece of skin that I would discard without hesitation. Nature, or God if you prefer, acts the same way as various web sites give a figure of 10-20% of such cell clusters being discarded by miscarriage before implantation in the wall of the uterus. Up to 20% are discarded shortly after implantation.
The Church appears to consider that at conception a “soul” has been activated and that constitutes a person. I know of no attempt to specify what this soul is, how it is activated, and whether is resides in the sperm, the egg, or both. In my opinion this is nonsense. After all, it takes about 3 weeks for thenervous system to even begin to form. Up until then, as far as I’m concerned we are still dealing with a cluster of cells.
In view of this I resent anyone telling the political leaders that they must inflict on me and everyone else the code of conduct as regards abortion developed by them for their members. It is arbitrary and not based on biology. If the hierarchy of the Catholic Church insists that Catholic politicians follow their rules at all times then they are either working to impose their particular rules on all or to remove Catholics from being politicians.
Well, I disagree with that also. It is not a matter of religion being involved, but of legislators putting religion before the Constitution of their own consciences. Believing that abortion is wrong because a God you accept says so does not imply that you should coerce others into this, and thus in a sense accepting the validity of someone else’s god. Person X might believe in a god who says abortion is acceptable - who is the Pope to say Congress should make laws enforcing the will of his God but not the other.
Perhaps Kerry understands that he believes by faith and not proof, and so he doesn’t have the right to make those without his faith live by it. It’s exactly the kind of subtle point that got him in trouble during the election.
Sure it does. If you really think abortion, or the death penalty, or the war in Iraq, or wearing white after Labor Day, or whatever is wrong, is evil, then you have a moral obligation to try to stop it from happening. What sort of person sits by and says, “Oh, yeah, I think that doing X is horrifically evil and terrible, but if you want to go ahead and do it, do it, because hey, who am I to judge.”
That’s not tolerance, that’s just apathy, and that’s been responsible for at least as much suffering as somebody forcing his will on somebody else.
doesn’t a person who is in a position of authority need to ask whether something is objectively wrong or he merely thinks its wrong because of pre-conditioning? After all abortion in the first trimester is legal in France, Italy, Norway, UK, Switzerland, not to mention the US, so millions upon millions of people do not agree that it is wrong under certain conditions.
If you are one of the lawmakers in a country with a population having divers views I think it is pigheaded to insist that something is wrong, wrong, wrong when the evidence is that many countries allow it without great damage to their society.
But if he accepts that certain moral beliefs can be imposed as law, and he believes the RCC’s teachings on abortion ( he says he does), then he couldn’t come to the conclusion you suggest. That’s my point.
Again, I wasn’t trying to make this an abortion debate per se. The point is that in Catholic belief, no such “grayness” exists, and Kerry says he accepts this.
I agree that the term “inviolable” is impractical in virtually everything. But why doesn’t the church’s a priori position right now operate quite logically and fine? The RCC’s position is that it is never acceptable to conduct an act whose primary objective is to destroy a fetus. No exceptions. I don’t see the slippery slope issue you seem to.
You may find it inconsistent for some reason, but it is by definition legitimate within the context of church law, law that Kerry accepts.
Again, I’m not attempting to make the church’s case on abortion here (full disclosure, I do accept it). I am pointing out two facts: (1) What that teaching is and (2) that Kerry accepts it. Back to the OP, then, IMO it is absolutely acceptable for the RCC to point out its own laws and teachings. In our society, a politician can say, “Sorry, I don’t buy it,” as you have (not that you ever felt an obligation to the RCC). Guys like Kerry want it both ways–to appear in line with both orthodoxies, the Church’s and their parties, when those positions are irreconcilable. It’s gutless hypocrisy. That remains my only point here.
I think the real question is what exactly does Kerry accept? That abortion is a wrong, yes. That his belief (and it is a belief) that abortion is a wrong obligates him to impose it on others who don’t feel that way, maybe not.
The difference between abortion and euthanasia and murder is that there is dispute between people of good will on the very definitions.
This issue gets to the very hearts of concerns that atheists, and others, have with religions’ place in politics. Is it proper for religion to try to impose moral absolutes that are arrived at through faith? The Pope says yes, and Kerry clearly says no. Perhaps the right thing for him to have done was to say that demands that the bishops could blow it out their ears for trying to force him to vote to impose Catholic morals on everyone - but he is a politician, and that would be asking a bit much.
IIRC, the Vatican II admitted that non-Catholic Christians were saved and not just essentially godless heretics. Isn’t that right? So you could leave the church and not be afraid of going to hell for that alone.
I’m way too Protestant to get that at all. The churches I’ve gone to have always emphasized belief and relationship over the actual organization, and by quite a bit. I’m always a little schocked when I hear this insistence that only the Catholics are right enough for God at all.
The sort of person that understands that ‘evil’ is a human construct that gets inserted into an equation to bring irrational emotion to the table, wholly dependent upon individuals’ sense of right and wrong, and if government were to prohibit everything someone considered ‘evil’ we’d be in a pretty miserable place.