Why is Glenn Beck wrong to support abortion in cases of rape, incest? In short: me.

http://www.lifesitenews.com ^ | February 14, 2014 | Monica Kelsey

[GeronL]

I think you are spot on, I think it is sad to see a freeper so passionate for abortion

[chris37]

Well, really, it isn’t any of her business.

If she chose to go speak to a recently raped and impregnated woman, that’s fine and admirable, but the if the victim declined to speak with her on the matter, then she would discover that it isn’t really any of her business unless the victim allows the discussion to occur.

If I’m wrong about that, you let me know how, but I don’t think you will, because I ain’t wrong.

Furthermore, the decision of whether or not to rob a bank isn’t comparable to whether or not to abort a child of rape, because aborting a child of rape ISN’T a crime, so don’t try and compare apples to oranges, because I’m not going to fall for it.

You might want it to be a crime, and you might think it’s a crime, but it’s perfectly legal.

[chris37]

I didn’t raise the mother’s decision to absolute supremacy, the SCOTUS did, and that is exactly what her decision is. Nothing else matters in this at all in reality, does it?

But you’re going to tell me that murdering an innocent baby is wrong, aren’t you. And I am going to say, yes, it is.

But does it matter in any practical sense at all? No.

As far as this nation needing to replace enough pro-abort judges on the SCOTUS, sure they, do, and they need to do a lot of other replacing as well.

Does that mean any of that is actually going to happen? No.

Is it even likely to happen? No.

But let’s play fantasy land, since that’s what ever one around here seems to enjoy so much.

You elect a competent political party that advances this item, a president signs it and no judge tosses it.

Now abortion is completely illegal in all cases and anyone engages in it goes to jail.

Is that going to stop this behavior? No.

No law has ever stopped any behavior.

Time to wake up.

[Syncro]

My only beef with you is your constant putdowns of the Catholic Church. So you are now telling me that you agree with the Catholic Church official ruling on the invalid baptisms of Mormans [sic]? If you are, good for you.

Well your beef is invalid, as are most "beefs" with truth about facts.

The ruling on the invalid baptisms of Mormons was a bit late.

Other mainstream Christian denominations and non-denominational Christians exposed the Mormons on that decades ago.

Glad to see the Catholic denomination caught up in 2001. Perhaps they were following the United Methodist Church who made the ruling the year before?

Before 2001the Catholic Church conditionally baptized Mormon converts because of Catholic uncertainty as to the validity of Mormon baptism.

I guess before 2001 the Catholic belief system didn't know that the LDS belief system was a cult???

Tod Tamberg, a spokesman for the Los Angeles Roman Catholic Archdiocese, said that the new baptism rule would have no effect on ecumenical cooperation with Latter-day Saints.

I could be wrong, but I thought ecumenical only included Christian ministries and belief systems, not cults like the LDS.

I also need to mention that the pope has said Islam worships the same "God" that the Catholics worship.

Couldn't he more wrong, the Muslims have a totally different god who does NOT have a son and spews hate in his recorded (Koran) writings and death to all Christians and Jews and infidels in general.

Hint, infidels to Islam are anyone that does not convert to being a Muslim follower of Mohamed, their pedophile prophet.

[BlackElk]

I think it is a shame that you two are fighting over religious differences when you are probably in substantial agreement on this topic of abortion (and many other things). I am a Roman Catholic. I wish everyone would be Roman Catholics. There are, however, many who, like Linda Frances, do not find themselves attracted to or convinced by Catholicism for whatever reason. That many find Reformed Christian churches preferable may have many reasons but it is true that such churches are preferred by many.

Both Linda Frances and NKP_Vet are usually absolutely right IMHO in their respective comments here on social issues. Love our Lord Jesus Christ and love one another as He asked. "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

On the night before He was crucified, our Lord knew that His flock would not be as one. At this late date, all of us should recognize what He knew. Whatever our differences, we should work together on the many things we have in common and pray for one another as to the rest.

If anyone thinks I am wrong, pray for me to become right!

[JPX2011]

Chris,

So now the voice of the SCOTUS is the voice of supreme reason? This same SCOTUS that came up with Scott v. Sanford?

I’ve been following this thread all weekend and your understanding of pragmatism is flawed. To be a thriving culture is to be a moral one and reject the slaughter of unborn children. That is the height of pragmatism and not this sophmoric attempt to apply situational ethics and declare oneself the arbiter of pragmatic reason. To be honest it’s better suited for a junior high debating club.

You need to have a little more hope and faith. This too will end and there will come a time in the future where our descendants will look down at us with disdain for our failure to halt this holocaust. In much the same way we look askance at the German public during the time of the Third Reich.

Those who latch onto situational ethics as a means to advance public policy are the ones that need to wake up. Looking for exceptions. The “What If’ers” and “What About’ers”. There’s is a reasoning that will not stand the test of time. Especially when it attempts to make exceptions for immoral acts under the guise of “laws never changed behavior” and “you can’t stop it all”.

[Arthur McGowan]

I guess before 2001 the Catholic belief system didn't know that the LDS belief system was a cult???

The Catholic Church does not consider Baptism valid or invalid based on whether those doing the Baptism are in a "cult" or not.

The criteria have to do with the formula of the words, the action of pouring water, and the intention of the one baptizing.

Any person--Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, atheist, etc.--can validly baptize another person. What matters is the words, the action, and the intention.

[Arthur McGowan]

I guess before 2001 the Catholic belief system didn't know that the LDS belief system was a cult???

The Catholic Church does not consider Baptism valid or invalid based on whether those doing the Baptism are in a "cult" or not.

The criteria have to do with the formula of the words, the action of pouring water, and the intention of the one baptizing.

Any person--Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, atheist, etc.--can validly baptize another person. What matters is the words, the action, and the intention.

[Arthur McGowan]

No law has ever stopped any behavior.

Then there has never been any such thing as a tyranny. We have nothing to worry about from another Stalin or Hitler, since our freedom can never be curtailed, no matter what laws the government makes.

[chris37]

Well, that would really depend on how far someone is willing to go to enforce their will on others, now wouldn’t it.

Incidentally, those men are dead, and the people that lived under their rule and their descendants no longer live under that rule, so in the long run, it’s fair to say that their efforts to control failed.

And as I have asked a number of times in this thread already, just how far are you willing to go to ensure that a raped pregnant mother does not seek to abort or manually abort the baby?

How far?

And if it’s “so far’ would that not in itself be a form of tyranny?

[JPX2011]

BlackElk,

I don’t think you’re wrong and as a fellow Roman Catholic I do look forward to those moments we can find common cause with our separated bretheren seeing as we find ourselves in a morally untenable situation. It didn’t used to be this way. In the pre-”enlightenment” era people understood truth and acted accordingly.

Today, in a morally relativistic and “enlightened” world where truth is arbitrary or subject to individual whims it’s more important than ever that we become a Catholic nation. Not a Catholic nation by a public profession of faith so much as one in thought.

That is why it is so crucial to correct the misunderstandings of others about the truth of the Catholic faith. To be blunt, misunderstandings of Catholicism is the currency by which our separated bretheren and those who revere enlightenment ideology further their own views on truth and morality. They have to call the truth a lie before they can subtitute their own “truth”. Which is ultimately we can’t just let bygones be bygones because it’s their lie that has led us to this place.

[chris37]

If you have followed this thread, then you should know that all that I have done this entire time is simply point out the reality of the situation, the unlikeliness that it can be changed, and considering those factors and parameters, what the only viable course of action is.

As far as stating what my own opinion is, I have stated that I do not support a law that would force a mother to bear the child of the man who raped her, and I have also stated why that is my position.

I have not said the supreme court is the voice of supreme reason. What I have said is that the mother’s decision is the only deciding factor. That decision was elevated to that level by the scotus, and not by me. It is a simple explanation of reality.

And as far as having hope and faith goes, why do I need more? I don’t want such a law in the first place, because I believe it’s unjust to the victim of rape.

Secondly, hope and faith are simply a form of mental defense for those who lack the power to change their circumstances themselves, which I suppose is apt for those who want such a law, because they do in fact lack the power to change that circumstance.

But seeing as that is not my goal, I don’t need hope or faith on this matter.

The solution to this is not a law, because 1) it’s not going to happen, and 2) it shouldn’t happen, and 3) even if it does, it will not eliminate the behavior, it will only punish it after it occurs.

The solution to this is what I said, and that is convince as many of these mothers as can be convinced that bearing the child IS the right thing to do, and accept the fact that some are not going to agree with that, and they are going to do what you do not want them to do.

Again, the only thing I have done here is explain the reality of this. I am not engaging is situational ethics. I have never stated that aborting these babies is right. What I have stated is that it is my belief that the mothers must be given an opportunity to consent, and if they don’t consent, there really isn’t much else that can be done about it.

[Syncro]

My statement:

Before 2001the Catholic Church conditionally baptized Mormon converts because of Catholic uncertainty as to the validity of Mormon baptism.

Your comment on that post:

The Catholic Church does not consider Baptism valid or invalid based on whether those doing the Baptism are in a "cult" or not.

Take it up with the Catholic leaders, it's them that ruled thusly.

...Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon, atheist, etc.--can validly baptize another person.

Valid to who? Catholic teachings doesn't suppost that pronouncement.

And why would a Hindu, Buddhist, Mormon or atheist want to baptize anyone?

If you are Catholic, do you worship the Islamic "God" as your pope does?

[Syncro]

Bering as you posted to me twice (with the same words), I will answer you twice:

The criteria [for baptism] have to do with the formula of the words, the action of pouring water, and the intention of the one baptizing.

There was no action of "pouring of water" in the example Jesus gave us when John The Baptist baptized him.

Physical body baptism is submersion. (As differentiating between that and the Baptism of The Holy Spirit)

[JPX2011]

Chris,

Unfortunately it doesn’t seem that you’re approaching this with a mind of informing the rest of us about the reality of the situation. I can’t help but think that for you, the “reality” you speak of is ideological in nature, and not merely a matter of fact. Information that will disabuse us of our tactical error of seeking a repudiation of abortion in all instances. That doesn’t seem to be the spirit in which you’re offering your comments.

We in the pro-life movement have used sidewalk counselors for years (as BlackElk alluded) to to change the hearts and minds of women. But what you’re suggesting harkens back to the “you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time” mentality. I can counsel against abortion all the while lobbying my elected official to pass legislation that further restricts abortion.

Is my ultimate goal a rejection of abortion in all cases (including rape and incest)? Yes. Do I know I won’t get that all in one shot? Yes. Does that preclude me from agitating in favor of legislation or regulation that reduces abortion on a pragmatic level such as requiring abortion clinics to maintain the same standards as other outpatient surgical clinics? No.

It is not an either/or proposition. We fight on all fronts because even as you have stated you’re against abortion because life is life and cannot be subject to the moral agency of another. And because the right to life is the first right above all others it supercedes even a mother’s supposed right of moral agency, to make any type of choice. As a result a law that restricts abortion even in cases of rape is a just law. “it’s none of your business” or any other pseudo likeminded statement is irrelevant.

We change the circumstances every day. More and more the American people are realizing the evil of abortion and are turning away from it. In all instances. Soon the evils of contraception will be realized by the people and that will be rolled back by the force of the populous. So there is reason to be optimistic.

Force of law is a legitimate means by which to coerce human behavior. Never forget that law reflects the values of a society which are the first principles. Moral values do not emanate from the law. In time this will be realized fully and we’ll return to a time in which the evils of abortion are repudiated.

[ansel12]

I have never stated that aborting these babies is right.

You are arguing that abortion is up to the mother, it is a "right".

I hope you read post 296 although so far you have avoided responding to such posts, instead you keep using your very narrow approach to argue for abortion.

[chris37]

I don’t want to discuss this with you, ansel.

Wouldn’t want you to go waaah waaaah waaaaaah to the mods.

[chris37]

I understand that you are saying, but the reality that I speak of is quite simply the reality that exists.

There is no reality other than reality itself.

So yes, I do think that the sidewalk counselors are doing the right thing, but even more I would hope that they seek an even more personal setting that might be better than just prior to her walking in the clinic and doing it.

And I don’t mean to say that you can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. What I am saying regarding the law outlaw all abortions is 1) I can’t support one that outlaws it in the cases of rape and incest, and 2) I don’t think such a law can be passed, should be passed, and even if one is passed, it likely won’t pass constitutional muster, and lastly, if it does pass all those tests, it still will not prevent the behavior, it will simply punish it after it occurs.

I’m not saying that aborting children of rape is right, because it is not right, I am not promoting it either. What I am saying is that it is my belief that forcing rape victims to bear the children of rape is also not right, and thus I can’t support it.

[ansel12]

I think that childish post say about all we need to know about your passionate, but purely emotional fight, for what you seem to feel are abortion rights.

You keep arguing for abortion as a “right”, purely a decision for the individual woman.