Will Catholics see eye to eye with Kaine or Mother Theresa?

[whirlingmerc]

Will Catholics walk away from their faith and go with Kaine?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/mtspeech.html

quote
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.

And if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? How do we persuade a woman not to have an abortion? As always, we must persuade her with love and we remind ourselves that love means to be willing to give until it hurts. Jesus gave even His life to love us. So, the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love, that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts.

By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems.

And, by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion.

Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.
unquote

 

[Cassandra]

My view:

I think you misunderstand the Bible. Being against abortion has nothing to do with motherly Love. It is rather the mothers heart that makes mothers want to spare their children the suffering of an unhappy life.

Love for life? Where did you get this idea? Mozes had his people slaughter their friends and family, and when they spared their wifes he sent them back to do some more killing. There is no room for such weakness as you expose here.

Understand nowhere in the Bible abortion is even mentioned. So why is abortion unchristian? The Bible is about defending the slave society. And a slave belongs to his/her master. He does not own his own life. That is why the slave is prohibited from taking his own life. His Lord does not want to lose a good life. So no matter how horrible his life is, he must go on. That is why Jesus says, Slaves must never, ever, ever rise to the ones that do them injustice, but stay faithful slaves. When your master hits you on the left cheek, show him your right cheek. When he steals you shirt, give him you trousers. Love your evil enemies especially when they are your Christian masters, because Jesus says he is kind to the wicked.

Jesus is very clear about this. When a slave fails to please his master he will receive blows, but if he does it on purpose he will get even more blows. The slave is owned by his master. That is why this beautiful book says, that a master can beat his slave to death if he does not die within one day. Because the slave is his money and the master is punished enough.

Why can he not beat him to death immediately? Because that is like burning money, that is totally irresponsible and undermines the system! We do not want the slaves to rise like under Spartacus. Besides we need the slaves. No, you can not beat a slave to death immediately. God does not allow it.

Now abortion. The master does not only own the slaves, the book clearly states he also owns all the children born to them, this automatically includes all the unborn children. When a slave would have an abortion, she deprives her master of an extra slave! That is totally forbidden, that is as bad as suicide. The unborn child does not belong to the mother, but her slave master.

But if they are free people? Christians are never free people. They are still in bondage with Jesus and have to do his will. They are his slaves/servants. They still do not own their own lives and can not decide over that of their children, only their slaves. They have to do the will of the leaders, pastors that are sanctified by Jesus. When they are called to war they have to give their lives or send their children to die for their God. And they must produce enough offspring for that.

The idea that Christians would somehow be against taking lives is monstrous. Jesus clearly states he comes to bring the sword and that is why every Christian war is fought in his name. All the victims of war are called "sacrifices of war". They are sacrificed to God. Jesus is very clear that his peace is only in the hereafter, not here. Here it is war, killing.

And that is another important point why abortion is wrong. To wage continuous war slave soldiers (young men) need constant replacement. The Lords needs large offspring. Now how are we going to keep making war, when we do not have enough offspring? When men start having sex for fun, even become homosexuals that no longer procreate? And what if on top of that women do abortion? Generals will run out of cannon fodder.

But love for life has nothing to do with it. Did Jesus not freely gave his own life to show that life is unimportant? Only the hereafter is what counts, not life. It is heresy to say life counts. Nowhere in the book does Jesus say life counts. On the contrary, he says that those who give up their lives freely for him will be saved.

So please let us not spread these heresies. Then you do not understand the first thing about Christianity. Did you even read the book? Love in the book is love for Jesus alone, not love for one's children. Jesus can not make it clearer than this.

L u k e 1 4
26 If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father,
and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren,
and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot
be my disciple.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Actually Moses wrote "you shall not boil a kid in it's mother's milk" which is a very pro life command. You should not destroy a child in what is meant for it's nurture
And of course there was the practice of the Baal to kill their infants as an offering for greater prosperity which was squarely condemned

And yes, I have read the Bible cover to cover many dozens of times.

 

[Cassandra]

Actually Moses wrote "you shall not boil a kid in it's mother's milk" which is a very pro life command. You should not destroy a child in what is meant for it's nurture
And of course there was the practice of the Baal to kill their infants as an offering for greater prosperity which was squarely condemned

And yes, I have read the Bible cover to cover many dozens of times.

my view:

Not child, but a young goat.

It is better to stay away from the Bible if you can not even quote it correctly.
And it does not say you are not allowed to kill the young goat or eat it. Just not boil it in the milk of the mother. It does not say why either. .

This was not made as a likeness, like Jesus happens to spread around but simply a annual festival regulation. They are meant to be taken literal. Comparing a young animal to a child outside of likenesses, shows, little deeper understanding. An animal is not made in the image of God according to the Bible.

Regulations for killing animals are not a pro-life commands, it is killing regulations. This is not a regulations to stop killing young goats, but to kill young goats in the right manner.

If we apply this to abortion, we should rather interpret it as something like: When aborting a child, do not strangulate it with the umbilical cord.

And this would then apply to the abortionist, not the mother, as it is not the goat that boils her own child. What a great book the Bible is that it even regulates abortion!

Well thank you very much for these new insights.

 

[metis]

Will Catholics walk away from their faith and go with Kaine?

http://www.priestsforlife.org/brochures/mtspeech.html

quote
But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself.

First of all, the question is simply a non-sequitur. Kaine personally does not believe in abortion, but he happens to live in the U.S. whereas we are not a theocracy. Because of not only the several recent SCOTUS decisions, but also because around 70% of Americans polled say they do not want abortion to be made illegal again, Kaine recognizes both our constitutional law plus the reality of what the American electorate feel about this.

Also, surveys of those who even would like to ban abortion indicate that their desire has limitations, such as having exceptions for cases like rape and incest. To me, these exceptions are impossible to justify on biblical grounds, however. How about you?

If one believes that abortion is "murder", then I must ask this: should a woman who has an abortion be put up on murder charges? Mind you, in states that have the death penalty, if the woman intentionally has the abortion w/o being emotionally distraught, she logically must be brought up on 1st degree murder charges, thus executed if found guilty. Are you in favor of that? After all, 1st degree murder is 1st degree murder-- period.

BTW, one only has to go back a couple of centuries ago to find that the churches actually didn't oppose abortion until "quickening", namely that the fetus/baby came to life, which was months after conception. Which begs the question what did they think was growing inside the woman, a turnip patch? .

 

[fantome profane]

ctually Moses wrote "you shall not boil a kid in it's mother's milk" which is a very pro life command.

Scripture is a rorschach test.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Catholics will eventually accept abortion..............
Even Catholic Spain has Abortions....
And in a very restricted way so does Ireland.....
These are the last places you would have expected to do so, not that many years ago.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Actually one might add even very progressive Europe strongly opposes late term abortion.
Not so the DNC, Hillary or Kaine.

And yes... not boiling a kid in its mother milk does speak to holding life in a high view and it is reasonable to say what should be the safest place for a child should not become the most dangerous.

 

[Deeje]

Actually one might add even very progressive Europe strongly opposes late term abortion.
Not so the DNC, Hillary or Kaine.

And yes... not boiling a kid in its mother milk does speak to holding life in a high view and it is reasonable to say what should be the safest place for a child should not become the most dangerous.

The Bible itself gives a clear indication as to how God views the life of the unborn child....

Exodus 21:22-25; (NRSVCE) God's law stated.....

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

The life of the perpetrator was to be demanded for the life of the child. No room for abortion in God's law.

 

[Cassandra]

The Bible itself gives a clear indication as to how God views the life of the unborn child....

Exodus 21:22-25; (NRSVCE) God's law stated.....

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

The life of the perpetrator was to be demanded for the life of the child. No room for abortion in God's law.

My view

Really, this is another blatant misinterpretation based on bad reading skills.

With the harm that follows in 23 is meant: harm to the woman, not the child, as the child is already considered to be dead after a MISCARRIAGE (see 22). When the pregnant woman dies too, then it will be an eye for an eye.

But for the breaking of the pregnancy a fine will be payed. But that in no way proves that abortion would be fined.

When a law text says you have to pay someone a fine for wrecking his goods, that does not mean you have to pay a fine when you wreck your own goods. Don't you know the difference between mine and thine?

What you really read here, is that not the mother but the husband owns the child in the womb, as not the mother but the husband can ask for compensation. If the husband would make his own wife have a miscarriage, lets say by beating her, nothing would happen, it would be considered his own loss. Like beating ones slave to death.

The bible does not teach a general respect for the life of babies either:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9, KJV)

This is something the Franciscan monks actually did when the entered the Aztec cities. They smashed the babies against the walls.

Thank you for this reference. You presented convincing evidence the Bible does not consider breaking pregnancy as murder. I shows that killing the unborn child is not considered the same as killing a grown-up. Without consent of the owner, one is only fined, the other forfeits ones life. So not even in the same ballpark.

 

[Deeje]

My view

Really, this is another blatant misinterpretation based on bad reading skills.

Or perhaps it's an attempt to place an unborn child in the category of something other than a living human being? At what point does this embryo fail to carry all the DNA that will determine his hair and eye color, his stature, personality and intelligence?

With the harm that follows in 23 is meant: harm to the woman, not the child, as the child is already considered to be dead after a MISCARRIAGE (see 22). When the pregnant woman dies too, then it will be an eye for an eye.

But for the breaking of the pregnancy a fine will be payed. But that in no way proves that abortion would be fined.

When a law text says you have to pay someone a fine for wrecking his goods, that does not mean you have to pay a fine when you wreck your own goods. Don't you know the difference between mine and thine?

Is the life that is "wrecked" in the case of abortion, your own? Is the human being in the womb, part of the mother? The answer is clearly NO.
The child can have a different blood group and has only half her DNA. She is host to this being who is virtually, (for want of a better word) a parasite.....living off the nourishment she is providing whilst it grows to viability. No one has a right to end someone's life because they are an inconvenience, or the unwanted side effect of someone's sex life.

What you really read here, is that not the mother but the husband owns the child in the womb, as not the mother but the husband can ask for compensation. If the husband would make his own wife have a miscarriage, lets say by beating her, nothing would happen, it would be considered his own loss. Like beating ones slave to death.

Is this an attitude that God stated as part of his law, or was respect for the life of both mother and child the bottom line here?
You think God places no value on the life he created? You think he places no value on the method he put in place to create human life? All life is sacred to God. He alone is the one to determine who lives and who dies....he is the only one who can restore life.

The bible does not teach a general respect for the life of babies either:
"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." (Psalms 137:9, KJV)

Whoa....now who is taking things out of context?
How about we read the preceding verse as well?

"O daughter of Babylon, who is soon to be devastated,
Happy will be the one who rewards you
With the treatment you inflicted on us.
9 Happy will be the one who seizes your children
And dashes them against the rocks."

Now you see what this verse is about.....retribution. It was payback for the kinds of treatment God's people had suffered at the hands of Babylon. It was God sanctioned, rather than an act that treated the lives of children as of no account. In the flood of Noah's day, the children died along with their parents.
That was because the parents were incorrigible and their children would be just like them. If you stumble on a den of rattle snakes, will you spare the babies knowing what they will grow up to be?

This something the Franciscan monks actually did when the entered the Aztec cities. They smashed the babies against the walls.

Good grief....you believe that Franciscan monks were sanctioned by God to do that?

No Christian can be a killer of anyone. God has not sanctioned human killing since the days when ancient Israel was defending the Promised Land from enemy invaders.

If a doctor in a maternity unit fights to save the life of a premature baby, and then half an hour later enters the operating theatre to terminate the life of a baby who is at the same stage of development, simply because the mother wants an abortion for her own reasons, isn't that doctor a hypocrite? Isn't the oath he takes to first of all "Do no harm"? Isn't taking a life considered murder? If he is not legally allowed to take the life of someone suffering in the final days of a terminal illness...why is he allowed to terminate the life of someone who is not ill and has the potential to be someone great in the world? How does the abortionist know what potential is in that little person that he is killing?

Is this baby less human than you are? Does it have a beating heart? 10 fingers and toes? A brain? Eyes? Ears? A mouth? In what stretch of whose imagination are they not human and deserving of death just because they are unwanted? I will never understand the abortionist justification.

Adopt your baby out to someone who cant have children......don't kill them!

 

[Nietzsche]

The Bible itself gives a clear indication as to how God views the life of the unborn child....

Exodus 21:22-25; (NRSVCE) God's law stated.....

22 When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined what the woman’s husband demands, paying as much as the judges determine. 23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

The life of the perpetrator was to be demanded for the life of the child. No room for abortion in God's law.

Plenty of room for selling daughter off to a strange man with a couple oxen, though.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Can you give an example of that, Mr Neittzche? The Ox for daughter trade, I mean. Sound like a caricature of a view to me... but ... who am I?