Archbishop Wuerl addresses Pelosi on abortion

[This_person]

ummm.. The supreme court said there is a difference... Were back to the Roe Vs. Wade thing again...

But, I didn't ask what difference the Supreme Court did or did not see, I'm asking what the difference is in your mind. How is taking the life of a child not murder sometimes, but it is other times? I ask you this because you said:

Come on now, the whole Scott Peterson thing was a completely different matter. We're talking apples vs. Oranges...

 

[libby]

libby,
I sincerely mean that I wish you a nice life. I look forward to you being in God's kingdom singing His praises beside me despite our differences. I just think that you and I will not see eye to eye and are best just going our separate ways as Paul and Barnabas did.

2A, I usually only get involved in threads that are relevant to my faith, and the archbishop vs. Pelosi is one of those.
On other occasions I will step in
1) if someone misunderstands/mis-represents Catholic teaching, or
2) if good priests are insulted because of the horror others have caused.
and
3) if I can add to a conversation in a productive way by reminding all of us to aspire to greater virtue.
That is where my condemnation of your comment about the heirarchy comes in.

Only God knows my heart, your heart, Xaquin's, Nuckles, and mAlice's heart. (I'm about to get a little long-winded).
Many years ago it was put to me very succinctly that humility and charity demands that we see (and even assume) the best of others. Some on this board think they have nothing to learn from the aforementioned atheists. (My apologies if I've mis-identified someone) The attitude is palpable, condescending and completely lacks charity and humility.

 

[GSXR_MOE]

But, I didn't ask what difference the Supreme Court did or did not see, I'm asking what the difference is in your mind. How is taking the life of a child not murder sometimes, but it is other times? I ask you this because you said:

Well I feel this way because neither you nor I can truly say when life begins. Anti-Abortion supporters will say at inceptions.. But I don't know if that is the case. I mean my male sperm could be considered "alive" but I don't think so.. So I can't really say that abortion is murder........

 

[This_person]

Well I feel this way because neither you nor I can truly say when life begins. Anti-Abortion supporters will say at inceptions.. But I don't know if that is the case. I mean my male sperm could be considered "alive" but I don't think so.. So I can't really say that abortion is murder........

But how was Scott, intentionally killing his unborn child, apples to abortion's oranges?

Scott was charged with murder, abortion is not a charge of murder. What is the inherent difference in the actions of the criminal and the actions of the mother/doctor?

 

[GSXR_MOE]

But how was Scott, intentionally killing his unborn child, apples to abortion's oranges?

Scott was charged with murder, abortion is not a charge of murder. What is the inherent difference in the actions of the criminal and the actions of the mother/doctor?

Because she was 7 and 1/2 months pregnant, you cannot have an abortion that late in your pregnancy...I'm not sure he would have been charged with the murder of the baby if she was 3 weeks pregnant.

 

[This_person]

Because she was 7 and 1/2 months pregnant, you cannot have an abortion that late in your pregnancy...

In an Obama world you can, but we'll get to that later.

Okay, WHY can you not have one then, but you can at, say, two months? I'm still looking for the inherent difference. Your sperm will not, ever, grow into a human without fertilizing an egg. So, once we've got the fertilized egg embedded in the wall, what difference does a day make?

 

[2ndAmendment]

...
That is where my condemnation of your comment about the heirarchy comes in.

Like I explained, it was not meant as a condemnation but a possibility. As you so aptly noted, it has happened in the RCC in the past.

...
Only God knows my heart, your heart, Xaquin's, Nuckles, and mAlice's heart. (I'm about to get a little long-winded).
Many years ago it was put to me very succinctly that humility and charity demands that we see (and even assume) the best of others. Some on this board think they have nothing to learn from the aforementioned atheists. (My apologies if I've mis-identified someone) The attitude is palpable, condescending and completely lacks charity and humility.

You are absolutely right that only God knows hearts. That said, we hate the sin and love the sinner. But as Christians, Catholic or not, the Bible is the word of God and I find that I would rather not delve into discussion of doctrine which only leads to discord. And I choose not to further my discourse with those that would detract from the faith in Christ, I will take my instruction from the word of God.

Matthew 10:11-15

11"And whatever city or village you enter, inquire who is worthy in it, and stay at his house until you leave that city.

12"As you enter the house, give it your greeting.

13"If the house is worthy, give it your blessing of peace. But if it is not worthy, take back your blessing of peace.

14"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet.

15"Truly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city.

Similar scripture is in

Mark 6:11
"Any place that does not receive you or listen to you, as you go out from there, shake the dust off the soles of your feet for a testimony against them."
Luke 9:5
"And as for those who do not receive you, as you go out from that city, shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them."
Luke 10:11
' Even the dust of your city which clings to our feet we wipe off in protest against you; yet be sure of this, that the kingdom of God has come near.'

Matter of fact, I do not even see what Xaquin and Nucklesack post unless someone quotes them. I leave them to others of God's kingdom. I tried. They were not part of those I was to harvest.

 

[Xaquin44]

huh

I never realized the bible instructed people to be holier then thou jerks. I figured it was just that a lot of the readers took it that way.

 

[GSXR_MOE]

In an Obama world you can, but we'll get to that later.

Okay, WHY can you not have one then, but you can at, say, two months? I'm still looking for the inherent difference. Your sperm will not, ever, grow into a human without fertilizing an egg. So, once we've got the fertilized egg embedded in the wall, what difference does a day make?

Once again you've got to ask the Supreme Court that question, but I think it has to do with the survivability of the child. I THINK (but don't quote me) they ruled that if the fetus can survive on its own without the mother then you cannot abort the child. .. or something like that.

That is why you can have on in the first trimester, but no in the last trimester. Well at least that is what I think I remember reading somewhere

 

[ImnoMensa]

First, I don't expect anyone who remains in the RCC to be able to see their church's flaws. This is why they stay. Your popes have tried many times, unsuccessfully, to buy into the political system to exercise their power, control & agenda. Sorry you missed them.
Second, as 2A said, I harbor NO HATRED for anyone. I harbor a passionate concern for your soul and the souls of my biggest detractors here: (The Nucklesacks, Xaquins, TJ, WXtornado, mAlice, etc), but, of course, you can't see that either. You often say that "my hatred for anything Catholic keeps me from making fair assessments..." when, actually, it's my hatred for false teachings and doctrines (the same hatred that Jesus had) that DOES allow me to make fair assessments of them. But, I've said it before so no need to waste more memory space on here.
Finally, about Rome, you need to take serious note about it. Revelation speaks about it in chapter 13, it's even referred to as Babylon the great at times and as the city on 7 hills in chapter 17. Maybe it is a passing reference and it definitely does NOT apply to the entire RCC but the underlying reason is something not to be ignored.

I would never ask anyone to apologize to me so don't think you need to but facts are facts. You need to read some unbiased, non catholic literature to see what your predecessors have done. You'd never find it in any catholic documents. Remember, I came from 12 years of catholic schools and an Italian family of bead mumblers so I know it's motives and teachings very well.
In all fairness to the RCC, just because Nazi Pelosi claimed to be catholic doesn't mean she's one since I DO know where the RCC stands on abortion.

So if a person is a detractor of yours ,his soul is in jeopardy?
Are all Catholic teachings false doctirnes and teachings or just those you select?
I am sure the literature you read is un-biased I can tell that when you call Catholics Bead Mumblers. Beads are the Rosary, prayed to Mary. The Mother of the Jesus you claim to love. What have you got against His Mother?

 

[This_person]

Once again you've got to ask the Supreme Court that question, but I think it has to do with the survivability of the child. I THINK (but don't quote me) they ruled that if the fetus can survive on its own without the mother then you cannot abort the child. .. or something like that.

That is why you can have on in the first trimester, but no in the last trimester. Well at least that is what I think I remember reading somewhere

You're getting to the heart of my issue. "Viability". The court ruled that a fetus could not, for reasons other than life-saving of the mother, be aborted once it was "viable".

What day is that? Does anyone know? What with Jill Stanek, do we really know? Does this mean that all babies aborted after 22 weeks, 5 days are being aborted illegally? How about just 22 weeks? 21 weeks? How long does a baby need to survive outside the womb to be "viable"? I mean, these three kids aren't flukes - Daniel Marsh, Amillia Taylor. Google the names.

My point is that I agree with you - we don't know when "viable" life begins. But, I see no reason to take the life of ANY child and call it legal. Do you?

 

[Bavarian]

You only refer to Row vs. Wade. Doe vs. Bolton made infanticide "legal" up to 9 months. Barry Obama thinks it should be after birth also.

 

[GSXR_MOE]

You're getting to the heart of my issue. "Viability". The court ruled that a fetus could not, for reasons other than life-saving of the mother, be aborted once it was "viable".

What day is that? Does anyone know? What with Jill Stanek, do we really know? Does this mean that all babies aborted after 22 weeks, 5 days are being aborted illegally? How about just 22 weeks? 21 weeks? How long does a baby need to survive outside the womb to be "viable"? I mean, these three kids aren't flukes - Daniel Marsh, Amillia Taylor. Google the names.

My point is that I agree with you - we don't know when "viable" life begins. But, I see no reason to take the life of ANY child and call it legal. Do you?

Well I think it should be legal, in certain cases... Incest and Rape come to mind, but I hear what you are saying.

I think women should be able to have a choice based on her beliefs and situation. Who am I to tell someone what they should do in their situation. Don't get me wrong, I don't think abortion is a great thing. I can't imagine what that whole process must be like for a women; the emotional part has to be way tougher then the physical part. You have to be at your wits end to choose to abort your child...

However since neither one of us can truly say when life begins, I feel that women should have the right to chose... Until we can agree on when life begins; we are going to have to agree to disagree.........

Because we can go round and round all day long..

 

[GSXR_MOE]

You only refer to Row vs. Wade. Doe vs. Bolton made infanticide "legal" up to 9 months. Barry Obama thinks it should be after birth also.[/QUOTE]

I did see that, where did he say that??

 

[GSXR_MOE]

You only refer to Row vs. Wade. Doe vs. Bolton made infanticide "legal" up to 9 months. Barry Obama thinks it should be after birth also.

I did see that, where did he say that??

How I found it... That is very intresting, I've go to do a little more research, but I'll be back.

 

[libby]

You're getting to the heart of my issue. "Viability". The court ruled that a fetus could not, for reasons other than life-saving of the mother, be aborted once it was "viable".

What day is that? Does anyone know? What with Jill Stanek, do we really know? Does this mean that all babies aborted after 22 weeks, 5 days are being aborted illegally? How about just 22 weeks? 21 weeks? How long does a baby need to survive outside the womb to be "viable"? I mean, these three kids aren't flukes - Daniel Marsh, Amillia Taylor. Google the names.

My point is that I agree with you - we don't know when "viable" life begins. But, I see no reason to take the life of ANY child and call it legal. Do you?

Viability has changed significantly since Roe v. Wade. Back then, I'd hazard a guess that a baby born before 30 weeks would very likely not survive. 30 odd years later babies are born as early as 22 weeks, and through God and the Herculean efforts of doctors and nurses, they survive. So, viability has changed with the advent of new medical discoveries and procedures, and what then, are we to do?
Viability is therefore subjective to life saving technologies, as opposed to objective truth.

 

[ImnoMensa]

You only refer to Row vs. Wade. Doe vs. Bolton made infanticide "legal" up to 9 months. Barry Obama thinks it should be after birth also.[/QUOTE]

I did see that, where did he say that??

I dont think he ever said it. He did however vote to not spend money or time on an infant that survived abortion. Leaving that born infant to die.

 

[ItalianScallion]

Thank you, X,
I will speak of IT specifically, because he's far more active on the boards, but how is it that the real, Bible Christian condemns both of us for our beliefs, and we believe nearly opposite things? You're damned for not believing in Jesus Christ, and I am damned for believing in Him too much? Unless we accept IT's interpretation of Scripture infallibly, we are following false prophets, etc. It's impossible!!

It's not impossible, it's simple:

True Faith in Jesus alone = Heaven
Faith in Jesus + works = 50 - 50 chance to get to Heaven
No faith in Jesus = hell.

That's how I can disagree with you both. Sorry if I get under your skin Libby but HONEST TO GOD, I am mostly concerned about Catholics because I came from there. Sure I'm tough on people here but I'm talking about eternity. Is that something you can afford to be wrong on?
I am seriously worried because you keep talking against Scripture infallibility when Jesus said it is infallible. Paul says that: "in Christ...we can do nothing against the truth". (2 Corinthians 13 v 5-8). See?
Maybe all my hounding MIGHT cause someone to really check or search more deeply into their "calling and election". I'm sure God is going to give me a talking to one day but He knows my motives are pure. (My methods might need work).
In 1989 I spoke to a 16 year old gal working in a Christian book store who claimed to be a Christian. We talked for 2 hours and, thanks to my persistence, (and her patience) we found out that she was a Mormon and thought she was a Christian. Her Mom forced her to go to that church but she felt very uncomfortable there she said. I led her in a salvation prayer and she was extremely grateful. Now, what if I had just accepted her at her word? Only God knows but, from then on, I refused to just accept someone's word about salvation. That's all; rock on lady friend.....

 

[Xaquin44]

so what does true faith in jesus + being a condescending prick get you?

 

[ItalianScallion]

Once again you've got to ask the Supreme Court that question, but I think it has to do with the survivability of the child. I THINK (but don't quote me) they ruled that if the fetus can survive on its own without the mother then you cannot abort the child. .. or something like that.

But there's the irony of it all; Many old people can't survive on their own and, if we start into this crap of "viability", how long will it be until they will be euthanized? Besides, how many 1 day old babies can survive on their own, really? I'm surprised they don't raise the age to until they're walking & potty trained. It's a life from conception and no abortions should EVER be done.