So I’m really, really depressed right now. Things have gone from bad to worse. Obama is now President Obama. For the record, while this country still has freedom of speech, I can’t STAND that man and anyone who voted for him will regret it some day. HOW could you have voted for someone who is so obviously a puppet as Obama?
One thing about Obama that gets me personally infuriated is that he’s planning on signing the “Freedom of Choice Act”, which will literally DEMOLISH everything the pro-life movement has accomplished in the past 36 years…gone, in seconds. I could just cry right now, I really could. This is SO depressing. You just can’t imagine how depressing this is. The pro-life movement is something I want to dedicate my life to, and if this Freedom of Choice Act is passed, then not only are we going to have to start over, but we’re going to have an even more difficult road ahead of us in order to get the past 36 years back up to speed.
He’s for gun control, which will deny me the opportunity to protect myself if some whack job who’s going to get a gun anyway because he doesn’t give a hoot to laws and regulations comes and attacks me. As someone who is 5’ and 110lbs and thus extremely vulnerable to attacks, that’s a pretty scary thought. Not to mention that gun control takes away from my Second Amendment right to bear arms. Plus, I like guns. They’re cool. I should get what I want. That’s the mentality in America anyway.
He wants to make anything said against minority groups hate speech that could land someone in prison. At that point, a Christian or Jewish denomination could not speak of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19), because it discusses how Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of the homosexuality. Similarly, other passages in the Bible will not be allowed because they discuss how homosexuality is morally wrong. Now, I agree that if a person is spouting off physical threats, then they should be justly dealt with. However, I think that a spiritual minister has EVERY RIGHT to come before HIS (or HER) congregation and spout their beliefs (in a peaceful, unthreatening manner). Where’s the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech in taking away the ability to speak the religious beliefs?
Obama wants to set up a citizen army that will be “just as powerful…just as well funded” as the United States army. So he’s taking away our ability to arms and setting up his own personal army at the same time? Can anyone say COMMUNISM? You know, where he has his own personal BRAINWASHED army that comes into your homes and searches you to make sure you’re following regulation? Yeah, that takes away your right to privacy, FYI.
Another thing about Obama that frustrates me to NO end is his whole “distribution of wealth” crap. Socialism, anyone? Basically, what he’s saying is that he’s going to take away the hard-earned money from people like my dad. Dad has 20 years of college educations and tons of debts to prove it because he’s actually tried to make something of himself instead of bumming around and letting the rest of America pay his bills because he’s an immigrant (he immigrated from Italy (legally) when he was a teenager). Not only is he going to take the money away from people like my dad, but also Obama is going to give that money to the bums who are too lazy to get out and work for themselves. My dad’s in a high tax bracket, but so much of his earnings go to the government that driving a half hour or buying a little bit of ice cream is a big deal for us. I’m sick and tired of struggling to make ends meet when we have all these “poor people” who get a ton of free junk from the government.
If you haven’t read George Orwell’s 1984, then you need to read it. If you’ve already read it, then reread it. I’d reread it, but a friend of mine borrowed it a year ago and the pest hasn’t given it back yet. Yeah, that’s what we have to look forward to. A time where you can’t do ANYTHING without the government watching you. A time where the government rewrites history in order to prevent you from knowing the truth. A time where people mysteriously disappear, never to be seen again, because they were too smart for the government’s liking. A time where your nearest and dearest become your worst enemies. A time where there is no happiness, there is no joy. THAT, ladies and gentlemen, is what you just voted in.
How could we do this to ourselves? In a time of “enlightenment,” how could we be so ignorant? How could we be so stupid? How could we buy into the lies that Obama and those like him have spouted in order to receive power? How could we so blindly believe the media and its liberal lies? What happened to the American dream? How did it come to this?
Whatever happens, don’t blame me. I voted NObama.
I wrote the above a few minutes after discovering that our country elected Obama as President Elect. I've calmed down a little since then. I believe there is still hope for America. It'll be a fight, but we'll pull through.
I think the parallel with Obama and 1984 is a bit much, but I agree with what you said about socialism, which can also be called a form of communism.
Read and comment as you like.... http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/starving-musician
communism is a form of socialism
I'm not ignorant because I voted for Obama, and I don't appreciate the personal attack. Neither does the TOS of the website. You may want to edit your post.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
I'm not attacking anyone. Being ignorant isn't your fault. I'm just bewailing the fact that the majority of people are ignorant. That doesn't make you bad, evil, etc. It just means you're ignorant.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
It is interesting that you--who have never provided a single, solitary scrap of objective evidence for any of the claims you make--are calling sawaboof--who researches things carefully and sorts through all the evidence before making a decision--ignorant. It's very magnanimous that you don't fault her for her own ignorance. My question to you is, who's fault is your ignorance?
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I'll admit I'm ignorant of a good many things. That's part of the reason I'm on this liberal hotbed site. It gives me an opportunity to learn why I believe what I believe.
However, at least I have my priorities straight. At least I've been blessed with the understanding of the importance of every human life. Anyone who voted for Obama obviously does not have that understanding.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
"However, at least I have my priorities straight. At least I've been blessed with the understanding of the importance of every human life. Anyone who voted for Obama obviously does not have that understanding."
Dogmatism is never a good thing. Especially in politics. It stunts the ability to grow and understand. From the perspective of a good deal of Obama supporters, the wars in the middle east is disregard for human life, while abortion is not. You have every right to believe that a fetus is human from the moment of conception. However, that does not justify you saying that, without a doubt, you are right and everyone else is wrong.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
I understand that, 4 years ago, Catholics were highly encouraged to vote for the pro-life candidate (aka Bush). I don't recall Bush making abortions illegal at any point of time... Because the President cannot make abortions illegal. So, voting based solely on that factor is really kind of pointless. The President cannot overturn Roe vs. Wade.
I do have a full understanding of the importance of human life. I just don't view an embryo or fetus as a human life. The potential, yes. But potential is not the equivalent. This isn't really an issue of understanding; it's a personal belief.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
You mistake "highly encouraged" with "had a moral obligation." In order words, it wasn't a suggestion. The Church was telling you that you DO have a moral obligation and to ignore that obligation (by voting pro-choice or not at all) is a sin. As stated in the article I sent you, a politician's stance on abortion is a "disqualifying factor." Regardless of his or her stance on other issues, if he or she is against the culture of life, then he or she cannot receive your vote.
The President cannot necessary overturn Roe vs. Wade, but he can help or at least not do anything to support the culture of life. Obama specifically is so ardently and blatantly pro-choice that I have no doubt he will further the culture of death. His Freedom of Choice Act in itself, if passed, will support the culture of death. By voting for him, you have partaken in the murder of thousands of innocent lives.
The Church teaches that life begins at the moment of conception. Even if you doubt that or disagree with it, as a Catholic, you had a moral obligation to obey the Church and vote pro-life.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
A politician's stance on abortion is not a disqualifying factor. The abortion issue is not a litmus test to determine the qualities of a candidate. "Pro-Life" is a stance that embraces much more than a fetus.
Pro-life means all human life, not just the unborn. I didn't choose someone to be President based off their views of abortion because the President doesn't really do anything about it. What a President can do is give health care to children, stop torture, fund school lunch programs, fund programs like WIC, protect American jobs and retirement plans, supporting research to find cures for HIV/AIDS, cancers, and other chronic diseases, etc.
But if you'd like to go back to abortion, the best way to combat abortion is to give people tools they need to choose life. Abortion rates go down among women who have health care, jobs, education, and support systems. Low-income women are 4 times as likely to seek an abortion than non-low-income women. Helping struggling American families is what will lower the abortion rates, not leaving them to fend for themselves.
You don't have to agree with me that there is more than one issue that determines a candidates qualification for Presidency. I believe that Pro-life is about more than one issue, and I don't narrowly interpret the Church's teaching on pro-life as being solely focused on Roe v. Wade--something that would not end abortions even if it were to somehow, magically, be overturned.
I still think that Obama is, overall, more in line with the Catholic Church's social teachings than McCain. You don't agree with me, and that's fine. You don't have to. But you not interpreting something the way I do doesn't give you the right to tell me I'm wrong in my decisions, or "not a true Catholic." Even if it's meant in a sincere and loving way.
"What a crazy random happenstance!"
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog
Read my Blog!
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful states (on the Vatican website):
"Catholics, in this difficult situation, have the right and the duty to recall society to a deeper understanding of human life and to the responsibility of everyone in this regard. John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them."
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_...
We, as Catholics, have a DUTY to at least not vote for someone who will promote attacks on human life. The killing of human life is the ultimate attack on humanity, and thus should be placed ahead of many other issues.
Obama claims quite a few things. However, I'll be really interested in seeing if he is this god everyone thinks he is going to be. Now that he's been elected President, I hope he is because I'd hate to see this country go to ruins. But I think people are just looking at what he's "promising" and disregarding whether or not he can actually fund x extra things while still cutting our taxes by $y. Ignorance is bliss, so everyone better enjoy it while it lasts.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Considering that the even the catholic church has not always prohibited the practice of induced abortion, I have to ask you why no pope has ever issued an ex cathedra pronouncement of doctrinal infallibility regarding abortion? If the pope does not issues such a directive, then catholics are ultimately free to make their own decisions about what is right and what is wrong, even when that means disagreeing with the teachings of the church, under the doctrine of probabilism. Even the Chatechism of the Catholic Church (1790-1802) is quite clear on this point when it says, "A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience...Conscience is man's most secret core, and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths...A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience."
In fact, for most of its history the catholic church has not held that early term abortions are doctrinally acceptable. As late as the 14th Century, Thomas Aquinas taught that abortion was not homicide until after the fetus was "ensouled," and was very clear in his explanation that this mythical event did not take place until some point after conception. Even in 1974, in response to the Roe decision, the Vatican (specifically, Pope John Paul VI) admitted that "There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement."
TTFN,
Blackout
Ubi dubium; ibi libertas ~ Anonymous Proverb
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
And I love enlightening people with false ideas about Church teaching : )
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states: “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” (No. 2271).
Thomas Aquinas believed that the soul was acquired at conception. However, he believed: "The conception of the male finishes on the fortieth day and that of the woman on the ninetieth, as Aristotle says in the IX Book of the Animals" (Aquinas, Commentary on III Sentences 3:5:2). However, this idea was held almost 800 years ago with extremely primitive science. With advanced science, we have learned that conception is a MUCH quicker process. Oh, and BTW, St. Thomas Aquinas was the 13th century, not the 14th century. Finally, whereas St. Thomas Aquinas was an AWESOME philosopher, he is not infallible.
Pope John Paul II states in his encyclical "Evangelium Viteae":
"62. The more recent Papal Magisterium has vigorously reaffirmed this common doctrine. Pius XI in particular, in his Encyclical Casti Connubii, rejected the specious justifications of abortion. 65 Pius XII excluded all direct abortion, i.e., every act tending directly to destroy human life in the womb "whether such destruction is intended as an end or only as a means to an end".66 John XXIII reaffirmed that human life is sacred because "from its very beginning it directly involves God's creative activity".67 The Second Vatican Council, as mentioned earlier, sternly condemned abortion: "From the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care, while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes".68
The Church's canonical discipline, from the earliest centuries, has inflicted penal sanctions on those guilty of abortion. This practice, with more or less severe penalties, has been confirmed in various periods of history. The 1917 Code of Canon Law punished abortion with excommunication. 69 The revised canonical legislation continues this tradition when it decrees that "a person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication".70 The excommu- nication affects all those who commit this crime with knowledge of the penalty attached, and thus includes those accomplices without whose help the crime would not have been committed. 71 By this reiterated sanction, the Church makes clear that abortion is a most serious and dangerous crime, thereby encouraging those who commit it to seek without delay the path of conversion. In the Church the purpose of the penalty of excommunication is to make an individual fully aware of the gravity of a certain sin and then to foster genuine conversion and repentance.
Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable. 72 Therefore, 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. 73
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."
Pope Paul IV states in his encyclical "Humanae Vitae":
"14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. (14) Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary. (15)
Similarly excluded is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end or as a means. (16)"
In other words, the Church has always taught that abortion is wrong and continues to do so.
Finally, there is no Pope "John Paul VI". You must mean Pope Paul VI, since he was the pope in 1974. Pope John Paul II did not become Pope until October 1978.
Hope this helps.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states: “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” (No. 2271).
Well, for one...that isn't exactly true. The church has always disapproved of abortion, but the theological reasoning of that disapproval has changed significantly. Early church scholars, such as Augustine of Hippo, denounced abortion on the basis of it being considered a venal sin, primarily because the procedure was often used to conceal the consequences of an illicit affair. Up until about 150 years ago, the church did not consider abortion to be a mortal sin unless it was performed after ensoulment. Through most of the church's history, that point was associated with quickening, not conception. That was the point of the admission of Pope Paul VI (you were right, I mis-attributed the quote...thank you for correcting me).
But, even if this point of the catechism was actually true in a historical sense, it wouldn't change the applicability of the teaching of probabilism. In fact, it would seem to me that this was exactly the kind of teaching to which that principle would be intented to address...i.e. controverisal policies of the heirarchy that are not considered infallible by the church.
Given such unanimity in the doctrinal and disciplinary tradition of the Church, Paul VI was able to declare that this tradition is unchanged and unchangeable.
Aside from the fact that the "unchanged" argument simply isn't true, I must point out to you that the current pope has specifically stated that the church's teaching on abortion is not, in fact, an infallible doctrine. Thus, the refuge of probabilism is still available to those catholics who have an honest moral disagreement with the dictates of the church.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
This is called petty arguing...here we go...
I think the point that that part of the catechism was trying to make is that the Church has always disapproved of abortion. Maybe the reasoning behind it has become better developed as time has progressed (in addition, a greater need for definition has become needed over the past 150 years), but the basics have always remained the same: abortion is wrong.
150 years ago, they probably still thought that ensoulment occurred during the first 40-90 days. Now we know that it happens at conception, and this invalidates your argument.
Quickening?
That's correct. The encyclicals by the Popes are not infallible doctrine. However, when the Popes speak (especially those as great as Paul VI and John Paul II!), it's nothing to sneeze at. Therefore, as a Catholic, I must seriously consider what they say. I would guess that the Church has not made any infallible statements regarding abortion because God has not allowed us the definite knowledge in knowing the exact moment of ensoulment. Therefore, the Church's teaching is correct in being "safe than sorry." Also, I don't find any reason to see why that wouldn't be a baby (see my recent note "Why NOT a baby?". Finally, the Church does state in the catechism that having an abortion is grounds for excommunication. Assisting in the sin of another is a sin, as well. By voting for a pro-choice candidate, you are assisting him to assist women to commit mortal sins and thus are making yourself partially responsible for the bloodshed of innocence. A well-formed conscience would not agree to any such deed.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
150 years ago, they probably still thought that ensoulment occurred during the first 40-90 days. Now we know that it happens at conception, and this invalidates your argument.
How do "we" know that? I mean, technically speaking, you can't even prove that souls exist. There is certainly no objective test that you could perform which would answer the question, and historically speaking even the "greatest" minds of he catholic church cannot seem to agree on the question.
Quickening?
That's correct. The encyclicals by the Popes are not infallible doctrine. However, when the Popes speak (especially those as great as Paul VI and John Paul II!), it's nothing to sneeze at. Therefore, as a Catholic, I must seriously consider what they say.
I don't think anyone here (not even me) has said that you shouldn't "seriously consider" the advice of your spiritual leaders, but that isn't the same as saying that no room for disagreement and that no other opinion could possibly be valid. If these "great" popes are so all-fired sure then why NOT take the obvious step and end the debate (for catholics) by making an ex cathedra pronouncement?
Finally, the Church does state in the catechism that having an abortion is grounds for excommunication.
I'm not surprised. Weak minds often resort to threats when their reason fails to convince.
A well-formed conscience would not agree to any such deed.
I disagree, obviously, and will respond by restating the Latin proverb I referenced above...
Ubi dubium; ibi libertas
"Where there is doubt, there is freedom."
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Sorry, I worded that incorrectly...now we know that conception is a quicker process. Since the Church (and those respected in the Church) have always taught that the baby is ensouled at conception, this teaching now means that it happens basically immediately.
Oh, ok, that's what I figured it meant. Thanks for the definition.
Because it's not as simple as that. Like I said in my last post, the Holy Spirit has not thus moved the Pope to know the facts of ensoulment with total certainty and thus he will not make an infallible statement. However, having it in the catechism and having multiple popes agree on the same subject is about as close as you'll get without an infallible statement, and I believe the popes have made it quite clear how wrong abortion is.
o.O You are SERIOUSLY misguided.
Nice quote. Like I said, though, a well formed conscience would not agree to any such act.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Soo... what happens to all the souls of the zygotes that don't attach to the uterine wall for one reason or another?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
You mean miscarriages? (I'm not a big science person, ; ))
Well, I believe (and this is a personal belief...the Church hasn't really given any set stance on this) that if the parents would have baptized their baby, then the baby receives baptism of desire. Otherwise, I don't know, but trust in God's infinite mercy.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Not exactly. A miscarriage is a spontaneous termination of pregnancy. What I am talking about doesn't involve the woman in any sort of pregnant state; the start of pregnancy is when the embryo attaches to the uterine wall.
By the way, the correct term for miscarriage is spontaneous abortion.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Well, then I'm not sure. I guess I'll have to look into exactly what it is first. If the egg has already been fertilized then I believe it to be a human being. If not, then I guess not. I'll look into it some more.
Thanks for the term ; )
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Since the Church (and those respected in the Church) have always taught that the baby is ensouled at conception,
Point of Fact. The church has NOT always taught that. That's exactly what Aquinas was talking about, above, and that's exactly what Paul VI was referring to when he said, "There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement." In these discussions, you have regularly referred to abortion as "murder." That is a very recent catholic affectation and represents a notable change in the way the church views abortion.
o.O You are SERIOUSLY misguided.
Hey, I'm not the one trying to take away the fundamental rights of women in the U.S. because I think my imaginary friend might get upset if I leave people free to follow the dictates of their own consciences, so I hope you'll pardon me if we disagree on who exactly is "SERIOUSLY misguided."
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
But like I said, Thomas Aquinas DID teach that the child was ensouled at conception. He just thought conception was a longer process.
No, instead you're ok with a mass murder of millions of innocent babies who are being ripped from the protection of their mother's wombs in order to be brutally murdered. In addition, I am a woman and so I must be denying myself the rights.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...so I will respond to you, below.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'm so glad that I don't follow a religion that discourages free thought in the way your version of the Catholic Church seems to. I mean, making it an OBLIGATION to vote a certain way, making it a sin otherwise, simply makes for a following of robots, no?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
The Church does not discourage free thought. However, there are some things that are true and false and always such. I, as a Catholic, have every opportunity to research why the Church teaches something and whatnot. However, since I can't know EVERYTHING, it's really useful being able to look at what the Church teaches and use that as a base for various ideas. For example, the Church is ok with organ donating as long as the person has given his permission and those harvesting don't intentionally kill the person. As someone who is uneasy over the whole idea, knowing that the Church approves of it makes it a little easier to consider. That sort of thing.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Out of curiosity, how do you define death? Because I know the Catholic Church does not have a set medical determination for that.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Death is when the soul leaves the body. As we are unsure of that exact time, the Church says that a person can receive Last Rites (Anointing of the Sick) up to four hours after medically declared dead. The fact that we are unsure of when a person dies is what makes me kinda cringe at the idea of organ donating, although I do think it's an awesome thing.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Oh, I'm well aware of the spiritual definition for death, but that's not a medically determined point of death. You can't see the soul, thus you can't see when it leaves the body, which means a medically determined point of death is needed. What do you consider this point?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Oh, well, you asked me how I defined death.
Well, a while back, they defined death as when someone stopped breathing. Now it's when someone is brain dead. I think it's probably more extensive than that, but I guess that's a good way to measure as that's the farthest science has advanced on the subject. I don't know if we'll ever know for sure, though.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Ok, fair enough. I was fully expecting you to say heartbeat (which is the determination made by some religious groups, which is why this boy's family wants to keep him alive), and, of course, some of your fellow Catholics do not agree with you, but we'll go with brain death. I like it better anyway :)
So, just to clarify, if someone does not have brain function, they would be considered dead, correct?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
See? The Church does encourage science : P
Yes, they'd be considered dead. However, I am unsure of the actual reality of whether or not they are actually dead. It's possible that their soul is still within them, which would mean (to me) that they are still alive.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Except my brother was bleeding out all of his blood. He was in a Lutheran hospital, though, so even though he was brain dead, they had to keep him going until his heart stopped beating. My parents bought into this, too, thinking there might be a chance, even though the doctor said it would be a miracle if he regained any brain function. Eventually, his body just got too cold to live, so they stopped giving him blood. He eventually bled out and his heart stopped, but since he had been given over 70 units of blood, his organs were no longer viable for transplant. So several lives were wasted. And his wishes were not respected because of some arbitrary religious standard that had zero to do with medicine.
"Never go with a hippy to a second location."
~Jack Donaghy
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/ediblewoman
I had no idea.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
This is another blog that I want to get around to writing, especially after seeing various religious perspectives regarding the boy I listed above. Thanks for further information, and I'm truly sorry you had to deal with all that.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
However, at least I have my priorities straight.
Do you, really? You don't care a bit about the state of the economy, or the fact that we're in a never-ending war, or the fact that we have a poor reputation around the world because we stick our noses where they don't belong? If you really cared about human life, wouldn't you be trying to make the lives of those currently living a little better, rather than focusing on the few (relatively) that die before they can endure that suffering?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I've been suffering from the state of the economy much longer than the past few months, so I know very well what happens with the economy.
I don't like the war, but I do believe it to be necessary to defend our American dreams.
I agree we stick our noses where they don't belong, but that's been going out throughout history, not just under the Bush administration. America's always stuck its nose in other people's business and told them they need a democracy.
Finally, I believe that if a person does not have respect for the vulnerable and weak (the unborn, the handicapped, the elderly), then that person will not have respect for me. Therefore, by voting pro-life, I'm supporting myself, as well.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
"I agree we stick our noses where they don't belong, but that's been going out throughout history, not just under the Bush administration. America's always stuck its nose in other people's business and told them they need a democracy."
And that is exactly why we need a president who will not continue doing what has already been done. I would argue that blindly continuing on the same path just because it's how we've always done it is the worst form of ignorance, and the most dangerous.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
One thing about Obama that gets me personally infuriated is that he’s planning on signing the “Freedom of Choice Act”, which will literally DEMOLISH everything the pro-life movement has accomplished in the past 36 years…gone, in seconds.
Good...and its about time, too. The "pro-life" movement is one of the most divisive and frankly dishonest elements ever to grace the public square of United States politics. Its goals are plainly unconstitutional, and it is about time that someone on the Hill took a real step to re-affirm the basic civil right of women to control the integrity of their own bodies.
He’s for gun control, which will deny me the opportunity to protect myself if some whack job who’s going to get a gun anyway because he doesn’t give a hoot to laws and regulations comes and attacks me.
Stop worrying. The Supreme Court of the United States recently ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that...
He wants to make anything said against minority groups hate speech that could land someone in prison.
That sounds like a gross exaggeration. Can you substanitate this claim?
Obama wants to set up a citizen army that will be “just as powerful…just as well funded” as the United States army. So he’s taking away our ability to arms and setting up his own personal army at the same time? Can anyone say COMMUNISM?
Actually, wouldn't this be a militia? What was that you said about the Second Amendment?
Another thing about Obama that frustrates me to NO end is his whole “distribution of wealth” crap. Socialism, anyone?
I've got to admit that I don't like Obama's wealth redistribution strategies, though I don't they qualify as "socialism" in more than the most general sense of the term. In a very real sense, BOTH of the major parties have recently supported some very socialistic policies. The recent bail out packages, and the republican-sponsored Medicare Drug Benefit (the largest wealth-redistribution program in U.S. history) come to mind.
Basically, what he’s saying is that he’s going to take away the hard-earned money from people like my dad...My dad’s in a high tax bracket, but so much of his earnings go to the government that driving a half hour or buying a little bit of ice cream is a big deal for us.
Unless your dad is making more than $200,000 per year, it is unlikely that he will end up paying significantly more in taxes under the Obama administration than he does now. And, if he does make more than $200,000 per year and you guys are having trouble trying to buy yourselves an occasional ice cream cone, then you have bigger problems than how much you are paying out in taxes.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Just because the Freedom of Choice Act is going to set us back does NOT mean we are going to give up. In fact, the pro-life movement will work even harder to grant liberty and justice for all. Also, I don't care what you do with your body. I care what you do to someone else's body, especially when you kill them. (You being general)
That's comforting (seriously, I'm not being sarcastic). However, the Supreme Court has contradicted itself in the past, and with the likeliness of new Justices coming up, then I wouldn't be surprised if they did rule something else.
Give him a few years. History will substantiate my claim.
I believe everyone has the right to the Second Amendment rights. However, what disturbs me is the idea of a government-funded, powerful citizen army. Not only do we already have an army and local police forces, but I also don't like the idea of spending MORE tax dollars so that Obama can have his own personal army when civil unrest breaks out in a few years due to the fact that people realize what a liar he is.
Well, I don't agree with the Republicans on a variety of issues, either, so I'm not going to defend their actions.
He makes about half that...now...but our financial situation has been crazy over the past three years (and I won't bore you with the story) and that's why everything's difficult.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Just because the Freedom of Choice Act is going to set us back does NOT mean we are going to give up.
I don't expect you to give up. I am just glad that the divisive and dishonest influence of the "pro-life" movement on the political process of our country will be getting a nice rolled-up newspaper rap on the nose and shoo'd out from under the feet (and the rights) of the women its desired policies would harm.
Give him a few years. History will substantiate my claim.
In other words, no...you can't substantiate your accusation. Typical.
...what disturbs me is the idea of a government-funded, powerful citizen army.
Why? Aside from the fact that there's nothing new about the idea (refer to my earlier comment about State Militas), I hardly think that the Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces would need to create a "personal army" (which is I would suggest just another wild exaggeration, anyway) in order to flex his political muscles if that was what he wanted to do. Your "fear" in this case is irrational, and more likely I think to be based more in a desire to muck-rake than it is in any actual understanding of the issues.
...when civil unrest breaks out in a few years due to the fact that people realize what a liar he is.
Two things. One...what indications can you point to that would suggest that the U.S. is heading for any kind of serious "civil unrest?" And two, I can point to several examples of SOMEONE lying quite a bit about our new President-Elect's positions. Can you guess who? I am not inclined to take this kind of accusation very seriously from those who lack personal credibility in regards to their own honesty, and am reminded of a certain tale involving glass houses and stones.
Well, I don't agree with the Republicans on a variety of issues, either, so I'm not going to defend their actions.
So, you are only concerned about the potential for the socialization of our nation when it is the Democratic party that is doing it. That sounds a little (more than a little, actually) hypocritical to me.
He makes about half that...now...but our financial situation has been crazy over the past three years (and I won't bore you with the story) and that's why everything's difficult.
And so once again, we see that your claim was a false one. Your father's income range actually puts you in position to benefit under Mr. Obama's tax-plan, and your attempt to paint your family's financial woes on a increasingly burdensom tax system was not honest in the least. Typical.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I really think you should step back and relax. Obama's intentions are good, and he is doing what the majority of the populace would want.
in a way you should feel happy that he is passing the Freedom of Choice Act. if abortion was ruled illegal then i think that it would deminish much of your current purpose in life. this may sound stupid, but i am basing this on the majority of your blogs is based on abortion.
"intentions are good..." Yeah, good for his own political gain.
No, it just adds to my purpose.
RESPECT LIFE
http://progressiveu.org/blog/respectlife
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
"HOW could you have voted for someone who is so obviously a puppet as Obama?"
Who is Obama a puppet of? The democratic party? If that is the case, then why would it have been better to have voted for someone who stopped the small amount of party freedom he demonstrated as soon as he felt he needed votes from the base?
Also, there are only two substantial and relevant claims that you made. The first is the abortion issue. The second is gun control. Neither of these issues suggest ignorance on the part of those who voted. It suggests disagreement with your worldview. That isn't ignorance. When I voted, I knew that Obama would be pro-choice. I also knew that most of the more restrictive forms of gun control thrown around by democrats are ridiculously unlikely to ever get passed, even with the massive majorities they will have. Why? Because it is such a big issue and people won't want to alienate voters.
As you admitted, there is absolutely no basis for your complaints that he will attack the first amendment. And again, if he does do what you suggest, there is no way it could conceivably pass constitutional muster. However, I'm not worried about that happening? Why? Two reasons. 1-Even is he won't face reelection after a second term, most of congress will. 2- Nothing he has said suggests that he will do anything like that.
Moving onto socialism. Yes there are socialistic tendencies in the Democratic party. They also exist in the Republican party. It is not a divisive issue between the two parties, especially considering the candidates.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
Yep, that basically sums up my thoughts.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I don't care for Obama either but just try to relax. Don't assume anything just wait and see if some thing happens then go ahead and vent.
Come to the darkside....we have cookies ;)
http://www.progressiveu.org/043043-mom-i-can-finally-write-you-letter
One little Kenyan gets elected and all hell breaks loose! People bewilder me. And who is "enlightened"?
I’m sick and tired of struggling to make ends meet when we have all these “poor people” who get a ton of free junk from the government. " - I brought up this point in my Literature class after everyone was done bashing McCain. I preceded it with, "I don't mean to sound like a jerk, but..."
Needless to say, I was jumped on a little bit, but my professor later wrote me an email saying she respected me a lot for stepping up and saying it when everyone else was pro-Obama.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/srhs-bandchic
^^^^ Take a peek ^^^^
Define 'ton' and define 'free'.
"Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos."
Homer Simpson
that cost him the election.
In case you weren't aware, the Republican party hoped he would pick Mitt Romney for his V.P. elect. He didn't want Mitt. He picked Joe Lieberman, a junior senator from Connecticut.
Joe Lieberman was the V.P. running mate for Al Gore in 2000. John McCain himself said, "We should not make a big election about small things, we should consider a candidate who is pro-choice."
The Republican Party had a fit. And so entered Sarah Palin. The rest is history.
"Consistency is not a human trait" - Maude, from Harold and Maude
But like I said, Thomas Aquinas DID teach that the child was ensouled at conception. He just thought conception was a longer process.
That's pretty disingenuous. Aquinas clearly drew a distinction on the issue of fetal homicide based on the point of quickening rather than the initial conception.
Paul VI's 1974 ‘Declaration on Procured Abortion’ is also quite clear on this point...
No, instead you're ok with a mass murder of millions of innocent babies who are being ripped from the protection of their mother's wombs in order to be brutally murdered.
Except that by definition, a legal abortion is not "murder." Your pejorative descriptions do not change the fundamenal flaws in your argument.
In addition, I am a woman and so I must be denying myself the rights.
There is a word that I would apply to people who foolishly relinquish their basic rights, and in doing so likewise violate the basic rights of others, but ProU's ToS agreement doesn't allow me call you that. Ah, well...
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.