LittlMs - I would argue that both sides attack the other not based on discussing the issue of when life begins, but on the sterotypes I mentioned before.

Live in is in Houston at a wedding, and he said his family has started a heated discussion. Half the family supported Obama, half supported McCain.

Apparently, they're yelling at each other.

Who was the moron who brought up politics at a family wedding?

To a certain extent those stereotypes do hold to be true.

Only if you are willing to make a gross generalization. And the belief that the stereotypes are true prevents either side from engaging in the kind of dialog that would enable both sides to work together to solve one problem both agree on - that we want a society with fewer abortions.

eta - back on topic. I think the issue of separation of church and state and whether that means that ministers cannot speak at all on moral issues that might have an impact on elections, or whether that means the state should not in any way, shape or form censor speech in churches, is an interesting one.

I didn't quite mean it that way.. what i meant to say in so many words was that on either side there are people who fit the stereotype but the topic of abortion is filled with many gray areas that it isn't wise to make such a generalization. I do agree that that would prevent both sides from engaging in dialogue but do you really think it's plausible for both sides to solve one problem that everyone agrees on?

but to get back on topic....i'm an avid supporter or the separation of church and state but is there or should there be a limit to the amount of separtation?

It can't be assumed that supporters believe it is just medical prodecure. Many see the debate as a choice between lesser consequences of abortion and greater consequences of abortion. They may see the act itself as incredibly evil, and therefore -whether we're talking policy or not- wouldn't want to be labeled as supporters of an evil act. In fact, the term "pro-choice" doesn't really suit them either, as they may not support the choice to abort, but rather accept the reality that the choice cannot really be taken away (women are going to have them regardless). I don't suppose people who want to legalize prostitution would want to be called "pro-prostitution".

I don't know if they can solve it, but I prefer a Rogerian approach. Let's work together on those things we agree on - i.e. we want fewer abortions - while still continuing the debate on those things we don't. You've probably detected my anti-abortion stance. I believe that those who are not anti-abortion simply hold a different definition of when life begins - not that they are evil. I can disagree with their belief about when life begins without having to vilify them. I'd just ask the same courtesy from those on the other side of the fence. I'm not a crazed lunatic - I like to think I am a reasonable, educated person who, based on both scientific and logical evidence believes that life begins at the moment of conception. I used to be pro-abortion, but then I became pregnant. I have an ultrasound of my daughter Gypsyboots at 6 weeks. She is shaped like a little peanut, but it's her. It's not a potential her, it's not a piece of tissue, it's her. Having been on the other side may give me a little more understanding on how someone could believe that abortion is a simple medical procedure.

I guess you could make the case that most stereotypes may have an element of truth, but relying on them causes all sorts of problems. Of course, I think a big problem with most political debate these days is the eagerness of so many to simply try and yell louder than the other side. There's so little respect, and so little use of logic and intelligence.

They may not want it, but it would be accurate.

eta - ACK! How'd it get to be so late! Good night!

It wouldn't be accurate because prostitution itself is not what they support.

Now that you bring it up, I think it's a bit ridiculous that we need laws telling people that rape and murder aren't so good. I realize we have to have some mutually agreed upon code which is why we have laws, but it makes laws no less ridiculous to me. And, God will deal with them.

No reasonable person would think it's ok for priests (or anybody) to have sex with young children. Yet priests have sexually abused altar boys, and some of those priests were quietly moved to other parishes rather than being disciplined or defrocked.

I like the idea that a poster brought up that this is an issue for Catholics. The teachings of the Church are too complicated to be properly addressed in a GC thread, so the reactions are reflecting misunderstandings of those teachings. Basically, (and I hate to say basically, because none of it is basic,) no Catholic can receive Communion if they are not in a state of grace. That state is affected by any unforgiven mortal sin, not just those relating to abortion. Many people think that they individually determine what constitutes a sin. The Catholic Church doesn't harbor that view. If a Catholic intentionally violates the teachings of the Church, the Church views that as sin.

I hate talking religion online, but this is really a situation that opens one can of worms after another. Catholics know what is expected of them. If they choose to act differently, the Church teaches what the repercussions are.

It seems like the biggest issue with a lot of people is that the Church dares to clearly define sin. A lot of people don't want to be told that anything is wrong - everything is just a personal choice. The Catholic Church doesn't work that way. They're very upfront about it, and always have been. The strong stances of the Catholic Church frequently lead to attacks by outsiders AND insiders.

Yep. Or recognize that you can't expect to be in full communion with the church.


Although honestly this priest saying this surprised me because there's been no directive like this from above. Previously the discussion of withholding communion was for politicians who failed to support church doctrine.

So on some level what they are saying isn't you can't vote that way but instead, you can't vote that way and expect the church to treat you as if you are living up to your church's teaching.


And yeah, I do think it's kind of odd that they single out only abortion, but hey, they get to make the rules. If it bothers you, you may be happier as an Episcopalian. It's similar in a lot of ways, but less authoritarian.

What irishpipes said is true. The Catholic Church's view is "all or nothing" - accept everything the Church hands down, or don't be Catholic. You can't pick and choose. Miss Sunday Mass, eat meat on a Friday in Lent, vote for a pro-choice candidate, and you'd best head for the nearest confessional post-haste.

I personally couldn't deal with that. I didn't like the idea of some old guy in Rome telling me what I could and could not do with my body and my life. Hence my rejection of the Church. But if you choose to be Catholic and follow the rules, more power to you. You don't tell me what to do and I won't tell you what to do.

I'm also strongly pro-choice. If you're against abortion, fine - don't have one - but don't go telling me I can't have one.

For the record, Catholics do not believe that some old guy in Rome has that authority, either. It comes from someone higher than that.

But surely you wouldn't apply this same standard to murder of a 20 year old or even a two day old? If you don't believe in it, don't kill anyone, but don't tell me I can't?

Of course not and that's the reason why this argument won't work for people who think life begins in the womb.

Now, I think it's probably a minority of citizens who think life begins at conception or we wouldn't be so down with IVF, embryonic stem cell research, and some IUDs as we are. I think the debate ought to shift to when a fetus ought to have some rights.

But we don't typically have a standard of letting people do what they think it right when it comes to destroying others and I'm not sure why, if it's an area of uncertainly, that we'd err on the side of mother's wishes over offspring's life.

Nicely played.

Absolutely.

I completely agree.

This is where I'm coming from. You should know better. You shouldn't need a law to tell you and, if you don't know better, you can take it up with God. I think I'm an anarchist.

You're on the right track here. I believe that a number of other countries (including Canada if I'm not mistaken) have set an actual week date - 22 weeks for example - as the time when the baby has rights and can no longer be aborted.

I'd also like to see adoption become less stressful for all involved...however that could occur.

Girlfriend, you said it!
Yeah I read the article...and douchebags like this are one reason why I call myself a Recovering Catholic.

Fertility treatments are a no-no, and this hits too close to home. :rolleyes:
Another reason I call myself a recovering Catholic

Yeah that! And yes, I marched on Washington

All Catholics have the choice to leave the Church. You weighed your options and made that choice for yourself. But, how do you justify calling this priest a douchebag? Because he didn't make that same choice? So are you really pro-choice, or just when the choices are all the same? By that token, you are saying that all Catholics who actually follow/proclaim the teachings of the Church are douchebags, I guess.

That's the thing. Any sane person is going to agree that, by the time a baby is born alive, it's, well, alive. And many world religions, including my own, dictate, "Thou shalt not kill." So murdering the two-day-old baby is wrong. BUT not everyone agrees that life begins at conception. If you think life begins at conception, fine, don't have an abortion. But I DON'T believe life begins at conception. There's no proof either way. So until there is conclusive proof either way, kindly stay out of my uterus.

THANK YOU.

But AEPhiAlum, you have consciously made the choice to leave the Church, as has Jill and countless others. Why should it it surprise or anger you that this priest, or anyone still within the Church, said what he said? It seems that your issue isn't really this priest, but rather the teachings of the Church.

It doesn't surprise me at all.

If you choose to be Catholic, you choose to accept everything that goes with being Catholic. That includes forgoing premarital sex, birth control, abortion, and IVF. You personally won't engage in these practices.

But that doesn't mean that you have to actively pursue legislation (and by extension, legislators and executives who will support such legislation) that will prevent people who don't share Catholic views from obtaining safe birth control and abortion for those who do not want children, and IVF for those who want children but can't conceive without medical intervention.

Pro-choice is exactly that: pro-CHOICE. No one is forcing pregnant women to line up for abortions. Pregnant women can choose for themselves whether to abort, carry to term and keep the baby, or carry to term and place the baby for adoption. And if they choose to abort, it's legal and safe. No back-alley abortions that land women in hospitals with severe sepsis, and no one forced to go through with a pregnancy she does not want.

What does this priest think of people who supported McCain, who is a strong supporter of the death penalty, even wanting to expand it to crimes other than murder? I don't understand how someone can be "pro-life" and yet so pro-capital punishment. If one considers abortion murder, surely he/she must agree that killing a living human being outside of the womb is murder. Is it really our job to pass a lethal judgment on someone, or is that only God's duty? According to this priest, people should only be concerned with what God's judgment should be in the taking of a fetus' life; so why then should we not wait for God's judgment of murderers and take their lives instead?

It might just be because I'm tired, but the first thing I thought after reading this was "She forgot 'chicken or fish'." :rolleyes:

I would like to point out to everyone that legalizing abortions (or keeping them legal) will not erase the occurence of "back alley" abortions. Furthermore, any medical procedure carries a huge amount of risk and have the potential to be "botched." The chances are not remotely equal, but they are still present in BOTH scenarios.
AMEN.

That being said, even if both sides respected the fact that each side sees it differently...they will continue to see it differently. This is the very reason why this debate will never die.

Grace is a concept that applies to all of us (sinners) and is only given by God through Jesus Christ. Given that it is God who extends His grace to us, then who is the Church to decide who is in a state of grace and who is not? Given that sinners are EVERYBODY, not just people who have committed acts on "the special list" then are we not all living in a perpetual state of grace? This isn't directed at you, irish, I just really felt the need to say it. This priest (and others like him) needs to get off his high horse because supporting Obama does not mean I am not worthy of a connection with God. No other human's beliefs have bearing on mine and supporting a man who supports an issue does not make me support the issue by extension. Even if it did, God's presence is not a nightclub. If you are going to bring people to Him THEN DO IT. He didn't ask for you to check IDs and attire so you can pick and choose who comes to the table.

Some people look to religion for moral guidance in how to vote for candidates though. The issues they support are in line with their faith.

This post is exactly why I previously posted that this is an issue for Catholics. Your definition of grace is not the issue here, and your post indicates that you do not understand Catholic teachings on grace or of ordination and priesthood. This priest was not directing his comments at you, since you aren't Catholic.

Selective Reduction is considered a form of abortion. See the rest of this thread for the Roman Catholic Church's stand on abortion.

Also, Fertility treatments ARE NOT against the Roman Catholic Church. Certain fertility drugs are perfectly acceptable. Some fertility treatments are not acceptable- a rule of thumb is if conception occurs outside the womb, then it's a no. There is even a fertility center in Omaha (I think) that is a Roman Catholic Fertility center- they do all sorts of procedures to help a couple get pregnant.



Thank you!

Whoa, coming into the conversation late. Where to start.I think you're overstating the "pro" here SWTXBelle; this latter post gets closer to where I think we need to be. I am pro-choice; I am also, generally speaking, anti-abortion. The "pro" is not because I am "for abortion," and that is what "pro-abortion" would mean. As a moral matter, I think abortion is almost always morally wrong and is always a tragedy. As a political matter, I recognize that there are a variety of beliefs on this subject in the US, and therefore I think this is an area where the government should not interfere, at least early in pregnancy. Politically, therefore, I think the decision (choice) must rest with the mother (and perhaps the father), not the government. Hence, pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

I agree completely. It sounded from reports earlier this week like the US Conference of Catholic Bishops might be moving this direction and backing off the idea of "no voting for pro-choice candidates." Anyone know what happened?

As SWTXBelle said, you'd less rigidity in some Protestant churches. While I don't think any would say abortion is a good thing, some are more willing to leave the decision to the affected parties rather than to have a blanket condemnation. I think most mainline Protestant churches would fall in this catagory. My denomination (the Presbyterian Church (USA)) basically opposes abortion as a means of birth control and gender selection, affirms adoption as a preferable alternative in cases of unwanted children and says that abortion should be the choice of last resort in problem pregnancies. But it ultimately leaves the decision to the parents.

Just to clarify, in some Protestant denominations, the bread and wine are seen as symbolic, but not in all Protestant denominations. The Lutheran, Episcopal/Anglican and Reformed/Presbyterian churches all reject the idea that the elements are only symbolic and teach some form of the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament. (Yes, even the Presbyterian churches. Even though Zwinglian teaching on the subject (that the elements are symbolic) can be found among Presbyterians, the confessions uniformly reject the idea that the elements are only symbols.)

Oh no way am I calling all Catholics douchebags, and I don't appreciate that assumption. Some of my dearest friends and family members are Catholic (including my best friend). There are some things I love about the church and some of my best memories are in the church. Hell, 11 years ago it helped me kick cigarettes because I needed to give up something for Lent. I gave up cigarettes and haven't touched one since.

I just think that priest is an extremist. Is he gonna ask every parishoner "you voted for Obama? No? Proceed. Yes? GTF outta my communion line!"
None of his business and he IMO is making the church look bad

Point taken. But with IUI (inter uterine insemination), conception is in the womb. However, the male counterpart has to do his donation outside the womb (and yes, I know the church looks down on "handling your business")...so is that a no?

So if a couple has done all the low tech procedures and some of the higher tech (IUI) and have resort to IVF, gestational carriers, or surrogacy are they SOL and should not be able to take communion? :confused:

Just wondering

Slightly off tangent observation....

Ever notice that those people who are the most for or against a particular party/candidate/elected official, usually base their arguments on one of two things - abortion and gun control.

I am talking about the everyday person who doesn't have much more to say in a discussion about politics...it's usually one of these two highly emotionally charged issues that makes the decision for them.

People are nutty.

As to "proof" - I'm not sure what you would regard as acceptable. At what point do you believe an embryo/fetus is alive? Is it the point at which there is a heartbeat? A beating heart = life seems to be pretty straight forward. Is it at the point of viability? That is of course a slippery slope - only 5 - 10 years ago babies who can now be saved would not have been considered viable. Is it when a certain stage of development has been reached? A student today told me he believes life begins when X number of chromosomes are present. I'd never heard that definition before.

The "stay out of my uterus" argument seems to argue that because there is no agreement, we should err on the side of the more restrictive definition of life. I would say that if there is a question we should err on the side of the more open definition of life. That being the case, it's not your uterus that is being discussed. It's the zygote/fetus/baby/whatever you care to call it that is there, and his/her/its rights that are the topic of discussion. As I said earlier, castigating those who disagree with your viewpoint as somehow trying to deprive you of your rights misses the actual point of concern for whether or not a human life is being taken. Do you really want to live amongst those who would say "I believe a life is being taken, but it's none of my business"? I can understand arguing that a life is not being taken, but I can't understand counseling those who think a life is being lost and who believe they should do something about it to stand aside. The 20th century had plenty of examples of that, and it wasn't pretty.

It's interesting that we are also seeing a great deal of debate as to when life is over - there is a case now where an orthodox Jewish family whose son is on a respirator is saying that because their rabbinical authority has ruled that as long as his heart is beating he is alive, even though he has absolutely no brain function. If he were taken off the respirator he would die - I imagine what will happen is that he will be taken out of the hospital (which is arguing that there is no treatment for his current condition, and the insurance company will not pay for his care) and taken home or to another facility. Both sides are trying to avoid taking it to court.

I'm teaching English 1301, and there are four topics my students may NOT write their research paper on: abortion, gun control, capital punishment and legalization of drugs. If I never have to read a paper on those four topics again, I can die a happy woman. :)

Okay- here is the info on IUI as it was explained to me. I hope this post doesn't stop me from getting a job with the Obama admin.

There is a device that allows for the collection of semen while a "normal" copulation is taking place. Think a condom with holes in it to allow some semen to flow through, while collecting some as well.
This device allows that "no seed is being spilled". It also allows for semen to be tested for things like sperm count. This semen can theorectically also be used for IUI. using this method, IUI would be acceptable. Again, the Pope Paul VI Institute (it is in Omaha) would be the best resource for someone wanting to know the details.

The Roman Catholic Church also does not have a stand (currently) on Embryo adoption, so that is another alternative for a couple that cannot concieve on their own, but wants to follow church teaching.

Should people who go outside the Roman Catholic Church teachings be denyed communion? Personally, who am I to judge someone else? However I don't completely understand why you would WANT to take communion if you disagreed with major church teachings.

LOL - I'm teaching Ethical Theory and my class would be lost without having those topics available. :D

Not being Catholic, I can't really comment on how appropriate it is (or isn't) for the priest to deny Obama supporters communion. All I can say is that I'm appreciative of all my former and current religious consults. I have never been asked about political matters in a religious setting, and I'm quite happy about that.

im nowhere near catholic, but is it just me, or does this seem like a way of "weeding out" the obama supporters, that way if you get up to do communion, but Mary next to you doesnt move this week after that comment...you can assume Mary might have voted for Obama...that makes for bad politics if you ask me. church shouldnt be about singling people out or letting it be known you arent as holy as the next person...that same person who voted for McCain might have other issues that would prevent them from taking communion...

Well, a parishoner at that church could just transfer to another RC church - one where the priest isn't as worked up about Obama.

Not being Catholic, I don't have a dog in this fight. However, when my ex and I went for premarital counseling (mandatory in our church), we were told that the IUD is prohibited in our church. The concept behind it is that the IUD allows fertilization of an egg, but doesn't allow the fertilized egg to implant into the uterus. The IUD basically does the job of a D&C, so that even if a gamete is able to implant itself, sooner or later, the IUD will scrape it (or worse, part of it) off.

Catholic friends of mine who couldn't conceive were told that they must refuse IVF, or even artificial insemination. While I can somewhat understand religious grounds for IVF, if a couple undergoes artificial insemination then has normal relations, who would know which sperm impregnated the egg? But that may be my limited understanding on the process.

I completely understand your last paragraph.