8mm
Posted on 01/11/2008 5:17:13 PM PST by wagglebee
Thank you for sweeping this inhuman practice back from under the rug, Mr. Mohler.
As usual Albert Mohler is late to the party. He has quite the road to hoe and needs to publicly and humbly recant from his calling the Catholic Church a cult on Larry King Live before Catholics should be patting him on the back.
So, you are pro-death. Absolutely it happens to all of us, but that wasn’t your issue was it.
Yes, but only in the context that you are also by your willingness to prolong the debate. It isn’t about murder, and until that faulty idea ceases to be an issue, you and I will continue to witness the million or so abortions a month, and be at odds with one another. I really don’t want to start a debate on the scriptural basis for the ideas being espoused.
You do not really believe that the nurturing sex is capable of committing more murder than all the murderers throughout history, have committed, do you? Nor do you believe that the court system is able to handle the case load if such were allowed to be added to the law of the land, do you? Much less the need for additional prisons to house the guilty.
Some legacy. You really want to open the murder box? How about we just line up all the aborters, abortionists, and like minded folks and just shoot them. Something akin to that has already been tried by a few radicals. Really went over big. If I’m not mistaken, that is what helped get us some very strict rules about access to abortion mills.
Radical pro-lifers and their hangers on with comments like, so you are pro-death, are what is holding up the wheels of progress. Lets try some logic. As you label abortion murder, are you then part of the problem and an accessory to murder, by your unbending attitude that IMHO, prolongs the debate?
Pro-choicers see this murder accusation, and it makes them crazy, not only crazy but hard over in the other direction. On this issue, I believe there is common ground, but with unbending ideas and principles, based on faulty assumptions, that ground will never be found, and the abortions will continue, unabated.
This is really a case of the liberal left being influenced in the extreme negative, by so called Christians, wanting to do none other than what they so self righteously proclaim they are not doing, forcing their ideas down the throats of the rest of the world. Nowhere was this more evident than here in SD during the contentious abortion ban vote of a couple of years ago. I voted for the ban.
If you cannot see that I am pro-life in this debate then that is your problem. Abortion is a heinous activity, and could cause an angry God to make life difficult for all of us, it is not a crime against the law of the land, and isn’t likely to become such, but you wish to make it so, and not just a crime, but a capital crime.
That attitude I believe is what causes the two sides to be at extreme odds with each other. Such that the pro-choice advocates will, just like you, never abandon their so called principles wrong as they may be, as long as they perceive that the debate hinges on them losing that all important right, granted by the Supreme Court of the land.
Yes, I know that rights can only be granted by God above, but that didn’t seem to stop the Supreme Court, or cause there to be less joy in the abortion camp.
I am wearing three layers of flame proof clothing, sitting in a room filled with water balloons protected by a pressurized sprinkler system in a building with electronic fire protection, next door to the award winning fire department with the engines running, and the hoses already connected to the pressurized hydrant with unlimited water available, and I’ll bet that won’t be enough. and I’m pro-life, so just put yourself in the shoes of pro-choice folks and you may begin to understand where they are coming from. Which after all is one of my objectives.
I eliminated about three paragraphs of stuff that could be seen as a personal attack, or accusations, or character assassination, to try and keep things at the debate level, I probably failed. I don’t know you except to know you are passionately pro-life. I am as well with a somewhat different perspective, as I feel the present debate is based a great deal on faulty assumptions and dubious scriptural interpretation.
I really tried to keep this non personal, where I failed, I’m sure I will hear about it. You should see what I eliminated. I know the feelings from both sides of the issue are strong, vocal, and contentious, having witnessed it first hand. If this is too long, or too repetitive, I can be guilty if need be.
Why does it have to be something? It is not against the law, though I agree it should be. Though it appears there may have to be that little clause that causes so much concern in the pro-life camp, with exceptions for rape, incest, and health of the mother, which covers less than one percent of present abortions, but will be seen as an escape clause for many more.
DG, thought I better ping you before I go up in flames. You can watch or pour gasoline on the conflagration. It begins somewhat before this one. PS thanks for the card. We bin gone.
When you're looking at proposed therapies on a case-by-case basis, this is the question to ask: does this heal the physical causes of marital fertility and restore natural sexual procreation? OR does it give up on healing and instead substitute some non-marital, non-sexual process for the marital relation?
In many cases of infertility, the would-be mother and father are both technically fertile (they produce normal ova and sperm and could conceive via intercourse) but have not been able to get pregnant or to maintain a pregnancy.
A true therapy would have found a way to optimize natural fertility (often by addressing nutritional and hormonal preconditions, or by fine-tuning the pattern of sexual behavior) so as to preserve true marital procreation --- instead of substituting another man as the genetic father or intruding laboratory procedures into the relationship.
Actually treating the couple's marital fertility problem is preferable to cutting out the genetic contribution of one marriage partner, or taking lovemaking out of the equation.
Renee Mirkes, the director of the Center for NaPro Ethics, reports that "in the long run, NPT is 1.5 to 3.5 times more effective in achieving conception than conventional IVF treatment."
And it restores the fertility that the married partners jointly have, without the enormous expense of ART and wit5hout the emotional, social, and psychological costs.
Here's a second highly informative link on NaProTechnology for healing of natural fertility.
However, he is pret-near 100% with the Catholic Church on moral issues and social policy, which is intriguing because it shows he is not intellectually blinded by prejudice. In other words, he's open to reason.
That's why I would like to give him every opportunity to see us as allies, not opponents. That means extending a whole lot of patience and graciousness, and realizing that as we (we and Dr. Mohler and other fellow-travelers) continueon a trajectory of truth, we'll always be getting closer and closer. The Holy Spirit isn't idle, and has a million winning ways.
This is not to say we should ignore theological differences --- the differences are important --- but that we should serenely not take the bait with words like "cult."
My own fave bioethicists include Paul Ramsay (Methodist) and Leon Kass (Jewish). My maximum-fave family policy advocate is Allan Carlson (Lutheran). They all think like Catholics. Some would get a wry smile out of that, but it's true.
I cannot hate him for that, only prayers. All I am saying, it is good he has and is preaching something so good and right.
Agree, read post 49
I’m not implying that the Roman Church is *not* part of Christendom. I guess I get a bit defensive when someone implies that “my church is better than your church.” I see that sentiment a bit too much among Roman Catholics on FR. “He’s great! He sounds so ... Catholic!”
Ah, well.
It wasn't meant in any way to imply that one is better than the other (we all have our own opinion and I've never seen anyone change their mind on here). However, I think that most of us will agree that people from certain backgrounds will "sound" different; a Baptist minister and a Catholic priest could probably both give sermons on the same Scripture reading and deliver the same general message, but their style and delivery would usually be much different. This certainly doesn't mean that one is better than the other or more effective, it's just different.
For what it's worth, I wish that there were Catholic leaders in America as eloquent, focused and unflappable as Dr. Mohler.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.