Comments


  • Hello Mike,
    Let me see it I understand your point of view here. 
    Your reasoning is that the government could intervene to MAKE a woman have a child, as in passing a law saying that killing a child in the womb is a crime, thus making pregnant women have the child.
    I see a few ways at least to answer this. What's more draconian, having  law which mandates the legality of killing children in the womb, or having a law which says that once a pregnancy has begun, that the life of the child should be respected? Sure, not all children are mandated to be killed, but then not all pregnancies would be "forced" either.   I imagine some might amend the law to allow for the LIFE of the mother, but I can't see a justification for much else.
    I think that much of the "choice" in the 50 million abortions came before the women got pregnant.
    Secondly, I don't see how giving birth is "forced." Abortion is the artificial, forcible, premature termination of a pregnancy with the intent of killing the child.  Birth, on the other hand, is the natural, unforced, mature termination of a pregancy with the natural intent of giving life.  Source: all.org
    To me, abortion is  the force which goes against nature. 
    Anyway, if this country would ever become so draconian in reverse to REQUIRE women to give birth, it would still be less draconian than killing innocent children in the womb, IMO. I go for protecting the weak over the strong.
    BTW, like your other topic on religion and politics. It's really food for thought. Do you think the early Christians, or even John the Baptist cared much about Caesar's laws when they went against the law of God?  I gotta go, but I'll comment on the other topic soon.
    Thanks for the interesting points you're bringing up.

    November 14, 2007 at 4:27 p.m.

  • Hello maryann
    Roe v Wade decision, said most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So to me that privacy clause keeps the government from interfering in a women’s right to choose. Now if we had a population crisis like China this clause would prevent our government from taking the steps China did. I know that situation is not likely to happen but I hope this helps you understand what I wrote.
    As for prayer in school it could go the other way around, Christian after Muslim.
    Remember all the ruckus when a congressman wanted to be sworn in using the Koran.
    Look at all the hoopla just because Joel Osteen came to town.
    Why can’t the president of the US be a Muslim, Jew, Mormon, or Atheist?

    November 14, 2007 at 4:25 p.m.

  • Hello Mike,
    YOU might be lukewarm on the death penalty, and I'm pretty cold on it, but if we all we followers of Christ got our duckies in order, we as a body could and do make difference.
    About the prayer in school, yes, I think it could make a huge difference. I heard of a Moslem who defended a Catholic college's right to have crucifixes in every classroom. The college took them down so they would not offend those not of the Catholic faith. He, as a Muslim, said that if you really believe in Christ's saving power from the cross and resurrection, you should not be ashamed. He pointed out to the Catholics in the classroom that he was a better Catholic than they, even though he was a MOSLEM!
    I think it's probably even with your nieces and nephews because they are taught equally at home. My kids go to public school and CCD, but I can't leave their religious education up to one hour a week OR even up to the 5 hours a week in a Catholic school. I look on it as my job, as the first educator of my children.
    As far as abortion, if you don't mind, I will revisit that topic tomorrow. I don't have much time now. I myself would like to explore what you mean on controling the population on abortion with forced abortions. I just don't get it. I do know that I think throwing abortion back to the states would make me extremely happy. Not all pro-lifers would settle for that, but some children would be saved, and we could work on changing the hearts and minds of people in the other states.
    Mike, if you were that child, wouldn't you want some person who value life speaking up for you? It happens everyday that lives are saved because people help out. It's about the dignity of the human life which is worth SO much.
    Anyway, I like this blog as  it seems we can talk without being distracted.
    Ta ta and have a good evening.

    November 13, 2007 at 7:05 p.m.

  • Hello maryann
    I was surprised and a little embarrassed (not knowing that)when I found out the Vatican was completely lit up every time we executed someone. I am luke warm on the subject but I know it does not deter criminals. No one can say that the church waffles on it’s position when it comes to life.
    Prayer in school, will it make a difference? My children, nieces, nephews and grandchildren are split about evenly between Catholic and private school and I cannot see the difference. A little bias, you think? We are a more diverse country and that issue might be a distraction.
    I can remember when you convinced me to abolish Roe v Wade and leave it to the states. Then along came Joe Patrick Bean reminding me that the government could intervene to control population without Roe v Wade. So my position did not last long so I am again for Roe v Wade. That does not mean I am for abortion, it simply means I do not want the government to intervene when it comes to a mother/child/doctor decision.
    Thanks for the compliment and remember caring for poor/disable, being good stewards of the earth, supporting laws against torture are also moral issues, Christians should adhere to.
    Have a good day

    November 13, 2007 at 2:56 p.m.

  • Hello Mike,
    What's happening? We're argreeing at least partially, TWO days in a row!  haha
    When it comes down to it, I cannot blame the far left for the ills of America.  I'd like to, but that would mean that the rest of us are a bunch of wimps who can't make things happen. 
    I think the lion's share of responsibility for the ills of America lies with the everyday Joe and Joanna, or.... people like myself.  Because I am a Catholic, I am particularly hard on the Catholics, myself included, because we're called to the lights of the world (along with other Christians) but there are far too few lights and too many dim or blown out bulbs. In other words, the country is in the shape it's in socially and politically because we Catholics haven't been holy enough. We're called to holiness, everyone of us.
    If Catholics make up 24% of the population of the U.S. then we should make more of a difference. I think my parents' generation was asleep at the wheel with a lot of things, including the legalization of abortion, and taking God out of the schools. I realize this is my opinion.  It's different now with DNA and science progressing, we can't pretend to not know when life begins any more like the Supremes did in 1972.  Science has taken care of that for us. Now ethics needs to catch up to science.
    Anyway, God is still in control. But I don't think he's too happy with the progress we're making as far as promoting His kingdom.
    Love your blog, Mike.
    Take care,
    MA

    November 13, 2007 at 1:36 p.m.