Because a person has no obligation to support the life of another or to risk her own life in support of another if that obligation was not first entered into with the consent of the person.
Both of you have been very helpful to me along with another poster in a thread on euthanasia yesterday. Not perhaps in the way that you intended.
Your posts and his yesterday demonstrate the total moral bankruptcy of the libertarian position.
I have often dabbled in libertarianism, a hold-over from my days prior to coming into the Church when I was a garden variety libertarian/republican.
Their arguments, like these are always so flowery and can be very persuasive as they pontificate about rights and choices and consent, but its sophistry and lethal sophistry at that.
You are your name for sure - modern man. Unfortunately that's not a compliment.
If you provide abortifacients, regardles of any other consideration, you assist in murder. You feelings, or absence of feelings, do not alter the objective subjective moral reality opinion.
Corrected your statement.
She quoted for your the determination of the teaching magesterium of the Church, supernaturally protected from error in matters of faith and morals - we are required to give assent of mind and will in such matters or your a protestant, plain and simple.
I am a man. The androgynous screen name reflects my desire not to abandon my wife Ann as I roam the wilderness of the Internet.
I'm a monarchist and therefore I despise democracy and republicanism, but it is what we have so I support the major party closest to my views and that would be the Constitution Party .
I support the restoration of Christendom including all illegaly deposed monarchs of Europe (Hapsburgs and Bourbons in particular) and the social Kingship of Jesus Christ as authoritatively adminstered by the Holy Roman Catholic Church
Monarchy and theocracy are not ideas congruent with a Free Republic.