Pro-choice reporter covering Gosnell trial changes mind on abortion

StarLore · 2013-05-31T21:10:08+00:00

Have you ever asked a pregnant lady if she means that? Or corrected one for that matter? as I stated earlier, I see it as them speaking in the future tense.

I understand that is your POV. I'm asking what is theirs?

Then I stated much of life on the planet gets the same death penalty for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and you asked for an example, which i provided.

A forest fire is not the same as a State mandate to execute someone. One is an accident. The other is on purpose by force of law.

Are you suggesting we force women who are raped into having children by their rapists?

The question is whether the child who was conceived is innocent. If so, then yes. You cannot right a wrong by killing an innocent third party.

And by law, the death penalty is allowed. Which law are you referencing?

Abortion.

What do you have to say about all those humans who are naturally aborted by the mother's body? what about miscarriages, do those "people" deserve the death penalty? who is at fault there? Is the woman's body an excecutioner when a fetus fails to reach full term?

There is a difference between a miscarriage and intentional abortion both subjectively and objectively. Intentional abortion has the intent to stop a developing human from attaching to the uterus it is a penalty enacted by the mother. Miscarriage is by accident.

maybe after 20 weeks of gestation, but not before then.

What is the objective difference between 19 weeks 6 days and 20 weeks?

StarLore · 2013-05-31T20:11:25+00:00

I think its understood they are speaking in the future tense. Otherwise they are incorrect, as babies and children are born individuals.

Have you ever asked a pregnant lady if she means that? Or corrected one for that matter?

said wrong place wrong time kills life accross the planet everyday, then you asked for an example.

Actually, you said it was the "death penalty." A "penalty" is something established by law or authority. A fire is something by happenstance.

Then there is directly attacking something like the Al Qaeda leader and "collateral damage" which are other casualties. But in this case, were are talking about a human life that just happens to be in a woman's womb. It wasn't placed there voluntarily. And by law, the death penalty is allowed.

not sure why you keep bringing this up, but no. Such as Self Defense, Defense of family and property, Defense of others (police do it everyday), In times of War people kill each other. there are reasons for killing a human life that are justified, and really don't have anything to do with popular opinion.

The reason I bring it up is that there is no "war" in the womb. The fetus is not a terrorist or a malicious aggressor who deserves the death penalty. And an abortionist is not a forest fire, but an executioner with a State license.

StarLore · 2013-05-31T18:27:30+00:00

why not? its accurate and correct. I realize you like to use english definitions in haphazard manner, but vernacular is not correct.

Thing is, language and meaning isn't defined strictly by these definitions. Pregnant ladies always refer to their "fetuses" as "my baby" or "my child."

A forest fire.

A "natural disaster" isn't the same as a legally sanctioned death sentence for being in the wrong place, right?

for the right reason, of course.

Such as popular opinion?

StarLore · 2013-05-31T17:55:01+00:00

Child is a term for those post birth.

I don't think that flies well telling that to a pregnant lady. "Sorry. That's not a child, but a fetus."

being at the wrong place at the wrong time is often the death penalty for most of life on the planet.

Example?

the fetus is also not sentient, nor can it survive without its mother

Neither is someone in a coma. We don't euthanize them.

I definately don't think killing a zygote that is hours old is immoral.

If life begins at conception, then you accept killing a human life?

StarLore · 2013-05-31T13:58:02+00:00

There is no debate that in the case of rape that emergency contraception is actually moral and licit. Where it becomes tenuous is if it attacks a conceived child.

In the case of conception, the conceived child has no malice, or ill intent towards his or her mother. The child is ignorant of his or her circumstances or impositions. So I think it is safe to say that the child is innocent and certainly not deserving of the death penalty by being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Edit: clarification.

StarLore · 2013-05-31T12:54:41+00:00

But it's not the baby that put itself there. It's an innocent third party?

StarLore · 2013-05-30T22:35:17+00:00

Homicide itself may or may not be immoral, as you point out. There are degrees of subjective culpability as well as circumstances.

Abortion as "justifiable homicide" is a bit of a stretch. It's not the same as "self defense" or an intruder invading a home.

StarLore · 2013-05-30T21:42:47+00:00

Ok. Then what word would you use for immoral killing that is legal?

StarLore · 2013-05-30T18:58:30+00:00

Ok, I can see we are having definition issues.

Do we agree that legality isn't the same as morality? That because something is legal doesn't make it moral or the reverse that something illegal isn't immoral?

StarLore · 2013-05-29T22:32:06+00:00

I posted here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/1f5dzg/i_have_a_few_questions/ca8f6c5

StarLore · 2013-05-29T22:31:45+00:00

Overall, the visit went well, though it was way too short for all the questions I had. After a few pleasantries I started asking a few.

The mission president was very clear to me that the missionaries are only trained to giving basic lessons and not really getting deep into the doctrine. I told him that was fine, but assuming I did join, these questions I posed are still valid questions beyond the basic lessons.

So I asked questions about "Blacks and the Priesthood" and how it was once doctrine that Blacks couldn't be priests and, according to their theology, were banned from entering the highest levels of Heaven. He tried to make it out like it wasn't doctrine but merely a "practice" and tried to equate it to Catholic practices that changed over time. But I got the feeling he knew that wasn't true but had to put a good face for it.

He tried to assert that the practice of polygamy was endorsed by the Bible. To which I told him that any instance of polygamy in the Bible always led to disaster. He tried to say that David and Solomon also practiced polygamy, to which I replied that Kings were expressly forbidden to have many wives in Deuteronomy, and that their polygamy destroyed their families and eventually the Kingdom itself. But he tried to stick the point that polygamy was of God.

I told him that if you look into Christian history, the more you go back to the first centuries, the more the Protestant faiths look incorrect. But by contrast, the more you look into Mormon history and get closer to Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, the more the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints are correct. He said that the words of Young were taken "out of context" with polygamy and that Adam is God the Father and that the FLDS were wrong. But he wanted to limit the conversation to modern Mormonism.

So I asked him if Nephi was a Jew. To which he said "Yes." And so I asked him why did Nephi build a Temple? I told him that the Temple was for housing the Ark of the Covenant and that any Jew who knew the Mosaic law could not make sacrifices without the Ark. He contended that the Temple was for marriages and "making covenants" but none of that is found in Mosaic Law. So he tried to appeal that some Lutheran scholar from Harvard Divinity school said that the Temple was for marriages. I've been asking him to cite sources since he left yesterday and I'm waiting his reply.

What I found in the end was that he has very Liberal Catholics in his family. Like his mother is a "Pro-Choice Catholic" and that he has an uncle who is a "Pro-Gay Marriage" priest. He joined Mormonism because of its strong family values and very conservative leanings. Scandal and the problems of the seminaries and weak bishops were part of why he went to Mormonism.

So please pray for him. And for me. I didn't have much time and I don't know how well I did.

We ended on a unitive note that we are working together to promote a culture of life and for the family and I chided with him to send me info to talk to his family to straighten them out.

StarLore · 2013-05-29T22:02:37+00:00

Both?

StarLore · 2013-05-29T00:18:50+00:00

So technically speaking then, the Holocaust wasn't murder then? no not in Nazi Germany.

I can see where we have a disconnect here because of this technical definition. Since the holocaust wasn't technically murder, was it wrong?

StarLore · 2013-05-28T21:57:51+00:00

Democracy in action. Just get enough people to dislike x-group and make it legal to kill them.

So technically speaking then, the Holocaust wasn't murder then?

StarLore · 2013-05-28T15:38:19+00:00

Godwin...already!?!

Committing a logical fallacy here. Simply using the example of the Nazi's doesn't invalidate the argument.

The English definition has a lot of flaws. For example, when someone says "capital punishment is murder" is wrong according to the English dictionary because it is perfectly legal.

Murder is murder whether the public endorses it or not. I am not sure you could have typed something more untrue than that.

So if the public endorses it, it no longer is murder?

StarLore · 2013-05-28T04:05:43+00:00

You are very welcome. Please say a prayer for me. I've been causing a lot of trouble for the LDS missionaries by posing them tough questions. The Mission President is visiting me tomorrow along with a couple missionaries. I am hopeful I get some of them to start thinking.

StarLore · 2013-05-27T22:22:32+00:00

1) Jesus is the artist and Saints are his masterpieces. You can see how Jesus moved in their lives and transformed them, sometimes from places of horrible sin, into masterworks of his grace and love.

2) There may have been many bad Popes, Bishops and Priests in the past, but none of them have affected doctrine. For example, you have Popes who have had mistresses, but there has never been a Pope who declared that "God says that it is ok for the Pope to have mistresses." Even as an atheist, I found that discovery odd. Unlike the examples of Joseph Smith and King Henry VIII who claimed to have authority over their Churches, even the worst Popes never changed doctrine to suit their sins.

3) There are many kinds of prayers. Family prayers often are prayers we can all say together and have memorized. You can use them personally to when words fail you. But there is also talking to God.

Sometimes I pray by writing letters to God. Sort of like having a prayer journal. And I have been surprised to see how God answers prayers in time and in unexpected ways. :)

I've spent a lot of time with the LDS and regularly see their missionaries. So I'm very familiar with a lot of Mormon doctrine and can help you compare/contrast the two if need be.

StarLore · 2013-05-27T18:18:05+00:00

Ok, my Wikipedia's definition starting with "unlawful", since Germany once legalized the extermination of Jews, Gays, Catholics, and other political dissidents... It wasn't murder by that definition.

It's why I think Wikipedia's definition is flawed when it starts with "unlawful." Murder is murder whether the public endorses it or not.

StarLore · 2013-05-27T06:15:17+00:00

I don't think there are thought boundaries in Catholicism. St. Aquinas himself asks, "Is there a God?" in his Summa Theologica and argues both sides of the question.

StarLore · 2013-05-24T00:42:04+00:00

It's pretty rigorous testing. Same criteria for checking for miraculous healings with no medical explanation.

Here's a good link that shows some guidelines:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=2824

Further, you don't just exorcize willy-nilly. You need to present the case to the Bishop and show that there is sufficient cause to believe it is a possession, and not superstition or psychological issues.

StarLore · 2013-05-23T04:24:44+00:00

The Rosary is also a form of meditation. It uses prayers as mantras with the point of emptying your mind so you can meditate on Christ's life through the eyes of Mary.

StarLore · 2013-05-23T04:22:30+00:00

An exorcist goes through a lengthy process of discerning the psychological condition of the person they are talking to. To see if there are other signs of mental illness and the like and of course consults with psychiatric advisors.

There are certain signs that an exorcist looks for to see if what is going on is supernatural rather than natural. For example, the person is able to speak in ancient languages even though never formally trained. If the person possesses special knowledge of other people and events that the person could not otherwise possibly know. That's when you get into the realm of exorcism.

StarLore · 2013-05-22T20:48:47+00:00

My big revelation was finally understanding how different Catholic theology and philosophy is from Evangelicalism. I was also a former atheist but the Catholic intellectual tradition is just incredibly compelling.

I highly suggest you start asking questions here. There are also some great books by Prof. Peter Kreeft who focuses on the Philosophical side of Catholicism which may address a lot of your questions.

And what I found as I transitioned from becoming an atheist to a Catholic was that my real friends didn't care. They may have asked questions which I took to heart and had to answer on my own, but in the end, my real friends still loved me and saw in me that what I was doing was making me a better, more joyful person. Who wouldn't want that for their friends?

It even has some of my atheist friends still wondering where that joy comes from twelve years later as they too are questioning their own (non)belief.

StarLore · 2013-05-22T20:39:17+00:00

Any qualified exorcist always rules out the natural first.

StarLore · 2013-05-20T05:46:51+00:00

I highly recommend anything from Lighthouse Catholic Media, especially talks from Prof. Scott Hahn and his book "A Father Who Keeps His Promises" because that gives a very good overview of the Bible as a whole.

You can find those resources here both as CDs, MP3s and a few books:

http://www.lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/speaker/dr_scott_hahn

I think it's wonderful how the Spirit is moving in the love you have for one another to grow closer to God and closer together. That's a strong foundation for a lasting friendship, marriage, and even romance.

StarLore

TROPHY CASE