Marcelo Ebrard, the Mayor of Mexcio City, who signed into effect the law that kicked off this latest controversy, has a bit of advice for the Pope: “I would simply and very frankly add that we are in the 21st century, and not the 16th century.”
For a former member of Hitler Youth, it should not be difficult for Pope Benedict XVI to understand that as times change, so also changes what is and is not moral; what is and is not socially acceptable… Without caution, he may inflict a wound on the ancient Church that may never be mended. In light of what’s at stake, a debate of whether Hell is or is not a real place seems to be merely semantics.
Founder of "The Rev. Rob Times," (www.revrob.com) Rev. Robert A. Vinciguerra has been a longtime student of journalism. Currently, he holds a government job where is a technical writer, instructional designer, and an IT trainer. From Phoenix, Arizona.
What you refer to as a woman's right to chose is considered the murder of unborn babies by a large part of the human race. The Pope is defending his beliefs and those of the Church. This will not destroy the Church in America, rather it will make it stronger.
Stirling
by
Lord Stirling (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 74 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 12:28:26 PM
We live ina pluristic society since when do we have to listen to the pope or be force to go by what he says. The bible doesnt say anything about abortion nor does it criminalize the woman for doing so. Dont you think this is all about the role of woman in religion? Who has the right to play God? God gave man the free will to choose or not to choose their own moral decisions. no one has the right to take that away from you regardless of what they think. And by the way the catholic church is on the decline. No one what people to answer for them when they have the right to answer for themselves. Funny he is worried about an aborted fetus but if the woman end up dead he and others say nothing at all. Apparently a woman is not a human when she is pregnant just a cardboard box.
by
chip90043 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 9:01:10 PM
Morals do change with the times. When people see how you handle moral issues. We live in a society where there are all kinds of religion and beliefs who is to say that we should only go by one moral beliefs. And where are these morals when she hurt her self or end up dead. Are you saying that God want you to ignore these woman just because she had an abortion. Something that he did not say anything about. How did the abortion issue get so far out of hand since it is not mentioned in the bible in the first place? and why didnt jesus stopped woman from having an abortion during his time you know it is as old as childbrith. It was going on during his time. So if he did not do anything about it and said nothing about it. The why are you worried about what she is doing? It doesnt make any sense. Since when does she has to listen to what people say about an issue that they cant even point to.
by
chip90043 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 9:05:23 PM
You say morals change with the times? Only for those with no moral
compass.
Is stealing morally wrong? Morally wrong one thousand years ago, but not
today? Is murder morally wrong? Morally wrong one thousand years ago, but not today? Is stealing morally wrong? Morally wrong one thousand years ago, but not today? Is lying morally wrong? Wrong one thousand years ago, but not today? Get the point?
by
Bob Gormley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 837 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 9:17:02 AM
I would refer here both to the article and comments by Lord Stirling and Gormley ( both I met before):
1. It would be inconceivable for a Pope as he is now to think and function otherwise than Benedict does and here the reference to Hitlerjugend is a cheap shot indeed. All boys were there at that time the same way I was a young pioneer in the Communist Russia. You see aa child on the photo. Some of those children were monsters already but not this one apparently and thus as I said- cheap shot.
2. Abortion is an unfortunate cirumstance, an option provided but surely not to be encouraged. At the same time the total ban on abortion is a political leverage and , ironically both Hitler and Stalin, enemies of Christianity were rabid anti-abortionists. Lord Stirling, Bob, in the first camps for the unemployed Germans right in 1933, 1934 90% of the women became pregnant within months. That was encouraged. In Stalin's Russia after the war a woman who aborted a fetus would be put to jail for 10 years together with the medic. At least, Stalin had some reason- he lost 27 million people. But he did not care for starcing children after they were born and he did not care for women who worked in the factories. In fact, any usage of the LAW against abortion automatically makes a woman a second-class citizen because it targets only them. Benedict, surely does not make laws; he only guides his flock. But that flock now can get info not only from him. As such what we call a change of times is the INTEGRAL assessment of an individual, not sticking to the dogma. There is no one without sin: how many illegitimate children did the Popes have and how many mistresses? Catholic Church is a corporation- its CEO has to change ( that is what we mean by change) because people have evolved and their collective experience had given them new info. You cannot, for instance be fully against abortions up to excommunication and OK the nuclear weapons, for instance. In fact, the Pope must recognize that the flock sometimes has its own mind and as it once happened in England ( hey, your Lordship, you remember Henry VIII) when another male goat comes and tells that he knows the way the flock goes after him and Church of England appears:)
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 3220 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 1:56:19 PM
kent- I cant wait to order this book it seems you have more knowledge behind the abortion issue then what some people do, It is another way of keeping a woman down. but yet jesus breath life into the nostril. but somehow people think it is a life when it is in the womb???. I know that this is for other reasons. YOu know Kent they wont be satisfied until a large number of woman decide to sterilized and end cilvilization as we know it. I think that people have forgotten that it is a choice. And if she isnt left to her own free will she just may decide to hell with it, And I hate to say it but I hope it is true. Sometimes you have to beat people to the point.
by
chip90043 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 9:27:51 PM
If you believe that a pro-life stance is what God wants, awesome. Far out. That does not, however, give you the right to impose that belief, which is a religious argument about "when does life actually begin."
Oh yeah, and did I mention that the bans on gay marriage, based on the religious belief that marriage is between only one man and one woman, according to God, is unconstitutional?
by
daveys (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 83 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 2:36:34 PM
Religious and secular moralities - which is superior?
The abortion issue is one of bioethics, while the homosexuality issue is one of ethics alone. Ethics itself is a branch of philosophy that deals with the "right" and "wrong" of human nature, which historically has been viewed as issues of morality. Most religions easily lend themselves to the "good vs. evil" conflict inherent in ethics via their morality. In fact, this religious morality has long dominated secular morality because it appeals to a power of authority beyond humanity, which is inherently flawed.
To the extent that a person claims membership within a particular religious body, I believe the leadership of that body can mandate that you profess a particular belief (e.g., the Apostle's Creed or Nicean Creed). Of course, you can choose to not profess that belief (after all, God gave us all free will), but that puts in jeopardy your membership within that body. Where you publicly announce not to profess that belief, you clearly are at risk of loosing your membership.
Therefore, given the past teachings and historical Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church on the issues of abortion and homosexuality, its leadership can remove or excommunicate "one of their flock", if that one fails to profess the flock's stated beliefs. It's kind of like a chipmunk saying it's a cat, wanting to hang out with cats, yet preferring not to hunt with the cats because it finds that practice offensive and barbaric. Well, was it EVER really a cat or was it always a chipmunk? I think we know the answer.
As to the issue of "when does life begin", it's legitimate for religion to offer its opinion on this moral matter just as much as the secular can do the same given that they both can lay claim to ethics and their respective moralities. Where the conflict arises is deciding upon which definition of "superior" should be applied when determining the start of life. Morality founded in religion would argue that everyone has a right to life – including the unborn. Morality founded in secularism would argue that life begins when the fetus is "viable".
So, which perspective is the superior – life at conception or life at viability?
Admittedly, the secular argument is weak here because it fails to accommodate the total "potential" in favor of the known "realization" – at a specific time – knowing that the potential WILL (not if) change. This being the case, secular morality on abortion abandons grossly the concept of maximizing the good and thereby rejecting any universality in an act in favor of a hypothetical imperative that changes from one person to the next and/or for one reason or another.
Immanuel Kant explained this as his Categorical Imperative and thought that by striving for an absolute approach on any issue was the more desirable or superior because of its broader (i.e., universal) appeal as opposed to the more subjective hypothetical imperative of an "if-then" approach - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative .
Clearly as it relates to abortion, the big loser in the act is the unborn child or fetus – whichever you prefer – because its potential has been subjectively terminated. Other losses are incurred by the mother and those surrounding her; however, they still have the ability to realize their potential. I'm not trying to take a side here (although I do have an opinion on the matter), but abortion certainly isn't as "cut and dried" in terms of ethics and morality as some would like to present the issue to be.
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1280 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 3:28:34 PM
What does it matter which one is superior if a woman just like a man have the right to choose or not to choose. You may say the fetus wont reach its full potential. But if it happens to be born. And is not love or taken care of it dies of either starvation/poverty. What about that lack of potential. Why cant woman be lefted alone. If she doesnt have a problem with it then why do you men do? I for one as a woman do not care what a woman does to her body I know if abortion is illegal. it will go underground like it did before. And like it does in other countries where it is illegal. It also sets up an discrimnatory system between different class of woman. The rich get to go to paris, france to get it done but the poor ones get to risk their lives in these back alleys. I know jesus did not put laws in place in order to discriminate between people. The rela problem is the role of woman in religion. I know if a man can get pregnant we would not be having this conversation. It would be a sacrement.
by
chip90043 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 60 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 9:14:45 PM
that this is so: "...launching unbridled attacks against elected officials in the US could be the measure that permanently ostracizes the Holy See from politics in America and lead to the collapse of the institution as a whole in the United States..."
and that the collapse of the whole damn thing happens in the very near future.
by
Daniel Geery (26 articles, 55 quicklinks, 121 diaries, 653 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 5:03:22 PM
"What does it matter which one is superior if a woman just like a man have the right to choose or not to choose."
The right to choose is not what's being considered as superior. Rather the right to life or not is what takes precedence. Everyone has "free will" and the ability to choose or not. Does the result of the choice, though, maximize the goodness of the act? To use the hypothetical imperative of the "if-then" – "But if it happens to be born. And is not love or taken care of it dies of either starvation/poverty. What about that lack of potential." – is subjective and only serves one party to the act and not all.
What is known when a fetus is terminated (at any point in the womb) is that if left to its own course, the gestation of the fetus would most likely have resulted in a birth – period. However, with its termination, that potential will never be realized. Whether the child's and later adult's life is with or without starvation and/or poverty is not known but immaterial. The argument could be equally made that the life could be filled with comfort and prosperity.
"Why cant woman be lefted alone. If she doesnt have a problem with it then why do you men do? I for one as a woman do not care what a woman does to her body I know if abortion is illegal. it will go underground like it did before."
Humanity – both male and female – should have a problem for a society that does not act in a manner that maximizes the good. Implementing a subjective impulse results in the justification of almost any action, which leads to increasing confusion and moral apathy because of the inability to make a definitive decision. The issue of having abortion go underground is regrettable from the mother's perspective but is secondary to maximizing the goodness of preserving life. I don't mean to sound callous but the petition that an increase in illegal abortions will occur is also subjective and appeals only to the emotion (which is inherently subjective itself) and not morality (which is more objective).
"I know jesus did not put laws in place in order to discriminate between people. The rela problem is the role of woman in religion. I know if a man can get pregnant we would not be having this conversation. It would be a sacrement."
Jesus left no laws that I'm aware; however, He did leave a wealth of suggestions and recommendations for living a more moral (and superior) lifestyle. Claiming that the absence of women in religion, with respect to abortion, impacts adversely a woman's right to choose is only a diversion. It fails to address the more superior right to life and focuses solely on the ability to choose openly or not. The results of this focus are solely one-sided and discard the other side (i.e., the unborn).
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1280 comments)
on Wednesday, November 28, 2007 at 10:33:50 PM
Sounds like you got a real chip on your shoulder Dan.
When I saw my daughter at 22 weeks, I didn't look at her like a "fetus", but
as my daughter. A daughter with much potential indeed. We are oh so clinical and have every excuse in the world to support abortion, ie health of the mother , etc. The reality is most abortions are done out of selfishness,
ie me, me, me, my rights, never the rights of those "fetus'" with beating
hearts. It really isn't a religious issue, but whether one's own heart is made
of stone or not.
by
Bob Gormley (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 837 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 9:11:39 AM
...exists only as a major media item in deeply religious countries, like the US and Saudi Arabia, among others.
In countries having a well established secular cultures, like in Europe where I live now, average people are not interested at all in this issue. Don't tell me it's because Europeans care less about human life--these countries have no death penalty, no oil wars and universal health coverage. By the way I cannot understand why our country is still the only developped nation without adequate health system.
Anyway, what does it matter if the right of a fetus to be born is sacred or not, since women have always resorted to abortions when they think they cannot take care of a child, wether abortions are legal or not.
So the choice in real life is between dangerous abortions in back alleys, and safe abortions practised by MDs in hospitals.
I have never met an abortion foe who was not religious and/or against women's rights.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 169 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 7:34:34 AM
right on the money. Again, any laws targeting only one group of population ( women, black people, Moslems, Jews, minorities, homosexuals) are illegal because that's oppression pure and simple. How would our men- discussors react if a specific male- dominated activity like hunting animals ( I hate that one as a matter of fact and I am a mature man with some miltary background too) would be banned as a barbarism? I would like to see those howling crowds defending their freedom of choice to KILL.
If I may I would even say that abortion isssue cannot be discussed without women and it is only up to women to make decisions about themselves. Not that it cannot be tragic and not that the men do not suffer because of it. But it is a woman's choice as well as all the possible moral consequences which have nothing to do with laws, hopefully.
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 3220 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 8:05:40 AM
The debate is both secular AND religious - not just secular
"Again, any laws targeting only one group of population (women, black people, Moslems [sic], Jews, minorities, homosexuals) are illegal because that's oppression pure and simple."
ANY legality or illegality of abortion then and by default is illegal by this standard. Unless you know of any male pregnancies, any law regarding abortion wholly involves the woman. What's absent here is the focus. Which act is more superior as witnessed by its maximization of the good – choice or life? The hunting analogy is silly because everyone knows that a woman can hunt just like a man. But a man can't get pregnant – again and unless you know of a way to make this happen.
francine hits the nail on the head when she stated, "So the choice in real life is between dangerous abortions in back alleys, and safe abortions practised by MDs in hospitals." The choice that pro-choice advocates talk about is not that of life or death but rather that of the woman's health and safety, discarding the health and even the right to life of the fetus as immaterial – the realized vs. the potential.
francine illustrates this choice issue by claiming, "Anyway, what does it matter if the right of a fetus to be born is sacred or not, since women have always resorted to abortions when they think they cannot take care of a child, wether [sic] abortions are legal or not." This is an example of the hypothetical imperative in that, "If the mother thinks she cannot take care of the child, then she can (and some would argue 'should') abort it."
What this imperative lacks grossly is objectivity. If the mother is going to abort the child regardless of whether it's legal or not, then the fetus or unborn child has no value - to the mother only. The missing objectivity is that the unborn child has value to itself, which Americans and other people's the world over espouse as a belief that we are endowed with inalienable rights and that among these is the right to life.
The statements of "The debate about abortion...exists only as a major media item in deeply religious countries," and "I have never met an abortion foe who was not religious and/or against women's rights," are (1) truly false and (2) diversionary. The diversion tries to make secular morality as the only morality that can lay claim to abortion. From both a logical and ethical perspective, such a subjective limitation is flawed and incorrect. Both religious and secular moralities – because of their shared foundation in ethics or the essence of what is "right" or "wrong" with regard to human nature – may lay claim to the abortion issue.
by
Tom Murphy (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1280 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 8:57:19 AM
or do not pretend to be. We do not have laws 'allowing' abortions. In the dem. society what is not forbidden is allowed. Thus if you forbid something that regulation must equally touch all population or it is oppression. Women surely can hunt too but I was talking about an overwhelming Reaction which a proposition to ban hunting would generate and you and I know that men would be 90% reactive here in this country although they should better use that energy elsewhere. Don't pretend to be a child and go into the business of choice, etc. It is none of our business as males to even go there, to tell you the truth. We live in the real world and this world is neither fair nor perfect and BTW when it came to war you yourself were insisting on the same approach. Eat your checkers, Tom; abortion is an option for a woman in a democratic, civilized society which does not claim economic equality. You and I do not have to like it but we also do not have to like the CEOs getting hundreds of millions in bonuses. In both cases we have to live with it. Pope also has to live with it and he knows it.
by
Mark Sashine (42 articles, 19 quicklinks, 227 diaries, 3220 comments)
on Thursday, November 29, 2007 at 12:59:13 PM
Where's the silliness in this law that "allows" abortion - http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2003/hb0763.html ? In fact, a great number of states have laws that permit abortion for a minor only with parental consent (partial and/or full)- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minors_and_abortion#Law_in_the_United_States . Why do you think such laws that "allow" abortion exist, Mark, or are they nothing more then legalized oppression? I'm curious as to your answer, which undoubtedly will reference something about a minor not being capable of making a decision – but if it isn't society's business in the first place, then why have any law (including that for a minor) on abortion?
"It is none of our business as males to even go there, to tell you the truth."
This isn't a truth, but it IS an opinion - your opinion. Here we clearly disagree. It is my business to care about abortion not as a male but as a member of a society. You're creating an artificial barrier that emphasizes the subjective differences (neither you nor I had a hand in the determination of our sexes) and discards the objective (males and females constitute a society). To claim you have no "business" regarding the matter of choice is the equivalent of usurping your inalienable right to life; THIS is what is truly silly from a logical perspective, if you adhere to this belief of "I'm male and have no business discussing a female-centric decision made within the human society".
"...[A]bortion is an option for a woman in a democratic, civilized society..."
I know it IS an option whether it is legal or not. We (male and female) are all instilled with free will and make our own decisions. But your linking abortion to the "democratic, civilized society" appoints (like past commenters have argued) secular morality as the sole arbiter in the abortion matter. This artificial limiting is conducted only for subjective reasons (the hypothetical imperative) at the expense of objective reasons (maximizing the good) and denounces an inalienable right in the process.
