ps, I did want to add: I wasn't offering a 'scientific' argument. Nor was MadMax. MadMax's appeal was to compassion... and I mentioned the oddity that pictures of the very viable fetus is not necessarily something that many people want to see. The fetus early on is simply homologous to pigs/etc. I like to put in snide remarks, but I respect all life, and I completely abhor abortion. I just don't think that people more pragmatic than me would use some of the arguments they do now, were they to know the full extension of their beliefs.
Achebe, I guess I should apologize for ass-uming (lol) your position on abortion. I thought it was a sincere argument, but I see that it was just a light-hearted comment. Sorry about that. PS I'm not going around chasing you looking for your posts. Don't read too much into my responses, I'm not trying to make it personal at all. That's why I included a little . I thought we established some good rapport as well. I don't want to break your heart but I think we will have to "argue" in the future on some things.
Actually the Pope and the Vatican doctrine has been crystal clear against capital punishment world wide. Every bit as clear as with the doctine against abortion--and I am pretty sure the church's doctrine and arguments against the death penalty has been in place far longer than the doctrine concerning abortion.
I agree with you...mostly. Some things in the Bible are pretty clearly set forth as far as rules go. There's lots of places where God says..."Do this, or else," and lots of places where Jesus says..."To be with the Father in Heaven do this or that." So I think there have been SOME rules set out in the Bible. The problem is that churches set rules with the true intention of helping people live better lives and guiding their avoidance of sin. It's when the churches believe these rules or guides become divine mandate is when problems arise.
The Pope has spoken out about Gulf War II as well as capital punishment. It is interesting how supposedly conservative observant Catholics ignore both the capital punishment and his proclamations about starting a war with Iraq.
Lol MrClutch, it's 'all good'... when I looked back over my initial post, I saw the smart-alecy tone that would have led you to believe that I was harassing MadMax. Sorry about any ill-tone (word?) in my subsequent posts. On a random aside, it was actually some of the 'non-scientific' sort of appeals to compassion that led me to value life. I think it was kind of a wellspring from being a vegetarian for a while, being able to confer respect to non-human organisms before I could finally come back into tow and stop being (so much of a) misanthrope (senescence == conservatism). I still have an intuition that abortion should be a non-issue in politics (more of a weird southern gentleman idea about what one talks about and what one doesn't talk about) and I still have secular urges that hint to me that its an odd task for we males to limit female reproductive choices. Lest I seem too conciliatory, I do have to point out that I am shocked by the neighbor that would callously put his dog down or cut a tree down as much as I would be by someone getting an abortion. I am ill at ease with the ideas of convenience by some in the pro-choice movement.
You can't possibly be serious. The Pope has NOT rendered an official proclamation forbidding praticing Catholics from supporting the death penalty or going to war with Iraq. There HAS been an official proclamation on the abortion issue...it has been around for about 30 years. Since it has been the subject of a proclamation, it would be grounds for an official excommunication, not for supporting it, but for enabling or performing an abortion. There is a difference between an issue that has been the subject of Papal law, and one which has been alluded to in the form of a general statement or the like.
There are many, many women who are pro-Life. It is very limiting to frame this as an issue about "reproductive choices." It is way more about "right to life," which seems paramount in any discussion. BTW, I saw a news story about a boy born WITH a tail in some Buddhist nation. He is considered to be the reincarnation of some Monkey-God from the past. His 2-inch tail has now grown to 6-inches and he's only 2 or so.
Is that logical? Why just 30 years? Haven't abortions been performed for ages? Why would God suddenly change/make-up his mind? Did it just take the Pope a long time to hear the message? If the Pope has a hard time hearing God, maybe he miss-heard? I mean, Ref, why were South Americans permitted to eat capybara on Fridays? Those ain't no fish. Anyway, if some people not only want to seek guidance from others in their spiritual growth or whether they want to relinquish all control over it, who's to say what's right? When the dogma influences votes, that's fine. That's our right. But when one uses the dogma to try to pressure an elected official, that crosses the line. You might find my questioning the 'logic' of some Catholic doctrine offensive, but like in a court of law, the archbishop is the one who made it an issue for all.
Just a guess: maybe it was a response to the growing legalization and acceptance of abortion in the U.S. and elsewhere? Sure, abortions have been performed for ages, but not out in the open, at least among societies with any Christian influence. Maybe people already knew it was wrong and didn't need to be told that? Anyway, thanks to Refman for clearing that up on the proclamations. As for abortion being a "women's reproductive" issue - I'm all for a woman being able to control her own body, just like anyone else. <i>However</i>, another person's body is a different matter, even if it does have to spend nine months inside her. I don't particularly want kids anytime soon, and I take care not to risk a pregnancy... if it did happen, though, life's not fair, but what you would do to that new person inside you would be even less fair.
Dogma? No sir...this is Gov. Davis' chosen religion. It is well within the power of the church to state that Davis has gone against the faith and that he needs to fall back into line with the church. I'm sorry that the church has offended your sensibilities...but when they perform their responsibility to call out the hypocrisy of one of the members, it certainly isn't "crossing the line." Remember that 100 years ago they would have just excommunicated him permanently for all purposes. He wouldn't have been welcome on church ground...EVER. In short...your comment is ludicrous.
In the unfortunate circumstance of war many Christians, Protestants and Catholics take the traditional position of pacifism or support of the "just war" theory. Just war theory being the set of principles establishing criteria for moral evaluation of the use, or possible use, of military force. Many, including myself, feel that a war in Iraq satisfies these principles. The Pope has placed a great deal of emphasis on the third principle of the just war theory. He wants to see the extra mile taken to achieve a non-violent conclusion. (3rd just war principle. Which at this time is being done through the UN.) But he is careful not to rule out the use of force. As for the stance on capital punishment I'm not aware of the Pope's attitude but the many who support it look to the Bible for moral justification. Many acknowledge that God gave the principle of capital punishment even before the institution of the Old Testament law code.(Genesis 9:6 - "Whoever sheds man's blood by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, He made man.") Even in a childrens bible that I have in my possession it reads "... and any man who murders shall be killed; for to kill a man is to kill one made by God."(Genesis 9:5,6) This principle was rooted in the creation order. Jesus asked for individual Christians to love their enemy and turn the other cheek. Jesus told his followers they should not replace the power of the government but he is not denying the responsibility and power of the government. We can also look at the story of Noah as another example of how God abandoned the "wicked" and drowned them all with the exception of Noah, his sons, and their wives w/ two of each animal. I can highlight another example in John 8 if it were necessary. The Bible places great emphasis on murder as in premeditated murder. But killing and murder are not considered in the same context. Exodus 20 and 21 define murder and teach the role of a governement or authority to punish violators of God's will. A Christian's belief in capital punishment should be based upon what the Bible teaches. Capital punishment is taught in both the New and Old Testament.
Originally posted by Refman Dogma? No sir...this is Gov. Davis' chosen religion. It is well within the power of the church to state that Davis has gone against the faith and that he needs to fall back into line with the church. Raises questions when it's made PUBLIC and about an ELECTED OFFICIAL, doesn't it? The archbishop went public with this (even though later he said they really should only provide guidance). Seems like he's got more motives than just saving Davis' soul. That's were everyone else get's involved. There is a separation of church and State. Every church should recognize that and not try back-handed ways to manipulate public policy. I'm sorry that the church has offended your sensibilities...but when they perform their responsibility to call out the hypocrisy of one of the members, it certainly isn't "crossing the line." If they're trying to manipulate elected politicians it certainly does. Again, if he was just 'worried' about Davis, he would have kept it private. It's not up to the priests to bring public attention to the hypocrisy of its members, is it? I fit was, they sould start with the hypocrisy of the priests themselves. Remember that 100 years ago they would have just excommunicated him permanently for all purposes. He wouldn't have been welcome on church ground...EVER. Yes, I know. God changes his mind on what really pisses him off. It would be nice if the archbishop would keep his mouth shut so this wouldn't be an issue for non-Catholics. In short...your comment is ludicrous. I don't think so, but it doesn't bother me that you do.
What concerns me is that the church is so obsessed with a POLITICAL ISSUE. The church should be a haven from politics, not in the mix. Are you to stop taking communion if you feel abortions are wrong but should stay legal? Separation of church and state goes for both the church and the state.
Why should churches be a haven from politics? Political policies establish legal moral standards for our country. For the church to turn its back on moral issues would be hypocrisy.
The Catholic church's stance on capital punishment is that it should never be used unless there is no way that the community can be protected from a dangerous person. In other words, civilized, industrial countries should never have capital punishment as there are always other alternatives.
Why should churches be a haven from politics? The same reason government should be a haven from religion. The Bishop is referring to a legal issue, not a moral one. They are not one in the same. You make moral and immoral decisions regardless of the law. You can have moral actions that are illegal and immoral actions that are legal. Positive and negative personal actions, regardless of the law, is what the church should be concentrating on - not politics.
It's how the church interacts with politics. Influencing votes is fine, manipulating or pressuring elected officials is analogous to bribery.
