I made a pro-abortion friend mad

I would have to say that the idea voting to “heal the ‘disease’ that plagues our country” violates a Catholic’s moral obligation to protect the life of an unborn child and is weak at best, lying at worst.

I call BS on those at my church that say that they vote for Democrats because they are more “for the people,” which they are not.

And, an unborn child is “people” & the Democratic platform states the right to an abortion 13 times. Odd since 13 is historically considered an “unlucky” number. That’s unlucky for the child that is murdered.

Please read the following and can anyone tell me that a Catholic can vote for the Democratic party

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Clarification on procured abortion*

Recently a number of letters have been sent to the Holy See, some of them from prominent figures in political and ecclesial life, explaining the confusion that has been created in various countries, especially in Latin America, following the manipulation and exploitation of an article by His Excellency Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, on the sad affair of the “Brazilian girl.” In this article, which appeared in “L’Osservatore Romano” on March 15, 2009, the doctrine of the Church was presented, while still keeping in mind the dramatic situation of the aforementioned girl, who - as could be demonstrated afterward - had been accompanied with all pastoral delicacy, in particular by the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife at the time, His Excellency Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho. In this regard, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterates that the Church’s teaching on procured abortion has not changed, nor can it change. This teaching has been presented in numbers 2270-2273 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in these terms:

«Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jer. 1:5). “My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth” (Psalm 139:15).

«Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” (Didaché, 2:2). “God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

« Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Clarification on procured abortion*

Recently a number of letters have been sent to the Holy See, some of them from prominent figures in political and ecclesial life, explaining the confusion that has been created in various countries, especially in Latin America, following the manipulation and exploitation of an article by His Excellency Archbishop Rino Fisichella, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, on the sad affair of the “Brazilian girl.” In this article, which appeared in “L’Osservatore Romano” on March 15, 2009, the doctrine of the Church was presented, while still keeping in mind the dramatic situation of the aforementioned girl, who - as could be demonstrated afterward - had been accompanied with all pastoral delicacy, in particular by the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife at the time, His Excellency Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho. In this regard, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reiterates that the Church’s teaching on procured abortion has not changed, nor can it change. This teaching has been presented in numbers 2270-2273 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in these terms:

«Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you” (Jer. 1:5). “My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth” (Psalm 139:15).

«Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: “You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish” (Didaché, 2:2). “God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes” (Vatican Council II, Gaudium et Spes, 51).

«Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” (Code of Canon Law, can. 1398), “by the very commission of the offense” (Code of Canon Law, can. 1314) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1323-1324). The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

«The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death… The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined… As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Vitae, III)».

In the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this teaching with his authority as Supreme Pastor of the Church: «By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church» (no. 62).

As for abortion procured in certain difficult and complex situations, the clear and precise teaching of Pope John Paul II applies: «It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being» (Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, no. 58).

As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called “therapeutic” abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: «If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951).

As for the responsibility of medical workers, the words of Pope John Paul II must be recalled: «Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants of human life. In today’s cultural and social context, in which science and the practice of medicine risk losing sight of their inherent ethical dimension, health-care professionals can be strongly tempted at times to become manipulators of life, or even agents of death. In the face of this temptation their responsibility today is greatly increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness» (Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, no. 89).

  • L’Osservatore Romano,11 July 2009.

topFormal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. “A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,” (Code of Canon Law, can. 1398), “by the very commission of the offense” (Code of Canon Law, can. 1314) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1323-1324). The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

«The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death… The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined… As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction Donum Vitae, III)».

In the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed this teaching with his authority as Supreme Pastor of the Church: «By the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church» (no. 62).

As for abortion procured in certain difficult and complex situations, the clear and precise teaching of Pope John Paul II applies: «It is true that the decision to have an abortion is often tragic and painful for the mother, insofar as the decision to rid herself of the fruit of conception is not made for purely selfish reasons or out of convenience, but out of a desire to protect certain important values such as her own health or a decent standard of living for the other members of the family. Sometimes it is feared that the child to be born would live in such conditions that it would be better if the birth did not take place. Nevertheless, these reasons and others like them, however serious and tragic, can never justify the deliberate killing of an innocent human being» (Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, no. 58).

As for the problem of specific medical treatments intended to preserve the health of the mother, it is necessary to make a strong distinction between two different situations: on the one hand, a procedure that directly causes the death of the fetus, sometimes inappropriately called “therapeutic” abortion, which can never be licit in that it is the direct killing of an innocent human being; on the other hand, a procedure not abortive in itself that can have, as a collateral consequence, the death of the child: «If, for example, saving the life of the future mother, independently of her condition of pregnancy, urgently required a surgical procedure or another therapeutic application, which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an action could not be called a direct attack on the innocent life. In these conditions, the operation can be considered licit, as can other similar medical procedures, always provided that a good of high value, like life, is at stake, and that it is not possible to postpone it until after the birth of the child, or to use any other effective remedy» (Pius XII, Speech to the Fronte della Famiglia and the Associazione Famiglie numerose, November 27, 1951).

As for the responsibility of medical workers, the words of Pope John Paul II must be recalled: «Their profession calls for them to be guardians and servants of human life. In today’s cultural and social context, in which science and the practice of medicine risk losing sight of their inherent ethical dimension, health-care professionals can be strongly tempted at times to become manipulators of life, or even agents of death. In the face of this temptation their responsibility today is greatly increased. Its deepest inspiration and strongest support lie in the intrinsic and undeniable ethical dimension of the health-care profession, something already recognized by the ancient and still relevant Hippocratic Oath, which requires every doctor to commit himself to absolute respect for human life and its sacredness» (Encyclical Evangelium Vitae, no. 89).

  • L’Osservatore Romano,11 July 2009.

[![top|

Good grief, I didn’t know I was joining a book club ; )

I agree with you that if someone gets Life wrong, then anything else they try to convince me of, goes out the window.

Many Democrats want to throw out anything good that the Founding Fathers designed (The Constitution for example), because some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves.

I would have been an abolitionist. And I could not in good conscience vote for someone who owns slaves or views them as less than human.

I think the big problem that we have in this Country is that Republicans think all Democrats are evil and Democrats think that all Republicans are evil. The truth is that there is good and evil in both Parties. Now, Republicans gave some of their evil to the Democrats (Dick Cheney, among other neo-Cons have come out in support of Kamala). But, Republicans have embraced a new Conservativism that embraces same-sęx behavior (Dave Rubin using surrogates comes to mind) and abortion in some cases (like Tomi Lahren does).

I was explaining to my co-worker (a Protestant Pastor’s Wife), why Catholic Christians are not fans of IVF (which Donald Trump fully embraces and yet, does not fully understand). In addition to the abortion aspect of In Vitro Fertilization, it separates the unitive and the pro-creative aspects from the marital act. She replied, “I forgot you Catholics are against using Contraception.”

This led us to the topic of same-sęx behavior and how I am not surprised that so many Protestant Churches are now embracing it. When you separate the pro-creative and/or the unitive aspect of the marital act, how can you then say that same-sęx acts are wrong?

What I did not know was that their Worship Leader had just been outed as living a homosęxual lifestyle (after being arrested for something involving another male) and their board is discerning what to do about it. Do they allow him to continue leading worship or do they ask him to step down? And what will the fall-out be, as many in their congregation are new Christians and believe more as the world does. So, please Pray for them and their scandal, that they do what is right and just and not what is popular in the eyes of the world.

I do not claim that all Libertarians are moral, but libertarianism (not libertinism) is a moral framework. And Christianity and liberty compliment one another. This being said, there are some philosophies within libertarianism (thinking of Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism does oppose Christianity in my opinion, which is why I am not an objectivist.

Liberty is moral, but what we do with this freedom can be immoral.

This is what I was referring to. What I was saying about the tragic loss of the child in a case of treating the mother of a serous disease. JP2 backs up here, what I was stating.

It would be like hearing an intruder, grabbing your gun and intending to shoot the intruder, but in the process accidentally killing your toddler as a result of firing and striking the intruder. Did you murder your son? Technically yes, but is it the same as you directly pointing the gun at your toddler intentionally aiming to end his life? No. It is a tragic loss either way.

But, what I think you were disagreeing with is my comparing this with justifying voting for a Pro-Abort, which I never said was justifiable to vote for a candidate who advocates for Abortion, I was simply saying that some do justify it (you and I are on the same page I think : ) The difference is, you buy into the lesser of two evils mantra, where as I would rather not vote for evil. And we both have valid arguments for our positions.

Cade,

It was too hard on my iphone to cut & paste the more inportant parts of the Vatican letter, thus “the book club.” :grinning:

One cannot have a discussion with a Democrat that doesn’t’’ understand that an embryo is a child & that abortion is murder.

As I told my priest when he said that he won’t talk politics, “What if I’m right and all those that support abortion with their vote end up in Hell, won’t the Catholic Church, priests, Bishops & Popes have failed in their mission to save souls?

1 Like

Who says pro-abortion? It sounds like you believe that choosing to have an abortion is just the easiest decision for a woman to have to make?! Being pro choice is being able to make a choice and decision based on many many factors. There is a plan B medication that can stop the embryo from developing! And no one is surgically tearing any baby apart! When a woman has to decide to terminate a late term pregnancy, it’s always a very serious health issue and concern these women have already decorated a nursery and chosen a name had hopes and dreams for this baby and it’s birth. How can anyone possibly believe that they have any say when health care is not even considered ? Should the mother die of sepsis because the woman’s blood is now contaminated and infected with toxins? There are many reasons why women should have a choice about her health care. Men don’t get harassed on their way to a vasectomy procedure? And yet, they get prescribed viagra because they’re old and need a prescription , I can honestly believe that it’s probably not very expensive either. Don’t base medical decisions and medical care because of your personal faith! This is not the medieval times! Go join the Taliban and leave your ideas out of womens healthcare!

Abortion is terrible. A baby is so innocent, and it’s not right to abort innocents.

The best birth control is not having sex period. I don’t have kids or a wife, or even a girlfriend. I don’t want children, so I just stay away from sex.

1 Like

People who shout, “We love abortion!” The woman with the T-shirt that read, “Thank God for abortion.” Someone holding a sign that reads, “Abortion is good.” I have heard or seen all of these, not to mention people outside an abortion clinic blasting obscene music and dancing to it, and a man praying (or pretending to) thanking God for Planned Parenthood and for taking women by the hand and leading them there. Sad to say, there are people loudly praising abortion.

Those abortion pills kill tiny babies, which women flush down the toilet.

As for harassing women who are going to get an abortion, I have never seen this happen, and I have prayed outside abortion clinics hundreds of times. But maybe it does happen sometimes. I and the people with me pray and offer free help to women. Usually I have time to say only four words to abortion clinic customers: “Free help is available.” Sometimes I can add that the Women’s Center in the next block provides free help to pregnant women. I’ve been accused of harassing women, stalking them (I’ve never followed one), telling them what to do (no, I only mention that free help is available), and worse. I get cursed at, called names, insulted, accused of crimes, and worse. However, Jesus said that the world hated him because He gave evidence that what it does is wrong, and if it hated Him, it will hate His followers too.

2 Likes

I always wondered why mothers and their children have a special bond until I read the following:

“Fetal cells migrate into the mother during pregnancy. Fetomaternal transfer probably occurs in all pregnancies and in humans the fetal cells can persist for decades. Microchimeric fetal cells are found in various maternal tissues and organs including blood, bone marrow, skin and liver.”

Source:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2633676/

So, when a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy and then for the rest of her life regrets it, maybe it’s because that baby is still living inside of her.

Note, I freely admit that, as a man, many will say that I don’t know what I’m talking about, but my wife has had two miscarriages and she has said many times that she feels that the babies that we lost are still present.

Ignatius

This thread is little old, but I’ll sum up my position by saying “murder is murder is murder is murder is murder is murder is murder is murder is murder!!!

Our family, like the majority of families, has suffered because of an abortion for many, many years. It is rarely, if ever, the right decision.

A short primer:

An embryo’s chromosomes contain a set of genes from the mother and a set of genes from the father & thus, who God planned that child to be is coded forever into them. To say that an embryo is not a child is ignorant of science, God’s science

The “free will” that God placed within all of us is a tricky discussion and many say that they are what they are because God willed them to be that way. They discount the influence of Satan on the world.

The bottom line is that it’s difficult to be Catholic & one has to do their best. We need to strive for perfection every moment of every day and pray for God‘s help.

2M2C

Ignatius

Not at all. I know two individuals who made the choice to end the life of an innocent human being. And I know that it was not an easy choice. And I also know that one regrets her choice and is now pro-life and the other is haunted buy her choice every year on the due date of this little one, but is still pro-choice, because of her political affiliation.

Choice to do what?

Disgusting.

I do not like when pro-lifers show the images of aborted babies. However, since you prefer to believe the the sanitized version of abortion, for reasons that I can only speculate.

In every case? I’d love to know how you know this. It may or may not be true in your own life, but to say that this is always the case, is a way to cope with the realities of what this choice is.

We do not live in the time of the Pioneers. There are ways to save both mother and child. Are there cases where killing one to save the other is easier? Of course. Does it justify it? I say no.

People justify things all the time. Some justify violence for political reasons. We just saw this with the Catholic School shooting. The young man who committed this evil act wrote that there is so much injustice in the world, and therefore it justifies (in his warped mind) that shooting a school will right these injustices (which makes no sense to the sane mind). I think I mentioned the moral relativist who claimed that the choice of rąping another human being is justified and even a good in the case the human species is not reproducing at a sustainable rate (which is also warped and disgusting).

Ask @DavidHarper if this is true. I think we “harassed” him pretty good ; ) Search for the word “vasectomy” in the search box if you would like to read that discussion.

This is what feminists doe when they do not have a valid argument. They attack a man’s anatomy (whether it be size or ED).

These things matter. Going back to the hypothetical the moral relativist made, if faith and morality are meaningless in any choice, then who is to say shooting up a Catholic School, because of injustices in the world is wrong? And who is to say that rąpe is wrong? Leave faith out of it? If there is no God, then nothing matters. Who cares what anyone does?

Right. That is my point. You can now save both the mother and the child. We are not living in the medieval times. We are simply living in mid-evil times (or as Pope John Paul II called it, “a culture of death.”

[quote]
Go join the Taliban and leave your ideas out of womens’ healthcare!
[/qyite]

You are in a cult. You have made your politics your religion. Marxism views everything through the lens of the oppressed vs. the oppressor. You view someone telling you that it is evil to take innocent human life oppression. Fun fact: two of Karl Marx’s daughters committed suicıde. You belong to a culture of death.

I’m not a Marxist . I actually go to church and say the rosary. I’m never going to agree with politics and faith coming into government and laws. If the churches want to be involved in politics, then they should pay taxes. I’m pro-choice. Pro choice. Not pro abortion. I was actually saved in 1993 by going to planned parenthood because I didn’t have health insurance. I had pre cancerous cells in my cervix. I gave a donation and had surgery to remove them. You will never know what it’s like to be a woman. The only thing I can say is that only god will judge me when I do die. And your opinion matters nil. I don’t care what you or anyone thinks of me. I had to make hard decisions by myself. And I regret nothing. If anyone is in a cult it’s, all the people who actually believe that a baby is fully capable and able to live from being 6 weeks pregnant?!

Elisa,

You said “
If anyone is in a cult it’s, all the people who actually believe that a baby is fully capable and able to live from being 6 weeks pregnant”

Interesting logic. With that logic, it would be OK to kill up to maybe a four year-old child that can’t live without help from others, namely their parents.

Yours is another example of how people twist their minds to rationalize killing God‘s creation.

Praying for the conversion of those that rationalize the murder of a child,

Ignatius

Do people decide what desires to have? Some people have a dangerous attraction to alcohol. Do they need to say yes to that attraction? It can ruin their lives. I had a friend whose life was being ruined by alcohol. This was before I knew him. He learned (with help, I think) to say no to alcohol. He didn’t say, “I was born this way.” Maybe he was born with a genetic inclination to drink too much. But he didn’t have to be governed by it. He could have encouraged the desire in himself too. We can all do that with things we want, or think we want, by thinking about them and saying that the desires are OK even if they are not. Doing that, I believe, makes it easier to act on them. Maybe some desires within us are not our own choice, but what we say and do are our choices.

Do you vies everything through the lens of oppressors and the oppressed? If yes, then you are a Marxist. If not, then you are not a Marxist.

Fantastic!

I am a Libertarian. I get what you are saying. Where I would push-back a little is where the role of government and faith overlap. For example, I believe government has the sole responsibility to protect life, liberty, and private-property (in this order). There is overlap between what Christians believe about life and what government’s role is to protect life. The other two protections, there is lesser overlap. Make sense? I won’t get into positive (immoral) vs. negatives rights (moral rights). But, I will say that one has to do with violating another’s liberty, and the other respects God’s given rights (sometimes referred to as natural law).

I don’t think you understand what a bad idea this is (especially if you believe there is a threat to democracy). If you allow politicians to tax Churches, they can punish Churches who do not push their agendas through the tax code and give tax-breaks to Churches that do push their agendas. This is the very definition of government interfering with or making a state religion.

No I get the mantra. Half of the Libertarian Party is “Pro-Choice” (for various reasons, which I am open to discussing).

You are Pro-Choice to do what? I am personally against rąpe, but if someone wants to choose rąpe, then who am I to judge? Does this make me pro-rąpe? I am personally against slavery, but if someone views another human being as less-than, who am I to judge? Does this make me pro-slavery?

Where I would agree with you is the topic of drugs. Just because I believe that it should not be illegal to consume drugs (voluntarily), it does not mean that I am pro-doing-drugs. I have never been drunk nor have I ever “tried weed.” My friend did once give me what I though was just “cough syrup” when I was sick, and it was, but with codeine, which she failed to mention. It felt amazing and I can see how individuals get addicted substances such as these.

The difference is that in the first two examples, one human being does not have the choice. Same in the case of abortion. But, in the case of drugs, there is a choice. There are examples with drugs where it is not a choice (like when a pimp injects a call-girl with drugs to keep her enslaved).

First, I’m sorry that you had pre cancerous cells. That had to be scary. I will ignore your hostility towards men.

May I ask why you do not capitalize “G” in God? I agree with you that God is the ultimate judge when we die. There is only one God (The First Commandment). This is not my opinion.

Not even God? There is a line in the movie “Sketch” where a Dad and his Daughter are arguing and the hurting girl yells, “I don’t care what other people think of me” and the Dad, without thinking, replies, “Well you should—wait no.” We should not care what other people think of us. But, we should care what God thinks.

Tupac used to rap, “Only God can judge me,” while throwing up his middle fingers. I know, because I drew a picture of Tupac in my youth with these very words on it. I have all of his albums still. The problem is when we act like a god, we are not in awe of God, nor allowing Him to be Lord of our lives.

Not having regrets is a sign of pride. Or it is a coping mechanism. “Orange-man” never admits when he is wrong. He views admitting mistakes as a sign of weakness. I guess you and our President have something in common : )

A toddler is not fully capable nor able to live by herself. No pro-life individual claims that a baby can fully take care of herself. That is not the argument. You are straw-manning. The argument is, is this life in the womb a human being and does this life (if even unwanted or unloved) has dignity and value. That is the argument. So I will ask you:

  1. When does human life begin?
  2. Does human life have value if unwanted or unloved?
  3. Is it okay to take the life of a human being who cannot live on her own? (Toddlers? The disabled? The elderly?)

I would have been an abolitionist had I lived in the 1600’s - the 1800’s and I am pro-life today. I believe human life has value and deserves dignity. I believe God deserves awe and humble respect. We are not the author of life nor do we have the right to take it unjustly. It isn’t about judging one another. It is about judging right from wrong. We can disagree on what aught to be legal and illegal under the laws of our society. I recommend “The Law” by Frédéric Bastiat. He was a Catholic Christians living in the 1850’s. Another book I would recommend is “A Conflict of Visions” by the great Thomas Sowell.

When does life begin? The Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision infamously said, “We do not know.” But if you don’t know whether someone is alive, that doesn’t give you moral authority to treat the person as dead.

As for churches, taxes, and politics, churches are free of taxes to protect them from politics, and, like educational nonprofit organizations, are not allowed to participate in partisan politics. I was chairman of the board of an educational nonprofit for about 20 years, and the organization was careful about this. Churches may (and have a responsibility to) speak out on issues that affect the public and individuals. They may not endorse parties or candidates or take actions that favor one party over another. A church could legitimately have an event where all parties or candidates are invited to be present, but not invite only one party or candidate.

1 Like

Based on a July 2025 court filing, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will not penalize Churches and houses of worship for endorsing political candidates during religious Services and through their usual communication channels to congregations.

Inner-city Churches would often invite civil-rights activists and politicians to speak from their pulpits and apparently there was not a problem with this. Rules for thee and not for me : )

Jesus is neither Democrat nor Republican. He’s not a Libertarian either.

I agree that they should speak about issues and the moral/immoral aspects. And I think it even that is difficult, because there is not a consensus on what an issue is. Both sides manipulate, cheat, and deceive to try to get their desired outcome.

Thanks for the legal update. I’m not currently involved with a nonprofit, but I try to keep up with what’s going on.

Peace to all,

Mary became the Immaculate Conception at the Annunciation, blood and water born corrupt and mortal, becoming The First Christ on earth from the Annunciation becoming the Immaculate Conception through flesh immortality from Holy Spirit incorruption becoming the arked from space transformed Body of The New Eve, I believe.

Peace always,
Stephen