« Attention John Kerry, Please Take Note: | Main | Life is Beautiful!! »

Oct 17, 2004

Comments

ken

Democrats don't claim a fetus is not a human life. To the contrary, John Kerry and many others claim life begins at conception. By getting such a fundemental fact wrong your writer subverts whatever small amount of credibility an unkown author is granted by an objective audience.

Excusing our Presidents mistakes, such as his unjust, illegal and immoral war in Iraq, as 'understandable, however, is beyond the pale.

Whoever wrote that opinion piece is more of a Republican than they are Catholic. Pray for their souls.

Stephen

Ken, did you even read the statement? No one excuses the war in Iraq. In fact, we find fault with the insistence that the war is a positive.

The problem with the current electoral process is the result that all sides become ideologies. In fact, you position is perfect example of this poverty.

ken

Yes Stephen, I did read the statement. And I was warming up to the author untill he got to the part about Democrats claiming a fetus is not human. This is so out of it that it just absolutely floored me. John Kerry, who is the standard bearer of the Democratic Party, is just one of the many who say that life begins at conception. When the author made such a false statement on such a fundemental fact his credibility becomes suspect.

Then to gloss over the President Bush's 'mistakes' as 'understandable' is like saying evil is really not so bad, once you get to know it.

Sorry Stephen, I don't buy it.

Stephen

ok, first of all, you don't know the Movement at all if you think it's the authors of this judgement are republican.

Second, the statement does not say anything about President Bush's mistakes as understandable, it says President, but it means any president. The statement stands: We do not expect politicians to make no mistakes. We understand that mistakes will and are made. Even the President makes mistakes. And the statement is clearly not talking about the War as a mistake. That's a ridiculous suggestion.

Third, whether John Kerry believes that life begins at conception or not is irrelevant to the statment. The statement speaks of the Democratic party. It's pretty clear that the Democratic party is does not recognize the personhood of the fetus. In fact, its platform seems to suggest that personhood is something that the state should determine. There may be individuals in the party who believe otherwise, but maybe they should try to exert more influence than they have hiterto offered.

The fact is that any party that advocates the murder of innocent human life in the womb is a party that does not recognize fetus is a human life (or rather if it does, and advocates their murder anyway, then it is a very very evil and demonic party.

ken

Stephen you correctly note that the democratic party (I assume you mean platform, as opposed to the people who make up the democratic party, both elected and non-elected ) is silent regarding the status of the fetus as a person. But then so is the republican platform. Neither party's platform denies personhood to children, although the republican platform specifically mentions it but fails to tell us whether a fetus falls under the category of 'child'.

As to where people in either party should exercise their influence regarding their religious convictions the democratic party apparently leaves that up to individuals acting outside of state authority. Since the question of the status of personhood of a fetus is not in universal agreement, even among the religious, it is best left this way.

So in other words Stephen take your argument against abortion to the women who have abortions. Convince them and then you will not need the state to interfere forcefully.

The republican partys ploy to deny women their God given right of controll over their own bodies is sinful in and of itself. Any law taking away this right of free will and choice over the most fundemental aspect their personhood would be a grave sin and is to be opposed by good Catholics everywhere.

Stephen

Again, your argument is fallacious.

First, there is no such thing as the "God given right of control over their own bodies". Second, a woman's body and the body of a fetus are two different bodies. She does not have the right to destroy another person's body. Your attempt to suggest that good Catholics should be opposed to granting legal protection to unborn chilrdren because it violates "free will" is farcical. Should we be against laws that protect women from rape because this denies the rapist his free will? Please!

Your suggestion that the argument against abortion be taken to women who have abortions is a non-sequitor. Of course it should, and it is. However this does not mean that the argument shouldn't be made in other circles as well. The state is not being asked to 'interfere forcefully' to protect the lives of unborn children any more than the state is asked to 'interfere forcefully' to protect the right to life of adults, the civil rights of minorities, or the rights of workers. Laws and criminal punishment for violating laws are not 'forceful interference,' they are necessary methods for ordering a just society. Your argment is an example of what has been called the "womb warp." It's the principle that, when it comes to abortion, all logic and reasonableness are set aside in favor of the uncritical and unchallengeable assertion that abortion is a "right" that must be protected.

Finally, the suggestion that the issue of abortion is about "religious convictions" is asinine. The argument that life, and the guarantee of my right to live, is no more dependent on my "relgious convictions" than it is on my "eating convictions". I am more interested in asking the question whether the human life process (a scientific fact) can be aborted by fiat of another person (namely the woman who is carrying the child)and my life's value (and even its right to exist) can be determined by another party with more "rights" than I have. If we are to truly stand for "equal rights" then we must make the claim that no person should have more rights than I do. If my mom has the right to deny me life, then she is granted greater rights in this society. This to me is an outrage.

ken

Save your outrage for God. He is the one who designed it thus. There were plenty of alternative schemes for Him to chose from, or, in His infinate wisdom, create anew. There is, for example, no logical reason why our mothers eggs, once fertilized, could not have been designed to be expelled like a chicken egg for us to hatch out of nine months later. If God had chosen this scheme we would not be having this discussion.

But no, he made it so each new person lives within another persons body for nine months or so and then comes into the world. And He made it that these persons are women, not men, but women. That fact should not be lost on you, nor forgotten as you contemplate His wisdom. Not everyone Stephen is actually created equal.

Now you would use the power of the state to deny women Gods full, and special, measure of personhood. You would making Gods most unigue creation, a woman, nothing more than a body, a slave, in order to protect another of Gods creations, a new person, from the mothers God given potential choice to abort.

Stephen, even though abortion is a sinful choice it is one uniquely given by God exclusively to women to make. It is not to be taken away by you or anyone else unable to perceive the wisdom of Gods plan.

You argue that this is like denying the rapist his free will. That is silly. God did not create the rapists' penis inside his victims vagina.

So while it is wrong, morally, for a woman to have an abortion it is even worse for you to turn her into your body slave, for you to hold her captive to your will over hers. Remember Stephen, where did God put the baby?

Instead of interpreting your faith through a contemplation of republican propoganda Stephen, turn your thoughts instead to the mysteries of Gods creation, prayer, and humility. You may not like the fact that in the arena of life giving and life taking God has left you out. But that is the way it is.

Stephen

Ah Ken, your response is so illogical that I respond to it only to ensure that others who read it wouldn't think it the final word.

First of all, I ask you, Did God Create woman and give her the natural gift of sustaining life in her womb so that she would bring forth life or so that she would have authority over its creation or destruction?

You seem to think that because God places human life inside of woman in its earliest stages that he somehow is implying that woman has the "right" to destroy it if she chooses. This is absurd. There is no rational argument you can make to arrive at this conclusion.

Set aside the fact that there is no theological footing for you to make this case, this argument doesn't hold water in a logical sense either.

First, women can't kill their babies by themselves. They need the help of others. Strange, that, if God had given women the absolute power over life giving and life taking (as you suggest at the end) that he would give them this "power" contingent upon getting help to do this. Absurd.

Second, although not everyone is created the same, we are all created with an equal dignity. This means that our humanity, whether expressed as women or men, has equal worth before God. Woman cannot create life by herself either, Ken, and for that matter woman and man can't create life either. It also takes the work of God. An abortion not only kills a human person, it also aborts the will of God in the creation of a new life.

Finally, I'm not sure where you sense "ourage" from me. Quite the contrary, I'm not outraged at all. I am a little annoyed by your the lack of logic and reason in your comments, but outraged? Hardly! I will say this. Whether God had alternatives to choose from in how he created us and allows us to share with him in pro-creation, it cannot be suggested that the mehtod he created for pro-creation somehow creates a paralell right exclusively to woman (who is not the only creator of a human life) to choose whether life is brought for or destroyed. It doesn't logically fit.

It's seems rather clear to me that your mind has become dark and perverse in your attempt to defend abortion as somehow a Catholic position. I will assume you do not see straight because of your clouded intellect. However, I will not continue to deal with your comments, since I do not find them honest, open, or contributive.

I am not usually inclined to censoring participation in my blog. I am not afraid of others' ideas, even if they are asinine and simplistic or completely evil and wrong. I believe that the Splendor of the Truth will destroy the dark shadows of false thought. However, I do not have the time to constantly reply to you, and do not want my comment boxes to become "Miseducation by Ken" so, I'm blocking your access to post comments. If I find you come back, I will jsut delete further comments. If you'd like to continue this conversation, feel free to email me.

ken

Stephan,

I find it odd that you would claim in public to ask me a question and then deny me an opportunity to reply in public.

If you chose to post this reply it will be my last one. I know that you are not really willing to engage in a serious discussion beyond your current understanding. The point of your blog is therefore a muddle to me.

I am not arguing that a womans choice of an abortion is a moral correct choice. I thought I made that clear. Your perverse misrepresentation of my position is troubling.

The Catholic position is that abortion is wrong.

It is also in the Catholic tradition, regardless of spiteful attempts to minimize it, to defend a persons uniqueness and free agency as given to them by God.

By wanting to impose your will on another person is to deny that person the God given right to make a choice. It is to minimize them and make them nothing more than your tool. Take away free will and you take away their personhood.

This is a more serious harm than the one you are trying to prevent.

My advice to you, if you are serious, is to go where God and Jesus would lead you. Go to the hospitals, the poor, the alienated and spend what little time you have on this earth doing good.

When I see so called Catholics involved in activities to further the aims of a political party under the guise of their faith it boils my blood. Today that problem seems to be mostly with republicans who use Catholic teachings for their own political agenda.

I do pray for these people.

Stephen

I will let this post stand. But you seem to be suggesting that Catholics should not try to influence the culture through politics. This is absurd. The fact is that the Christian task to to be aware of the presence of Christ, to help others to be aware. This can be done at the hospital or at the political rally. Admonishing the Sinner and Instructing the Ignorant are corporal works of mercy like feeding the hungry, and comforting the sick.

Again, defending a person's freedom is not tantamount to permitting them to perform whatever evil act they choose. This is where the example of the rapist comes back in to play and corresponds to the way you defend a woman's "right" to murder her child.

I find it interesting that you don't every respond to my points, which is the way I respond to you. You merely go off on a tangent. That is the clear sign of a person who cannot answer an objection.

The comments to this entry are closed.