(Not about abortion) Democratic economics bug me. I think that charity should come from people, churches, organizations, etc. and not through the government. When people just need support, they should turn to neighbors who give with love, not to government money gained by obligation. When people are fiscally irresponsible, others should step in and help fix the irresponsibility, not have it covered up with free cash. I know that we'd first have to change as people for that to work, though...
Google Search with key terms including “20 Weeks” – US States putting restrictions on abortion at week 20 due to Fetal Pain. I know Catholic teaching is “at conception” – but – so many miscarriages happen before week 9 - that most OBGYNs won’t even see a pregnant woman until week 8 or 9. Why would God have all these miscarriages happen? Are they really a “baby” at that point?
The Church embraces science when it comes to evolution and global warming. Although, I love the ideals of a Culture of Life - the Church will need to wrestle with "life beginning at conception." Science is pointing to week 20. Also, whenever we talk of "abortion" we need to ask if it is a medical abortion or elective abortion. Ideally, abortions would never happen. Again, I hope Catholic Theologians have serious conversations with scientists about when life truly beings.
@jjny03 My understanding is that genetic science says that this is a unique human being from the beginning and that the fetus certainly is living, in the sense that it is growing and is self-organizing organism, that is human, human life. Can you tell me which scientists are saying that life begins so late as 20 weeks? I say it wanting to know, not accusingly
Great video... I've also always wondered why the democratic party, being so socially conscious, would be an advocate for abortion. It's one of the points where I strongly disagree with. You pointed out that being a pro life democrat is an oxymoron, and I've never understood why that is, always found it ironic.
Father Barron: This video is very relevant to me. I was the product of a working class Roman Catholic family, and I am actually old enough to remember the election of 1960. My parents despised Nixon and the Republican Party and taught me that Republicans were the party of the rich. It is difficult to get beyond the stereotypes presented to us in our youth. I am under no illusions that the GOP is really as "Pro-life" as they pretend to be every election cycle. But I can't vote Democratic anymore.
Supporting the poor is hardly the same as supporting a federal bureaucracy. The welfare state turns citizens into slaves of the state. It isn't about supporting the poor. It is about exploiting the needs of the poor for ones one power. If you keep people in a state of need, their fears & needs will give you power over them. Socialism is actually a revival of the old order feudalism, man needs to freed from this prison of the mind.
I too am an oxymoron when I consider the fact that I am a Jimmy Carter, pro life democrat, but I always remember that God is in charge and I am not. I prayerfully vote and pray for our leaders and I pray for God's justice to prevail.
i had a similiar political development in my 25 year life. however instead of abortion leading to my defining moment for when i went from democrat to being sceptical of them it was schools. we have so many private schools while having to pay twice (now citys like boston/ NYC are forcing them to pay taxes they pay three times, property tax, tuition, the new tax) . its horrible. they are in bed with the teachers union. teddy kennedy was instrumental in stopping federal vouchers in new orleans
Ted Kennedys position on abortion is the only thing that bothered you about him? The Democratic (Socialist) Party platform is based on forced wealth redistribution (theft) and tyranny of the Special Interests and Annointed Victims of Western Civilization. The Republicans (Neocons) are no better. Not sure about your politics, Father, but I don't believe you have fallen into state worship. Sometimes I do wonder what JFK would have thought of what Teddy morphed into.
the point is about abortion, and wasnt a commentary on other issues. I've never been a political man, but we were all aware of other issues surrounding Sen. Kennedy...R.I.P..
I believe the 10 commandments adress individuals directly... thou shall not steal... that means you, personally, won't steal, not "no one" should steal.
I say this because I see a lot of christian wanting to legislate abortion yet... not so legislative on unmarried sex... or on adultery... can you not just live your life as your good book tells you without always trying to impose on others?
The church itself was not always so decisive on abortion with notions of "delayed ensoulment".
My problem I have talking to pro-choice people is that in trying to stay consistent in their position, within minutes they argue themselves into the most ridiculous and abhorrent corners.
Last night as a challenged a pro-choicer's position, in an effort to cling to his view he wound up within minutes saying it was OK to kill infants or two-year-olds if they weren't wanted, or that you could kill a homeless person if he had no friends. How do I even respond to that?
Dear Fr. Barron: My husband I were Democrats-Ancient History, his Father was high up in the Dem. Party, and I worked for a Republican Gov. We both came from devout Catholic Irish families. But with Ted Kennedy I cannot forget the poor girl that he left in the water, went back to hotel showered, got dressed and called his attorney, God rest her dear soul. PRO-LIFE,SERVANT OF MARY,AVE MARIA. GOD BLESS YOU ALWAYS.
Americans like to suppose their politics to be unique. They are not. the Democrats are a left of centre socialist party a la European social democrats. They are a pro abortion party as are all their european fellows. The Republicans are like European right of centre Christian Democrats largely pro life. Indeed Dems are now to the left of many euro social democrats.
I respectfully disagree about the Democrats being the party for the little guy. The only thing the Democrats are interested in is buying votes with other people's money, while cultivating a "stick it to the man" mentality where the little guy has animosity toward the more fortunate. I totally support charity and doing unto the least among us, but think it should be done at a personal level and as effectively as possible. Giving money to the government is the least effective thing one can do.
I agree with you to as great degree on this issue and I cannot uphold abortion on demand. However, isn't the alternative back street illegal abortions? I do not believe ths issue is a religious one but a medical and ethical one on which the host, the woman, should have the final say in making an informed decision. An informed decision may not be the one we would want as a society but like poor parenting generally, and religious indoctrination of children we have to sadly tolerate them.
Roughly 50% of conceptions are spontaneously aborted without the women knowing she had conceived. About 20% of known pregnancies result in miscarriage. If you believe in God, you have to explain his indifference to the fate of those 150 cell "ensouled" blastocysts.
Ted Kennedy's changing perspective, demonstrates an ability to adjust or change a point of view when confronted with compelling arguments that warrant such a change. For example, if 13 year old girl is violently raped, it would be egregiously immoral for a government to require her to continue a resultant pregnancy. Most people not constrained by unchanging dogma, understand this.
Ted Kennedy left a woman to drown in his car then used his family's money and influence to dodge responsibility for it. He should have spent several years in jail, not several decades in the senate.
The bottom line for me is that FIRST we must protect the most defenseless (the unborn) in our society. Once we have accomplished stopping the infanticide in our culture we can move on to helping so many others. The deaths of millions of innocent unborn babies is unspeakable. And I think Edward Kennedy and all the democrat Catholics know this. My heart breaks for them and those who listen to them. Who knows what harm they have done?
I've come up with a new term. There are cradle Catholics, Reverts, Converts, Fallen away Catholics and cafeteria Catholics and now we have Caved in Catholics, those who have caved in under cultural pressure such as certain Catholic politicians who are pro choice.
Fr. Barron thanks for sticking up for the "little guy", life, the truth, our Lord! I was holding my breath the whole way through this video and exhaled at the end. God Bless and Amen!!!
Fr. I would like your thoughts on social justice with regards to government. I submit to you that the notion that goverment should me in charge of determining what is just is a terrible idea. It has led to what has happened in Europe an appathy among individuals in caring for one another as this responsibility has been heaped upon a government. Leads to coruption, leaving someone (man not God) to determine what is just. I believe in the ideals of church teaching just when man is involved...
"Irish and Catholic to the bone" ... Now, I understand ;-)
And you still claim to have found your belief in a personal God on your own ... and with your "free will" ... and through God's mercy (on you ... but not on millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims etc. etc.) ?
I was born into a Catholic family in Silesia (then Germany, now Polish). But I must admit, my mother never went with us to church. She sent us with the maid instead. Why? Because she herself had been educated by the Ursuline nuns in Breslau. That was enough of "piousness" for a lifetime. Our parish-priest often visited her after mass. He was an educated man. We children heard his roaring laughter from the "Herrenzimmer" ... .So, no denial here. - ;-)
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it amounts to the genetic fallacy: if we have discovered the psychological etiology of a belief, we have debunked that belief. I mean, I might have first learned Catholicism from my family and came in my maturity to embrace it fully and you might have taken it in as a child and eventually rejected it. Well, so what? Neither story proves anything in particular about the belief in question.
Fr. I swear I am not trying to bait you with my previous question, but i will say that my parents thought highly of the Kennedys but as I got older I found this faith in them to be a sham. I found it Ironic that your uncle said not to trust the "rich" and yet few familys have more wealth than the Kennedys. Joe was one of the biggest crooks in the crash of '29. I think that social justice has become a weapon of power in the form of taxation. I understand if you don't want to respond. Thanks
@wordonfirevideo This response is confusing to me. What plank is are you talking about? Agnosticism is something that is discovered on your own through personal study and examination of your beliefs, not intellectual laziness as is commonly thought - I can personally attest to that. What other source would it be from?
@wolf1750 There are good people in bad religions, and bad people in good religions. Good people can be saved, but none can get to the father but through the son. Those who lived with loving others and doing good will have that chance to accept Christ or reject him
@wolf1750 If they truly wanted to follow God, and lived good lives, and stayed open to the idea of Christ, and did not reject him completely on earth, then yes
I find this very interesting, as somebody who lives outside the US, but in a Western country (New Zealand) where 18000 children are destroyed in abortion clinics every year, and both partys of the right and the left are equally unconcerned. In my opinion, this is because the cancer of liberalism, which is nothing less than a denial of God's sovereignty, has corrupted all politics in the west.
Of course he should not be denied a private funeral. He should have merely been denied such a public funeral; the Catholic Church in her wisdom has often done this in the past when notorious public sinners publicly fail to repent. If there is EVER a situation for that to be so, Ted Kennedy's seems to be it.
Sorry if I came across to critical there; my intent was more jovial than the mere text likely showed!
Anyway, bluntly... I think that the Kennedy funeral was perhaps the worst scandal the Catholic Church in America has seen yet. I pray for Kennedy's soul and hope he is in heaven... but the fact is that he is one of the biggest reasons that 50 million children have been violently murdered... their limbs torn off and their bodies vacuumed from the womb. He never repented of this!
I don't know how I could have been clearer on my objection to Kennedy's pro-choice policy. I wanted to highlight how he had tragically abandoned his earlier pro-life position. As far as the funeral goes: I don't know. We've allowed funerals to become tributes, but they are meant to be prayers on behalf of the deceased.
I too grew up in the Catholic tradition and the K's were held in very high regard but in addition to positions on abortion that i had concerns about i have also been bothered by some of the social justice principles. Where is the line between helping our fellow man (on a voluntary basis) and be frankly stolen from? The preaching of social justice (not by the church) but of a government has led to coruption and the idea that D's are for the little guys imo is far from the truth. Thoughts?
I'm a prolife democrat-prolife for several reasons:1. People should take responsiblity for the consequences of their actions, if women don't want to get pregnant, make sure you use some kind of protection. 2.When a life, even just a mere fertilized egg, becomes a human should not be rationalized or even attempted to be determined, it is a slippery slope-Is self-awareness the precurser to human life? If so what about people who aren't self aware due to a medical condition? Should they be aborted?
Now I understand that there are gray areas for instance what about a girl who became pregnant after being raped, or a women who will die due to complications during birth...abortion during such occurances don't happen very often. As for my being a democrat- I believe in social justice, helping the poor, universal healthcare, and promoting peace through out the world. I don't care so much about free-market capitalism and I don't see how that's anything that Jesus would want us to support.
free market advocates voluntary charity. i dont see how Jesus would disagre with that. and besides the democratic party is a party of death, full of pro aborts.
Very good Father Barron. There are a lot of strong opinions regarding TK's burial. His family is Catholic, and I can't see them planning another type of funeral. I actually thought Obama looked extremely uncomfortable being confronted with the Church once again, and I enjoyed watching him sweat....
Now then, DJMahon's comment was that my "ideology leaves me vulnerable to those stronger than [myself]". In fact, I am vulnerable only at the expense of the majority - the mob rule. That, would include the majority described by Christians in the US that wish to promote their own ideology above the individual. Seems to me, that my sovereignty is slightly safer than DJMahons since he has already relinquished his to both God and mob rule.
Slow down. Choose any comment longer than 10 words and read every word. See if you can figure out exactly what the person meant. Do it once. Do it again in a couple of days. Then start doing it every time you read. You are missing a great deal of life.
laws aimed at abortion can come nowhere near resolving the issue. And last, I view traditional Abrahamic religious tenants as contributing to the problem and not the other way around.
In regard to abortion, my intuition tells me that life probably begins much sooner and at a much lower level than most people - even "pro-lifers"- believe. Perhaps, it doesn't 'begin' at all but recycles - not in a spiritual reincarnation sense but in a natural sense. I think abortion is wrong. I am adamantly against promiscuity and modern attitudes regarding the sexes and the roles they play in society. I believe that these attitudes contribute to the problem that I see. I also believe that...
I left the Democrat party 10 years ago because of Abortion and other issues that promote the Culture of Death. What good are the many "social programs" if you are killing the people who need them? Also IMHO many of those programs are enabling and seem to create a demographic dependent on the Government.
"seem to" should have been your que that you are using inductive reasoning. That's a great start but it is a start. I can't say if it is true that the social programs promote dependency because I have only gone as far as yourself. I have not proceeded too far into deductive reasoning. But to make a big decision based on inductive reasoning when deductive is available seems...I don't know...lazy I guess. Also, I'm very curious about what other issues would promote a culture of death.
Does that include ABORTION. What does the church have to say about a man who fought for and advocated the deaths of millions of unborn babies in the USA?
Father, this is the first time I have been at a loss for words over the church since I have become Catholic. I would be embarrassed if anyone would ask me about this. I have no rational explanation for this. The USCCB goofing this 20 years ago I understand. 2009? I thought we had outgrown this !!!
It does makes sense to discuss abortion before other issues, as it does carry more moral weight than any other *single* issue. However, upon the passing of such a statesman, for Fr. Barron to spend no more than 9 seconds, at the end of the clip, whizzing through the great moral accomplishments "etc., etc." of Ted Kennedy, through his legislative advocacy, can only be described as a) shameful and b) intellectually dishonest/obscurantist.
Fr. Barron, I'm glad you got into the whole abortion issue--I wanted to take this opportunity to share my short video with you and with anyone who has watched this video:
h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = S z p h l 6 9 m t H A
Make sure to delete the spaces when you copy and paste the URL. I had to put those in, because otherwise my comment would not have posted.
Chalicechica, you are so full hate and anger and stereotypes. You just want to blame the Catholic Church for silly reasons. If a health care plan rations care and covers abortion, it is simply not pro-life. I want all life to be protected from womb to tomb. There is nothing in the gospel about how the government should give out entitlements that only enslave the poor. Government programs don't help the poor, they simply keep them poor.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
And yes, you "pro-lifers" who also vote against universal health care in the US - YOU are the ones who are responsible for my father's death.
Maybe if this happened to someone in YOUR family, you might "get it" but until then, I suppose you all will continue to wander through life with your heads up your asses. I bet it's not exactly "springtime fresh" up there.
You miss the point. The reason most Catholics are against government run health care is because we frankly don't trust the government. There is a finite amount of medical supplies and services available, and so decisions must be made on who gets what. I'd rather have a doctor decide what he will do than the government. These bureaucrats are easily swayed by buzz words and large crowds, and they won't give the people a blank check. They will tell us what we can and can't have.
You people want to talk about "pro-life"? Then why did my father have to die at age 65 of completely avoidable diabetes complications? Because there was no universal health care here in the US and he often could not afford his insulin! You people are so terrified of the S-word ("socialism") that you'd rather see elderly, sick people DIE rather than get some universal health care that would lengthen LIFE! You people are such hypocrites.
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Yes, there is strong overlap between pro-lifers and people opposed to universal health care, but there are many who are pro-life and in favor of universal health care. Also, there are many who favor universal health care, but not just any form of it.
Most importantly, there are valid reasons for a person to oppose government health care despite a desire to give such care to the poor.
In fact, many pro-life people give their lives in service of those in need. Not all do this, nor can they. But think of Mother Theresa, whose entire life was dedicated to caring for the sick. Also, conservatives give more money to charities on average than liberals, because they believe that charities should care for the poor, and that the government cannot do so effectively.
This is manifestly true. The government is neither as effective nor as efficient when it steps in for private charities.
Still, I recognize the argument that people will not donate enough, so the only way to raise enough money for the poor is through taxes. I make this argument myself, and it is a complicated problem. But it is still unfair to claim that pro-lifers killed your father.
Doctors and medicine are expensive, and in limited supply. The only way to increase supply in the short run is to lower quality, or to pick-and-choose who gets care by a system other than money.
If we create a system where money doesn't determine who gets help (which is admittedly fairly terrible), then how do we decide?
Do we decide based on age? That seems like a likely answer, in which case your father may have been deemed too old, and may have died around the same age.
What is the right solution? I don't know. But I know we shouldn't use the solution you want to use for unwanted children. I oppose sucking out the brains of those who we don't want burdening us.
Not sure who you are ranting to here. I am pro-life, pray before abortion clinics, would not consider voting for barrack 'the baby butcher' obama, but still am for some sensible national plan. sorry to hear about your dad
I remember a former roommate of mine confronting some protesters outside an abortion clinic. She herself wasn't pregnant, but she pretended she was, and she told them "I'm pregnant out of wedlock, I'm about to be thrown out of my house because my parents are angry with me, and I need somewhere to live and someone to help care for my baby. Can you help me?" No one offered to help her. This is part of the problem we see with pro-lifers - no help to mothers and children once the kid is BORN.
It seems most of you "pro-lifers" are only "pro-life" as long as a child is safe in the womb. As soon as he or she is born, forget things that the new person will need, like HEALTH CARE and EDUCATION...oh, and you're all so quick to send these former unborn babies off to WAR in foreign countries over things like OIL and YOUR OWN GREED. You all are pathetic. You aren't TRULY "pro-life." If you were, you'd be anti-death penalty. You'd be anti-war & anti-military service.
This is why my boyfriend LEFT the RCC. He knew that the Scriptures said, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL." He reserves the right to use lethal force should his home or his nation be invaded. He is a former combat engineer in the US Army and he believes NO CHRISTIAN has ANY business enlisting in the military, because your job in the military is KILLING.
He should've read the Catechism and he'd see the difference. Technically the Hebrew scriptures forbid murdering someone. Just War, which is basically a war of defense that targets only the opposing military force, is allowed to governments since it is their duty to protect their citizens just a father should protect his children. Also the death penalty is to be reserved for when there is no other way to protect the innocent. Look it up yourself if you think I'm lying.
Yes we do think of that. No, killing is ok in certain instances. In fact some times it is morally necessary. Check out the catechism paragraphs 2263-2267
You all TALK a good game about a "culture of life" so let's see you get some UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE in the US! NOW NOW NOW!! Enough of the cheap talk. Living people require health care; there's no getting through life without it. Why is it a privilege of the wealthy and not a right of every LIVING citizen in the US? GET MOVING ON THIS you "PRO LIFE" people!
You don't say when that happened. As time has gone on, more and more pro-life people at abortion clinics have contacts with pregnancy help centers. The pamphlets they hand out contain the phone numbers of pregnancy help centers.
For the last 25 years or so, pregnancy help centers have outnumbered abortion clinics by about two to one.
That is odd. My wife and I (pregant with our 5th) made a pact that any girl like her could live at our place for free. Actually did maintenance for a ministry like that one. We are ready to adopt another at risk baby any time.
I think the video would have been even better if chronicled how fanatically and radically pro-abortion the Kennedy family became. The contrast with the pro-lfe quote would be even more stark. Context is everything.
Other abortion 'flip floppers": Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, Mitt Romney, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore. And if changing one's position on an issue equates "flip flopping", then if one chose to vote Republican although he or she had been Democrat for a long time, wouldn't that also be flip flopping? And then, is flip flopping to be understood as a negative character trait?
There is a difference between supporting what is evil, then changing to supporting what is good, and supporting what is good, and changing to support for evil. Kennedy once supported respect for innocent human life, and then flip-flopped to supporting the murder of fifty million babies, and counting.
Get it? Kennedy supported evil, instead of good. Kennedy supported murder, instead of opposing murder.
To repeat: It is good if a person who once supported EVIL changes and supports what is good. It is EVIL if a person who once supported what is good changes and supports what is EVIL.
Got it?
How about this:
Which better?-- A man who cheats on his wife for a time, and then stops, or a man who is faithful to his wife for a time, and then starts cheating on her?
Would you say that those two men are morally indistinguishable?
Kennedy NEVER gave a reason. The only reason there could be is so despicable, he never would say it out loud. Power.
Also, after he murdered Mary Jo, he had to make up for the loss of support from decent people by cementing his support from the baby-murderers, feminists, Communists, etc.
Kennedy worked with the KGB in the 1980s to undermine Reagan's efforts to defeat the Soviet Union.
I would be willing to bet that this is one of the reasons why the Church refuses to ordain women. If they DID start ordaining women, then it is very possible that many decades and even centuries down the line, as women continued to rise in the ranks of the Church, doctrines like that of abortion would be very highly subject to change if a woman's perspective were introduced into the mix. The possibility of it happening would increase if women were ordained. Thus, no women priests.
About the only thing women CAN do is vote with their feet - they can leave the Church if they find they simply cannot live with the Church's teachings on this.
And thus, organizations like the Unitarian Universalist Association exists, to take in the Church's heretics. :D
I completely agree. I don't consider myself a republican but I feel I am not welcomed in the democratic party because of my beliefs in family and the importance of faith. I don't want Exxon Mobile defining our energy policies and I don't want Planned Parenthood defining our Abortion policies.
I do feel that the democratic party had muted the "proife" democrats to the point that it is pointless to even attempt to engage them anymore.
Since you say, "You will not change my mind", then this is not a proper debate. You are spamming. Otherwise, we're just wasting time here, shouting at each other. If you really want to discuss on a specific issue, then you have to show that you are serious in considering opposing views.
i wasnt shouting nor voting on comments i want to know how you can justify the ruination of a womans life over that of a creature who doesnt know it exists who could still die why does the currently uncentient creature get the deciding vote what of the rape victim
A rape victim suffers for the rest of their life no matter what. Christians have hope and faith that any situation - no matter how "ruinous" - can be redeemed for good. A hope that even the "unwanted" child can love and be loved; if not by the natural mother, then by adoptive parents. Harder to think of anything more saintly than a rape victim who would choose to love the child's life enough to bear it until birth.
Simple, that 'creature' is a human being. There are not degrees of being a human, but we are all fully human from the start. The child is wholly innocent. Yes a pregnancy following a rape, rare but existent, is a terrible burden. But the child is a victim too. Every human has the right to be conceived in the context of a loving marital union. In a rape, the woman's humanity, body and dignity are assaulted, and the child's dignity is entirely ignored. That is why rape is so terrible.
If we deny the humanity of a child in the womb, purely on a legalist stand point, then we've basically Deified the State and given it the power to assign humanity as it wills. Humanity itself become arbitrary and then we will go back to the errors of the past committed by so many ideologies including the Nazis who, by their laws, killed almost no humans in the concentration camps since the Jews et al. were 'sub-human'. This error can only lead to slavery, genocide, and self-destruction.
That's easy enough, science has done the work for me. Once an egg is fertilized it has a complete and unique genetic structure and begins to grow independent of either parent. Eventually it implants into the mother and stays their being fed and sheltered. Aside from food and shelter, the baby grows with no impetus dependent on the mother's body. Ergo a complete human being, that did not exist before, exists upon conception. Abortion then is just a matter of age discrimination.
Interesting counter. Identical twins divide into two equal embryos early on, one is not a growth off the other so they would be, biologically speaking, equally human. They, however are not 100% genetically identical. Research in 2005 showed slight differences. Go to Live Science to read more.
Unique DNA is not the definition of life. The point I was making is there were 2 genetic signatures before, and after fertilization there are 3 (or 4 for twins). Neither 3 nor 4 equals either 1 or 2.
Yes, the cells divide as if they were still gametes (meiotically) because they are wholly undifferentiated at that point. This is a reproductive error. One cell should have made one zygote but the zygote split as if it were still a gamete thus leading to two blastocysts (clusters of undifferentiated cells). As you say, there are some small differences due to fusing and breaking of the chromosomes but, wasn't that just the point- not a new set of DNA.
Not really. If you want me to explain the reasoning behind every strange possible way a human is made then we might be at it a while. The fact remains when you have a human body, either a cluster of cells or full grown adult, that is functioning, dividing, growning, or however you want to call it, it is a person. Whenever that body functions by its own impetus, regardless of how well it functions, that is a sovereign person due all the respect of humanity.
You don't need to prove a thing to me. I merely commented that defining humanity isn't as easy as it sounds. You took the challenge to do so. You offered a couple of ways to define it but they didn't actually work. No big deal. Challenge remains though doesn't it? Don't you think that the issue is important enough to "be at it awhile"? If, you want to call a cluster of cells, functioning, dividing and growing as a person, then a gamete is a person. Gametes divide and function and grow. cont...
Or, as in the case of Dolly the sheep, a cell from an udder , would be a life. We like to say "at conception" but guess what?, your genes don't care how they get replicated and passed on . To our genes, we are just a vehicle. So...are genes persons?
Genes are a vehicle for our structure, not the other way around. Cells are alive, including the cells from the udder. However they were just skin cells (I'm guessing) and would continue to function and grow as skin cells. Yet on try #277, they no long continued to function simply as skin cells but as a sheep as a whole.
Much the same for humans. An embryo acts as a human as a whole. A sperm or ovum act as their respective type as part of a whole. Interpolate as needed to somatics etc.
On the 277th try, why did the udder stop being an udder cell (not a skin cell actually), and start forming a blastocyst? Isn't it important to know? I'm thinking that if there is a single event that begins the process of creating a blastocyst, you'd have your question answered. Otherwise, we have to presume that all cells containing DNA, are life - to be safe. Doesn't that make sense?
Now as to why, I cannot say. Important to know? Somewhat I guess.
The cells are alive yes, but they do not a whole person make. They have the information but they function as a part of a whole body. It is that whole system functioning as body, unit, person, or whatever you want to call it that makes a life, in particular human life.
"Somewhat"? Somewhat! I dare say the Catholic church might have something to say about that. And has. The wavering between 'animation'/'quickening' and 'from conception', has been quite a spectacle. A hundred years of abortions as long as no animation and then death penalty for any abortion, and now excommunication for aborting any "fetus" is canon law. But, fetus has it's own definition and it is never 'from conception'.
Don't tell me what the Church has to say about it. When they were determining when the soul enters the body, Augustine, Aquinas, the Didache, et al. summarily said 'Regardless when the soul enters/animates the body, it is a life that God wills to exist and it is wrongful to end it." Pure and simple.
The word fetus is not in canon law, it says procuring a direct abortion is excommunication.
Pure and simple...not somewhat! That is the point I was making. If it is pure and simple, then it is not merely somewhat important to determine when the soul enters the body. Neither Aquinas nor Augustine considered early term abortion sinful. The entire argument has always revolved around when a soul enters a human. Remember when it was believed that sperm contained homunculus? (tiny, fully formed humans)? That's when it was thought to be murder. Hardly "somewhat" important.
As I'm sure you realize, this form of reasoning puts you on a very slippery slope indeed. Following your reasoning, an awful lot of people wouldn't count as persons.
The replicate to maintain us, and then we pass part of ourselves on to the next generation. Like I said, Life comes from Life. Well technically that was Louis Pasture, but who's counting.
Try a little earlier, say, early 1800's, (cell theory). A single cell is life is it not? I think you said that earlier. Bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes - the three kingdoms of living organisms (excluding viruses which are very, very close to fitting the definition). And of course, you can clone a plant simply by rooting a branch. You see why I ask for a definition of when life begins in regard to humans? It is important and will be even more so as time passes.
But the genes replicate in tact. We, do not. The gene, if it is the chosen allele, survives exactly as it was. Our bodies deliver the replicated genes to the next body (organism) with a chance of survival. What is your chance of survival as an individual organism? zero. You, do not survive but you are the organism/vessel, that carries the genes to another chance at survival. Is it any wonder that libido is second only to the drive for sustenance?
So, life does not necessarily require unique 'genetic structure' does it? Unless your answer to my twins question was anything other than recognition of both siblings as human. Then what about your other requisite for defining 'human'? Mother and father and fertilized egg. Maybe not though. Every cell in your body (except red blood cells), carries everything that is needed to create a 'human' (I'm guessing you wouldn't argue) without the benefit of fertilization. It's been done.
Your point about cells carrying all the makings of a human is almost correct, but all you have proven is that a cell other than a sperm cell can fertilize an egg or replace a zygote's nucleus. Though to my knowledge, no human has been cloned. Still it would be a human where one was not before. And it would grow on its own. Take on a life of its own, so to speak. Life comes only from life, and new life is sovereign of old life.
The sovereignty of life is basically if mom dies, the baby does not die because of that. The baby may die from starvation or exposure, but its life is not directly linked to the life of the mother. The baby is dependent on the mother to provide food and shelter, in a radical way during pregnancy and in a more mundane way after. But the child's body lives of its own accord.
If this is so, then shouldn't the rule be that this sovereignty may be exercised when and only when the baby is NOT dependent on the mother for life? I'm being brutal with your definitions, not with your view point. For instance, if the fetus could be maintained outside the womb and the mother did not want to carry, feed, nurture, be responsible for a 'sovereign' being, then the fetus could be removed and raised by...I don't know, you.?
If a fetus could be maintained outside the mother then yes, someone taking care of the child is preferable to killing him or her. I've never had a problem with adoption so if presented with the situation, sure I would take in the tyke.
It is not almost accurate, it is a fact. It took 277 tries to clone a sheep from an adult, fully differentiated, somatic cell. Dolly the sheep did not require sperm or egg cell for fertilization. Nuclear transfer is not the same thing as fertilization. It is illegal to clone a human being in most countries capable of the experiment. Regardless, when the inevitable happens, would you refer to the somatic cell as a human?
It is a sovereign human being that if fed and sheltered will continue to grow. A body is a body even if it is only a few cells, simply a matter of age. I am not more human because I have more cells than a 5 year old.
A person's conception has little bearing on their humanity. Whether they be from a loving family, a rape, a one-nighter, or a genetic experiment. A human is human. Simple.
Doesn't the word sovereignty imply independence? That's like saying France was still a sovereign nation during the occupation isn't it? I'm sure the Nazi's didn't believe it. And if all persons are sovereign, then why do we insist on discriminating laws regarding age? Is this not an impingement on sovereignty and doesn't it have to do with a persons propensity toward independence?
Sovereignty is something unto itself. France was indeed a sovereign nation, even if Germany had won. They could take her land, her people, her fortunes, but they cannot take her self. Germany could no more become France than it could become a tomato. They could strike her from the history books, but they cannot take 'France' from France.
So too with people. I may be beaten, drugged, killed, burned, and erased. However 'I' cannot be taken from me, hence I am sovereign in my existence.
So then, Texas is actually Mexico? And of course, there is still such thing as Palestine? Just making a point about the word. You actually could take my sovereignty and I willingly give part of it to be a member of society.
We're not literally shouting, but are you listening to whatever the pro-lifers are saying? You yourself said, "You will not change my mind". So, what's the point in discussing? Are you getting anything out of it.
yes i am lisening to you but are you listening to the pro choicers.. not everything is as black and white as you want it to be are you getting anything out of that point of view?
I'm not sure what your latest question is. But I'm certainly not getting any benefit out of this "discussion". So far, I've had two exchange where my points aren't addressed, and in one of them, I've been accused of killing someone's father. I could spend my time going through various explanations saying why it's illogical that I am the cause of someone's death, but I don't think it's worth it. Basic rules of polite, rational discussion aren't in force here. If you still want to talk, email me.
you havent addressed any points with me that you wish to discuss instead you called me a spammer, which is not the case. i will explain why i am pro choice i feel it is important to take the "mother" into account, she should have the choice to carry on with her pregnancy or not. you may feel life begins at conception but i do not, i consider life to begin when it is viable outside of the womb we do not live our lives inside our mothers. cont..
a feotus born at 16 weeks has a 0% chance of servival but i do not agree with termination after the 12week mark for these reasons
1 it now looks like a very small child
2 it has a well established heart beat
3 if the body has not terminated the pregnancy its unlikely that it will making it a viable pregnancy
4 if the mother has not decided to terminate by the 12 week mark to do so after would be callus as i feel she has had plenty of time to consider her options.
these considerations are purely for a rape pregnancy and not accidental pregnacy, or an unwell feotus who has a condition not compatible with life.
abortion is NOT a form of contraceptive and if the pregnacy turns out to yeld a child whos condition is not compatible with life then the mother should have the right to discontinue her pregnancy for her sake and that of the childs
i dont think abortion should be an option for a stupid person who thought oh never mind i got up the duff i can just get rid of it.
they need to face the responsability of their actions, but my husband disagrees he feels that termination should be an option due to economic reasons he feels that there is sufficent evidence to sujest that teenage mothers dont work, are single and dont offer anything to the country.
he feels that it puts an unneccesary strain on already stretched resources. i personally feel that the economics of unplanned pregancy is a secondary issue. there needs to be a form of compromise reached as neither the pro lifers or the pro choicers are going to get everything they want. i will look into the policys put in place for planned parenthood in usa as we have family planning in the uk which certainly needs improving.
there is indeed the posibility that the pregnancy will terminate itself but some are albe to carry to term but the choice needs to be there for mothers who just couldnt cope with contiuing the pregnancy knowing that their child will die as ive said before its not always so black and white and there are so many considerations to be taken into account and not just theological considerations
i suspect you have been asked this many times, but im interested on your point of view. if a woman is attacked and raped then finds out that because of that rape she is pregnant with her attackers child, should she not have the right in this instance to refuse to continue this pregnancy? it may be said that the child growing in her womb is also an inocent victim but why should she be forced into carrying such a child? its unlikley she'd ever be able to mentally cope with or love said child
even if she gave the baby up to adoption she still has to live with the pregnancy itself, she may not be able to take that strain mentally. what of her rights where is her peace on having been forced into this situation, how would you council in such a case?
It is hard, but the right thing is sometimes not the easy thing. Or is your position, "Do the right thing, except when it gets too hard. Then, give it up and, even if you have to, snuff out an innocent life."? Is that your counsel? As for peace, the mother will have no peace for the rest of her life knowing that she denied someone the right, the possibility to be born and live. The pregnancy may be unplanned or even forced, but abortion only makes things worse.
Well what about those who are naturally aborted by Nature or God if you will....Hmmmm I personally see no problem with abortion as long as it is in the first portion of deveolping and is only murder when its at the point that much of the baby has been devloped.
In other words, you advocate playing God--*you* get to define human according to your whims.
Have you ever considered that when you claim to have the right to play God, you give everyone else the right to play God as well; what happens when someone playing God decides that *you* don't make the cut as human?
The reverse is true isn't it? You have simply added a buffer to the same argument. You believe that there is a god. You believe that god has involvement in life on earth. You believe your ideology is supported by this god figure. All those steps though, revolve around your belief and your ideology.
The difference is that that "buffer" demands that I treat the weakest and most defenseless among us as human--no matter the inconvenience it might cause me.
Your ideology, on the other hand, leaves you at the mercy of the stronger; when you inconvenience them, what will protect you from the chopping block?
The buffer is not required for the same ideology to exist. That is why you presume too much. You presume that it is the buffer that forces your ideology on the topic but the same ideology exists even where the buffer is absent. You don't need to experiment on yourself by stopping believing in God. You can look for those that believe in other gods or no god that share this same view. They are out there.
The direct taking of innocent human life is intrinsically evil. Therefore, it cannot be countenanced under any circumstances. If I may pursue an analogous example. Many argued in 1945 that it was morally acceptable to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to attain the enormous good of ending WWII and saving millions of lives. But that kind of proportionalist reasoning was bad then, as it is bad now in reference to the abortion issue.
But Father Barron, let me ask you this...why is it that in South America, a 9 year old was raped and impregnated by her stepfather, and the doctors and her mother who aided her in getting an abortion were excommunicated BUT nothing was done to the rapist stepfather, who also molested the 9 year old's 14 year old sister? There's no justice in that, and the Church did not call for the stepfather to be excommunicated for what he did to those two girls. And a 9 year old cannot carry a baby to term.
A 9 year old's body simply isn't ready for that. Look, Father, I do not mean to be rude or difficult here, but sometimes I think the Church just assumes all pregnancies are perfect and healthy and all babies conceived are conceived in the context of a loving marriage and two consenting adults making love and consciously conceiving a wanted baby.
But...it's just not. like. that. all the time. It's almost like the Church is completely blind to how sex is used in a forceful manner at times.
And there are so many questions...what is innocence? And according to whose standards is someone "innocent" - because to me, to be truly pro-life, people should be strongly and 100% anti-war along with this. Life is life, right? Oh my...
And aborting the baby would take the "trauma" out of her? I don´t think so, getting rid of the baby can add an additional level of "trauma" to that unfortunate woman.
indeed but what if having the pregnancy let alone the child sends her over the edge? do you have the right to do that to her? i couldnt live with myself knowing that a decison to force her into having the child made her loose her dignity or worse her mind. it was never my choice to make for her, it isnt anyones choice but hers
Why would "her dignity" be above the child´s life? As long as we have life, we can overcome our problems, take life out of ourselves and it is over. What about the bay´s choice? Can we take his/her right to choose life? A society that does not take care of the weakest of all, the most defenseless of all is not doing a proper job. A dead baby cannot choose.
why should the baby win over the mother what makes her life less precious than that of a fetus the woman should have the right to choose to go through the pregnancy or not
Weird isn't it? Children do not have the right to forego education, to enter into a legal contract, to drink alcohol or take drugs, gain admittance to R rated movies or rent them, gamble, drive, work, live on their own, join the military, etc... We make a lot of distinctions about rights based on age. We also make distinctions about rights based on IQ. I happen to agree with you but I disagree with your argument.
So, you're saying you can live with yourself killing an innocent unborn child? And people should be allowed to kill unborn children? Go look at some pictures of aborted foetuses, and ultrasounds of babies in the womb.
you will not change my mind, the mother has rights too and to force her into motherhood in this nature aka rape your no better than a murderer as well as you could have distroyed her life and if the child is given up and bounced from foster home to foster home then what life is that your decision has recked two lives
you can live with her life of suffering but not the so called death of an fetus that doesnt even know it exists how can you live with yourself knowing that you added to her trama (that is based on the assumption that she wanted to abort)
how can you be that cruel to this poor rape victim hasnt she been through enough
anthtan: listen to yourself. You are using deliberately inflammatory language and you know it. People like you use words like "unborn baby" instead of "foetus" to describe that which is inside a woman's body when an ovum and sperm meet and the ovum is fertilized. And people like you do this on purpose and you know it. That's utter nonsense.
(Not about abortion) Democratic economics bug me. I think that charity should come from people, churches, organizations, etc. and not through the government. When people just need support, they should turn to neighbors who give with love, not to government money gained by obligation. When people are fiscally irresponsible, others should step in and help fix the irresponsibility, not have it covered up with free cash. I know that we'd first have to change as people for that to work, though...
CriaSunshine 1 month ago
Google Search with key terms including “20 Weeks” – US States putting restrictions on abortion at week 20 due to Fetal Pain. I know Catholic teaching is “at conception” – but – so many miscarriages happen before week 9 - that most OBGYNs won’t even see a pregnant woman until week 8 or 9. Why would God have all these miscarriages happen? Are they really a “baby” at that point?
jjny03 5 months ago
The Church embraces science when it comes to evolution and global warming. Although, I love the ideals of a Culture of Life - the Church will need to wrestle with "life beginning at conception." Science is pointing to week 20. Also, whenever we talk of "abortion" we need to ask if it is a medical abortion or elective abortion. Ideally, abortions would never happen. Again, I hope Catholic Theologians have serious conversations with scientists about when life truly beings.
jjny03 7 months ago
@jjny03 My understanding is that genetic science says that this is a unique human being from the beginning and that the fetus certainly is living, in the sense that it is growing and is self-organizing organism, that is human, human life. Can you tell me which scientists are saying that life begins so late as 20 weeks? I say it wanting to know, not accusingly
vincenttnagle 5 months ago
Great video... I've also always wondered why the democratic party, being so socially conscious, would be an advocate for abortion. It's one of the points where I strongly disagree with. You pointed out that being a pro life democrat is an oxymoron, and I've never understood why that is, always found it ironic.
manuelturcios 7 months ago
@Workingclassathiest Did you actually listen to the video?!
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Father Barron: This video is very relevant to me. I was the product of a working class Roman Catholic family, and I am actually old enough to remember the election of 1960. My parents despised Nixon and the Republican Party and taught me that Republicans were the party of the rich. It is difficult to get beyond the stereotypes presented to us in our youth. I am under no illusions that the GOP is really as "Pro-life" as they pretend to be every election cycle. But I can't vote Democratic anymore.
billybagbom 9 months ago
@billybagbom --"Dont vote; it only encourages them".
WayOfTheMaster454 9 months ago
Supporting the poor is hardly the same as supporting a federal bureaucracy. The welfare state turns citizens into slaves of the state. It isn't about supporting the poor. It is about exploiting the needs of the poor for ones one power. If you keep people in a state of need, their fears & needs will give you power over them. Socialism is actually a revival of the old order feudalism, man needs to freed from this prison of the mind.
VictorLepanto 11 months ago
I too am an oxymoron when I consider the fact that I am a Jimmy Carter, pro life democrat, but I always remember that God is in charge and I am not. I prayerfully vote and pray for our leaders and I pray for God's justice to prevail.
burfordrobert 11 months ago
i had a similiar political development in my 25 year life. however instead of abortion leading to my defining moment for when i went from democrat to being sceptical of them it was schools. we have so many private schools while having to pay twice (now citys like boston/ NYC are forcing them to pay taxes they pay three times, property tax, tuition, the new tax) . its horrible. they are in bed with the teachers union. teddy kennedy was instrumental in stopping federal vouchers in new orleans
ned262626 1 year ago
Point taken. Sorry for the digression.
napkinner 1 year ago
NO MORE FALSE CATHOLIC POLS.
GraveyardGhost559 1 year ago
Ted Kennedys position on abortion is the only thing that bothered you about him? The Democratic (Socialist) Party platform is based on forced wealth redistribution (theft) and tyranny of the Special Interests and Annointed Victims of Western Civilization. The Republicans (Neocons) are no better. Not sure about your politics, Father, but I don't believe you have fallen into state worship. Sometimes I do wonder what JFK would have thought of what Teddy morphed into.
napkinner 1 year ago
@napkinner
Friend,
the point is about abortion, and wasnt a commentary on other issues. I've never been a political man, but we were all aware of other issues surrounding Sen. Kennedy...R.I.P..
yankeesuperstar 1 year ago
I believe the 10 commandments adress individuals directly... thou shall not steal... that means you, personally, won't steal, not "no one" should steal.
I say this because I see a lot of christian wanting to legislate abortion yet... not so legislative on unmarried sex... or on adultery... can you not just live your life as your good book tells you without always trying to impose on others?
The church itself was not always so decisive on abortion with notions of "delayed ensoulment".
HarfangX 1 year ago
RICHARD DAWKINS VS. FR. BARRON WOULD BE GREAT!!! LOL!
burtontoker 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
My problem I have talking to pro-choice people is that in trying to stay consistent in their position, within minutes they argue themselves into the most ridiculous and abhorrent corners.
Last night as a challenged a pro-choicer's position, in an effort to cling to his view he wound up within minutes saying it was OK to kill infants or two-year-olds if they weren't wanted, or that you could kill a homeless person if he had no friends. How do I even respond to that?
Jugglable 1 year ago
NO MORE BOGUS CATHOLICS.
BibleProclaimer559 1 year ago
Dear Fr. Barron: My husband I were Democrats-Ancient History, his Father was high up in the Dem. Party, and I worked for a Republican Gov. We both came from devout Catholic Irish families. But with Ted Kennedy I cannot forget the poor girl that he left in the water, went back to hotel showered, got dressed and called his attorney, God rest her dear soul. PRO-LIFE,SERVANT OF MARY,AVE MARIA. GOD BLESS YOU ALWAYS.
GalwayRose1 1 year ago
Americans like to suppose their politics to be unique. They are not. the Democrats are a left of centre socialist party a la European social democrats. They are a pro abortion party as are all their european fellows. The Republicans are like European right of centre Christian Democrats largely pro life. Indeed Dems are now to the left of many euro social democrats.
tigerarmyrule 1 year ago
I respectfully disagree about the Democrats being the party for the little guy. The only thing the Democrats are interested in is buying votes with other people's money, while cultivating a "stick it to the man" mentality where the little guy has animosity toward the more fortunate. I totally support charity and doing unto the least among us, but think it should be done at a personal level and as effectively as possible. Giving money to the government is the least effective thing one can do.
baguazhang77 1 year ago
Read the origin of the Kennedy's money and you will see they are Satanic. Typical Christians
PerfectCharity 1 year ago
I agree with you to as great degree on this issue and I cannot uphold abortion on demand. However, isn't the alternative back street illegal abortions? I do not believe ths issue is a religious one but a medical and ethical one on which the host, the woman, should have the final say in making an informed decision. An informed decision may not be the one we would want as a society but like poor parenting generally, and religious indoctrination of children we have to sadly tolerate them.
bigguitar22 1 year ago
Roughly 50% of conceptions are spontaneously aborted without the women knowing she had conceived. About 20% of known pregnancies result in miscarriage. If you believe in God, you have to explain his indifference to the fate of those 150 cell "ensouled" blastocysts.
Apacalola 1 year ago
Ted Kennedy's changing perspective, demonstrates an ability to adjust or change a point of view when confronted with compelling arguments that warrant such a change. For example, if 13 year old girl is violently raped, it would be egregiously immoral for a government to require her to continue a resultant pregnancy. Most people not constrained by unchanging dogma, understand this.
PWJ57 1 year ago
Ted Kennedy left a woman to drown in his car then used his family's money and influence to dodge responsibility for it. He should have spent several years in jail, not several decades in the senate.
KnightOwl2006 1 year ago 2
The bottom line for me is that FIRST we must protect the most defenseless (the unborn) in our society. Once we have accomplished stopping the infanticide in our culture we can move on to helping so many others. The deaths of millions of innocent unborn babies is unspeakable. And I think Edward Kennedy and all the democrat Catholics know this. My heart breaks for them and those who listen to them. Who knows what harm they have done?
corinnehopper 2 years ago 11
God bless you Fr. Barron. Keep strong as we already know who wins in the end!
cdswike 2 years ago 2
I've come up with a new term. There are cradle Catholics, Reverts, Converts, Fallen away Catholics and cafeteria Catholics and now we have Caved in Catholics, those who have caved in under cultural pressure such as certain Catholic politicians who are pro choice.
1secretmeadow 2 years ago 2
Thank you for speaking up, Fr. Barron.
agbook2007 2 years ago 2
Fr. Barron thanks for sticking up for the "little guy", life, the truth, our Lord! I was holding my breath the whole way through this video and exhaled at the end. God Bless and Amen!!!
icimblind 2 years ago 9
Fr. I would like your thoughts on social justice with regards to government. I submit to you that the notion that goverment should me in charge of determining what is just is a terrible idea. It has led to what has happened in Europe an appathy among individuals in caring for one another as this responsibility has been heaped upon a government. Leads to coruption, leaving someone (man not God) to determine what is just. I believe in the ideals of church teaching just when man is involved...
lordwalks 2 years ago
"Irish and Catholic to the bone" ... Now, I understand ;-)
And you still claim to have found your belief in a personal God on your own ... and with your "free will" ... and through God's mercy (on you ... but not on millions of Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims etc. etc.) ?
wolf1750 2 years ago
And I suppose that you discovered your agnosticism completely on your own! Remove the plank in your own eye.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago 2
I was born into a Catholic family in Silesia (then Germany, now Polish). But I must admit, my mother never went with us to church. She sent us with the maid instead. Why? Because she herself had been educated by the Ursuline nuns in Breslau. That was enough of "piousness" for a lifetime. Our parish-priest often visited her after mass. He was an educated man. We children heard his roaring laughter from the "Herrenzimmer" ... .So, no denial here. - ;-)
wolf1750 2 years ago
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it amounts to the genetic fallacy: if we have discovered the psychological etiology of a belief, we have debunked that belief. I mean, I might have first learned Catholicism from my family and came in my maturity to embrace it fully and you might have taken it in as a child and eventually rejected it. Well, so what? Neither story proves anything in particular about the belief in question.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
I just replied to your second to last answer, agreeing with you.
wolf175 2 years ago
Fr. I swear I am not trying to bait you with my previous question, but i will say that my parents thought highly of the Kennedys but as I got older I found this faith in them to be a sham. I found it Ironic that your uncle said not to trust the "rich" and yet few familys have more wealth than the Kennedys. Joe was one of the biggest crooks in the crash of '29. I think that social justice has become a weapon of power in the form of taxation. I understand if you don't want to respond. Thanks
lordwalks 2 years ago
@wordonfirevideo This response is confusing to me. What plank is are you talking about? Agnosticism is something that is discovered on your own through personal study and examination of your beliefs, not intellectual laziness as is commonly thought - I can personally attest to that. What other source would it be from?
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
@wolf1750 There are good people in bad religions, and bad people in good religions. Good people can be saved, but none can get to the father but through the son. Those who lived with loving others and doing good will have that chance to accept Christ or reject him
superdubman999 1 year ago
@superdubman999 WHEN will they have that chance? (I mean all those Hindus, Muslims etc etc.) After they have died?
wolf1750 1 year ago
@wolf1750 If they truly wanted to follow God, and lived good lives, and stayed open to the idea of Christ, and did not reject him completely on earth, then yes
superdubman999 1 year ago
I find this very interesting, as somebody who lives outside the US, but in a Western country (New Zealand) where 18000 children are destroyed in abortion clinics every year, and both partys of the right and the left are equally unconcerned. In my opinion, this is because the cancer of liberalism, which is nothing less than a denial of God's sovereignty, has corrupted all politics in the west.
TheEvergreen2009 2 years ago 2
Of course he should not be denied a private funeral. He should have merely been denied such a public funeral; the Catholic Church in her wisdom has often done this in the past when notorious public sinners publicly fail to repent. If there is EVER a situation for that to be so, Ted Kennedy's seems to be it.
joejoejoejoeify 2 years ago
Sorry if I came across to critical there; my intent was more jovial than the mere text likely showed!
Anyway, bluntly... I think that the Kennedy funeral was perhaps the worst scandal the Catholic Church in America has seen yet. I pray for Kennedy's soul and hope he is in heaven... but the fact is that he is one of the biggest reasons that 50 million children have been violently murdered... their limbs torn off and their bodies vacuumed from the womb. He never repented of this!
joejoejoejoeify 2 years ago
I don't know how I could have been clearer on my objection to Kennedy's pro-choice policy. I wanted to highlight how he had tragically abandoned his earlier pro-life position. As far as the funeral goes: I don't know. We've allowed funerals to become tributes, but they are meant to be prayers on behalf of the deceased.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
I too grew up in the Catholic tradition and the K's were held in very high regard but in addition to positions on abortion that i had concerns about i have also been bothered by some of the social justice principles. Where is the line between helping our fellow man (on a voluntary basis) and be frankly stolen from? The preaching of social justice (not by the church) but of a government has led to coruption and the idea that D's are for the little guys imo is far from the truth. Thoughts?
ewalks71 2 years ago
@wordonfirevideo
Excellent video and argument Father. I do appreciate your commentary. Keep up the good work!
yankeesuperstar 1 year ago
I'm sorry Father, but what I saw there was FAR from the Word "on Fire"! That was an extraordinarily lukewarm 5 and a half minutes!
joejoejoejoeify 2 years ago
Should I have been more for him or more against him?
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
I'm a prolife democrat-prolife for several reasons:1. People should take responsiblity for the consequences of their actions, if women don't want to get pregnant, make sure you use some kind of protection. 2.When a life, even just a mere fertilized egg, becomes a human should not be rationalized or even attempted to be determined, it is a slippery slope-Is self-awareness the precurser to human life? If so what about people who aren't self aware due to a medical condition? Should they be aborted?
speakupforjustice 2 years ago
Now I understand that there are gray areas for instance what about a girl who became pregnant after being raped, or a women who will die due to complications during birth...abortion during such occurances don't happen very often. As for my being a democrat- I believe in social justice, helping the poor, universal healthcare, and promoting peace through out the world. I don't care so much about free-market capitalism and I don't see how that's anything that Jesus would want us to support.
speakupforjustice 2 years ago
free market advocates voluntary charity. i dont see how Jesus would disagre with that. and besides the democratic party is a party of death, full of pro aborts.
tonygmilan7 2 years ago
Very good Father Barron. There are a lot of strong opinions regarding TK's burial. His family is Catholic, and I can't see them planning another type of funeral. I actually thought Obama looked extremely uncomfortable being confronted with the Church once again, and I enjoyed watching him sweat....
pitstopbarney 2 years ago
I don't know. I've never experienced one.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Now then, DJMahon's comment was that my "ideology leaves me vulnerable to those stronger than [myself]". In fact, I am vulnerable only at the expense of the majority - the mob rule. That, would include the majority described by Christians in the US that wish to promote their own ideology above the individual. Seems to me, that my sovereignty is slightly safer than DJMahons since he has already relinquished his to both God and mob rule.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Considering the history of the mob, and the fact that God has saved my life at least once in the past year, I believe I'm the one on safer footing.
DJMahon 2 years ago
Slow down. Choose any comment longer than 10 words and read every word. See if you can figure out exactly what the person meant. Do it once. Do it again in a couple of days. Then start doing it every time you read. You are missing a great deal of life.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
laws aimed at abortion can come nowhere near resolving the issue. And last, I view traditional Abrahamic religious tenants as contributing to the problem and not the other way around.
Thank you for asking.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
In regard to abortion, my intuition tells me that life probably begins much sooner and at a much lower level than most people - even "pro-lifers"- believe. Perhaps, it doesn't 'begin' at all but recycles - not in a spiritual reincarnation sense but in a natural sense. I think abortion is wrong. I am adamantly against promiscuity and modern attitudes regarding the sexes and the roles they play in society. I believe that these attitudes contribute to the problem that I see. I also believe that...
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
I left the Democrat party 10 years ago because of Abortion and other issues that promote the Culture of Death. What good are the many "social programs" if you are killing the people who need them? Also IMHO many of those programs are enabling and seem to create a demographic dependent on the Government.
teton99 2 years ago 2
"seem to" should have been your que that you are using inductive reasoning. That's a great start but it is a start. I can't say if it is true that the social programs promote dependency because I have only gone as far as yourself. I have not proceeded too far into deductive reasoning. But to make a big decision based on inductive reasoning when deductive is available seems...I don't know...lazy I guess. Also, I'm very curious about what other issues would promote a culture of death.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
PARTY OF THE LITTLE GUY?
Does that include ABORTION. What does the church have to say about a man who fought for and advocated the deaths of millions of unborn babies in the USA?
Ted Kennedy is answering to a higher court now!
tonyashlin 2 years ago
Comment removed
tonyashlin 2 years ago
Just balk hesitate and protest?!!
Father, this is the first time I have been at a loss for words over the church since I have become Catholic. I would be embarrassed if anyone would ask me about this. I have no rational explanation for this. The USCCB goofing this 20 years ago I understand. 2009? I thought we had outgrown this !!!
jswranch 2 years ago
It does makes sense to discuss abortion before other issues, as it does carry more moral weight than any other *single* issue. However, upon the passing of such a statesman, for Fr. Barron to spend no more than 9 seconds, at the end of the clip, whizzing through the great moral accomplishments "etc., etc." of Ted Kennedy, through his legislative advocacy, can only be described as a) shameful and b) intellectually dishonest/obscurantist.
dketche2 2 years ago
Fr. Barron, I'm glad you got into the whole abortion issue--I wanted to take this opportunity to share my short video with you and with anyone who has watched this video:
h t t p : / / w w w . y o u t u b e . c o m / w a t c h ? v = S z p h l 6 9 m t H A
Make sure to delete the spaces when you copy and paste the URL. I had to put those in, because otherwise my comment would not have posted.
Divine Blessings,
Irish Catholic
1r1shCath0l1c 2 years ago
Chalicechica, you are so full hate and anger and stereotypes. You just want to blame the Catholic Church for silly reasons. If a health care plan rations care and covers abortion, it is simply not pro-life. I want all life to be protected from womb to tomb. There is nothing in the gospel about how the government should give out entitlements that only enslave the poor. Government programs don't help the poor, they simply keep them poor.
JMMoosey 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
And yes, you "pro-lifers" who also vote against universal health care in the US - YOU are the ones who are responsible for my father's death.
Maybe if this happened to someone in YOUR family, you might "get it" but until then, I suppose you all will continue to wander through life with your heads up your asses. I bet it's not exactly "springtime fresh" up there.
chalicechica 2 years ago
You miss the point. The reason most Catholics are against government run health care is because we frankly don't trust the government. There is a finite amount of medical supplies and services available, and so decisions must be made on who gets what. I'd rather have a doctor decide what he will do than the government. These bureaucrats are easily swayed by buzz words and large crowds, and they won't give the people a blank check. They will tell us what we can and can't have.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
Comment removed
chalicechica 2 years ago
You people want to talk about "pro-life"? Then why did my father have to die at age 65 of completely avoidable diabetes complications? Because there was no universal health care here in the US and he often could not afford his insulin! You people are so terrified of the S-word ("socialism") that you'd rather see elderly, sick people DIE rather than get some universal health care that would lengthen LIFE! You people are such hypocrites.
chalicechica 2 years ago
Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. Yes, there is strong overlap between pro-lifers and people opposed to universal health care, but there are many who are pro-life and in favor of universal health care. Also, there are many who favor universal health care, but not just any form of it.
Most importantly, there are valid reasons for a person to oppose government health care despite a desire to give such care to the poor.
cowmansr 2 years ago
In fact, many pro-life people give their lives in service of those in need. Not all do this, nor can they. But think of Mother Theresa, whose entire life was dedicated to caring for the sick. Also, conservatives give more money to charities on average than liberals, because they believe that charities should care for the poor, and that the government cannot do so effectively.
This is manifestly true. The government is neither as effective nor as efficient when it steps in for private charities.
cowmansr 2 years ago
Still, I recognize the argument that people will not donate enough, so the only way to raise enough money for the poor is through taxes. I make this argument myself, and it is a complicated problem. But it is still unfair to claim that pro-lifers killed your father.
Doctors and medicine are expensive, and in limited supply. The only way to increase supply in the short run is to lower quality, or to pick-and-choose who gets care by a system other than money.
cowmansr 2 years ago
If we create a system where money doesn't determine who gets help (which is admittedly fairly terrible), then how do we decide?
Do we decide based on age? That seems like a likely answer, in which case your father may have been deemed too old, and may have died around the same age.
What is the right solution? I don't know. But I know we shouldn't use the solution you want to use for unwanted children. I oppose sucking out the brains of those who we don't want burdening us.
cowmansr 2 years ago
Not sure who you are ranting to here. I am pro-life, pray before abortion clinics, would not consider voting for barrack 'the baby butcher' obama, but still am for some sensible national plan. sorry to hear about your dad
jswranch 2 years ago
I remember a former roommate of mine confronting some protesters outside an abortion clinic. She herself wasn't pregnant, but she pretended she was, and she told them "I'm pregnant out of wedlock, I'm about to be thrown out of my house because my parents are angry with me, and I need somewhere to live and someone to help care for my baby. Can you help me?" No one offered to help her. This is part of the problem we see with pro-lifers - no help to mothers and children once the kid is BORN.
chalicechica 2 years ago
It seems most of you "pro-lifers" are only "pro-life" as long as a child is safe in the womb. As soon as he or she is born, forget things that the new person will need, like HEALTH CARE and EDUCATION...oh, and you're all so quick to send these former unborn babies off to WAR in foreign countries over things like OIL and YOUR OWN GREED. You all are pathetic. You aren't TRULY "pro-life." If you were, you'd be anti-death penalty. You'd be anti-war & anti-military service.
chalicechica 2 years ago
This is why my boyfriend LEFT the RCC. He knew that the Scriptures said, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL." He reserves the right to use lethal force should his home or his nation be invaded. He is a former combat engineer in the US Army and he believes NO CHRISTIAN has ANY business enlisting in the military, because your job in the military is KILLING.
But none of you ever think of that, do you?
If killing is wrong, it's wrong. PERIOD.
chalicechica 2 years ago
He should've read the Catechism and he'd see the difference. Technically the Hebrew scriptures forbid murdering someone. Just War, which is basically a war of defense that targets only the opposing military force, is allowed to governments since it is their duty to protect their citizens just a father should protect his children. Also the death penalty is to be reserved for when there is no other way to protect the innocent. Look it up yourself if you think I'm lying.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
Yes we do think of that. No, killing is ok in certain instances. In fact some times it is morally necessary. Check out the catechism paragraphs 2263-2267
jswranch 2 years ago
You all TALK a good game about a "culture of life" so let's see you get some UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE in the US! NOW NOW NOW!! Enough of the cheap talk. Living people require health care; there's no getting through life without it. Why is it a privilege of the wealthy and not a right of every LIVING citizen in the US? GET MOVING ON THIS you "PRO LIFE" people!
chalicechica 2 years ago
Dang. I am prolife. I am one of those protesters. I am opposed to what happened in Iraq.
remember, this is a Catholic group you are speaking to. Perhaps your anger might be better directed at some protestant groups.
jswranch 2 years ago
You don't say when that happened. As time has gone on, more and more pro-life people at abortion clinics have contacts with pregnancy help centers. The pamphlets they hand out contain the phone numbers of pregnancy help centers.
For the last 25 years or so, pregnancy help centers have outnumbered abortion clinics by about two to one.
bobparis 2 years ago
That is odd. My wife and I (pregant with our 5th) made a pact that any girl like her could live at our place for free. Actually did maintenance for a ministry like that one. We are ready to adopt another at risk baby any time.
jswranch 2 years ago
I think the video would have been even better if chronicled how fanatically and radically pro-abortion the Kennedy family became. The contrast with the pro-lfe quote would be even more stark. Context is everything.
anthtan 2 years ago
Other abortion 'flip floppers": Ronald Reagan, George H W Bush, Mitt Romney, Dick Gephardt, Al Gore. And if changing one's position on an issue equates "flip flopping", then if one chose to vote Republican although he or she had been Democrat for a long time, wouldn't that also be flip flopping? And then, is flip flopping to be understood as a negative character trait?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
There is a difference between supporting what is evil, then changing to supporting what is good, and supporting what is good, and changing to support for evil. Kennedy once supported respect for innocent human life, and then flip-flopped to supporting the murder of fifty million babies, and counting.
Get it? Kennedy supported evil, instead of good. Kennedy supported murder, instead of opposing murder.
Very, very complex idea, I know.
bobparis 2 years ago
So as long as they 'flip flop' to agree with your ideology, then they aren't flip floppers?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
To repeat: It is good if a person who once supported EVIL changes and supports what is good. It is EVIL if a person who once supported what is good changes and supports what is EVIL.
Got it?
How about this:
Which better?-- A man who cheats on his wife for a time, and then stops, or a man who is faithful to his wife for a time, and then starts cheating on her?
Would you say that those two men are morally indistinguishable?
bobparis 2 years ago
So what did Kennedy give as a reason for changing his views in regard to legalization of abortion?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Kennedy NEVER gave a reason. The only reason there could be is so despicable, he never would say it out loud. Power.
Also, after he murdered Mary Jo, he had to make up for the loss of support from decent people by cementing his support from the baby-murderers, feminists, Communists, etc.
Kennedy worked with the KGB in the 1980s to undermine Reagan's efforts to defeat the Soviet Union.
bobparis 2 years ago
I would be willing to bet that this is one of the reasons why the Church refuses to ordain women. If they DID start ordaining women, then it is very possible that many decades and even centuries down the line, as women continued to rise in the ranks of the Church, doctrines like that of abortion would be very highly subject to change if a woman's perspective were introduced into the mix. The possibility of it happening would increase if women were ordained. Thus, no women priests.
chalicechica 2 years ago
About the only thing women CAN do is vote with their feet - they can leave the Church if they find they simply cannot live with the Church's teachings on this.
And thus, organizations like the Unitarian Universalist Association exists, to take in the Church's heretics. :D
chalicechica 2 years ago
I completely agree. I don't consider myself a republican but I feel I am not welcomed in the democratic party because of my beliefs in family and the importance of faith. I don't want Exxon Mobile defining our energy policies and I don't want Planned Parenthood defining our Abortion policies.
I do feel that the democratic party had muted the "proife" democrats to the point that it is pointless to even attempt to engage them anymore.
brenz311 2 years ago
Since you say, "You will not change my mind", then this is not a proper debate. You are spamming. Otherwise, we're just wasting time here, shouting at each other. If you really want to discuss on a specific issue, then you have to show that you are serious in considering opposing views.
anthtan 2 years ago
i wasnt shouting nor voting on comments i want to know how you can justify the ruination of a womans life over that of a creature who doesnt know it exists who could still die why does the currently uncentient creature get the deciding vote what of the rape victim
abominableangel 2 years ago
A rape victim suffers for the rest of their life no matter what. Christians have hope and faith that any situation - no matter how "ruinous" - can be redeemed for good. A hope that even the "unwanted" child can love and be loved; if not by the natural mother, then by adoptive parents. Harder to think of anything more saintly than a rape victim who would choose to love the child's life enough to bear it until birth.
groovepapa 2 years ago 2
Simple, that 'creature' is a human being. There are not degrees of being a human, but we are all fully human from the start. The child is wholly innocent. Yes a pregnancy following a rape, rare but existent, is a terrible burden. But the child is a victim too. Every human has the right to be conceived in the context of a loving marital union. In a rape, the woman's humanity, body and dignity are assaulted, and the child's dignity is entirely ignored. That is why rape is so terrible.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago 2
If we deny the humanity of a child in the womb, purely on a legalist stand point, then we've basically Deified the State and given it the power to assign humanity as it wills. Humanity itself become arbitrary and then we will go back to the errors of the past committed by so many ideologies including the Nazis who, by their laws, killed almost no humans in the concentration camps since the Jews et al. were 'sub-human'. This error can only lead to slavery, genocide, and self-destruction.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago 5
I disagree that there are not degrees of being human. Rather, I challenge you to draw the line at where life begins.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
That's easy enough, science has done the work for me. Once an egg is fertilized it has a complete and unique genetic structure and begins to grow independent of either parent. Eventually it implants into the mother and stays their being fed and sheltered. Aside from food and shelter, the baby grows with no impetus dependent on the mother's body. Ergo a complete human being, that did not exist before, exists upon conception. Abortion then is just a matter of age discrimination.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
What about twins? Which one is the real human and which one is merely an inhuman clone? A replication without it's own unique DNA?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Interesting counter. Identical twins divide into two equal embryos early on, one is not a growth off the other so they would be, biologically speaking, equally human. They, however are not 100% genetically identical. Research in 2005 showed slight differences. Go to Live Science to read more.
Unique DNA is not the definition of life. The point I was making is there were 2 genetic signatures before, and after fertilization there are 3 (or 4 for twins). Neither 3 nor 4 equals either 1 or 2.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
Yes, the cells divide as if they were still gametes (meiotically) because they are wholly undifferentiated at that point. This is a reproductive error. One cell should have made one zygote but the zygote split as if it were still a gamete thus leading to two blastocysts (clusters of undifferentiated cells). As you say, there are some small differences due to fusing and breaking of the chromosomes but, wasn't that just the point- not a new set of DNA.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Now then, the point was to "draw the line at where life begins". The challenge remains does it not?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Not really. If you want me to explain the reasoning behind every strange possible way a human is made then we might be at it a while. The fact remains when you have a human body, either a cluster of cells or full grown adult, that is functioning, dividing, growning, or however you want to call it, it is a person. Whenever that body functions by its own impetus, regardless of how well it functions, that is a sovereign person due all the respect of humanity.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
You don't need to prove a thing to me. I merely commented that defining humanity isn't as easy as it sounds. You took the challenge to do so. You offered a couple of ways to define it but they didn't actually work. No big deal. Challenge remains though doesn't it? Don't you think that the issue is important enough to "be at it awhile"? If, you want to call a cluster of cells, functioning, dividing and growing as a person, then a gamete is a person. Gametes divide and function and grow. cont...
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Or, as in the case of Dolly the sheep, a cell from an udder , would be a life. We like to say "at conception" but guess what?, your genes don't care how they get replicated and passed on . To our genes, we are just a vehicle. So...are genes persons?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Genes are a vehicle for our structure, not the other way around. Cells are alive, including the cells from the udder. However they were just skin cells (I'm guessing) and would continue to function and grow as skin cells. Yet on try #277, they no long continued to function simply as skin cells but as a sheep as a whole.
Much the same for humans. An embryo acts as a human as a whole. A sperm or ovum act as their respective type as part of a whole. Interpolate as needed to somatics etc.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
On the 277th try, why did the udder stop being an udder cell (not a skin cell actually), and start forming a blastocyst? Isn't it important to know? I'm thinking that if there is a single event that begins the process of creating a blastocyst, you'd have your question answered. Otherwise, we have to presume that all cells containing DNA, are life - to be safe. Doesn't that make sense?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Now as to why, I cannot say. Important to know? Somewhat I guess.
The cells are alive yes, but they do not a whole person make. They have the information but they function as a part of a whole body. It is that whole system functioning as body, unit, person, or whatever you want to call it that makes a life, in particular human life.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
"Somewhat"? Somewhat! I dare say the Catholic church might have something to say about that. And has. The wavering between 'animation'/'quickening' and 'from conception', has been quite a spectacle. A hundred years of abortions as long as no animation and then death penalty for any abortion, and now excommunication for aborting any "fetus" is canon law. But, fetus has it's own definition and it is never 'from conception'.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Don't tell me what the Church has to say about it. When they were determining when the soul enters the body, Augustine, Aquinas, the Didache, et al. summarily said 'Regardless when the soul enters/animates the body, it is a life that God wills to exist and it is wrongful to end it." Pure and simple.
The word fetus is not in canon law, it says procuring a direct abortion is excommunication.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
Pure and simple...not somewhat! That is the point I was making. If it is pure and simple, then it is not merely somewhat important to determine when the soul enters the body. Neither Aquinas nor Augustine considered early term abortion sinful. The entire argument has always revolved around when a soul enters a human. Remember when it was believed that sperm contained homunculus? (tiny, fully formed humans)? That's when it was thought to be murder. Hardly "somewhat" important.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
As I'm sure you realize, this form of reasoning puts you on a very slippery slope indeed. Following your reasoning, an awful lot of people wouldn't count as persons.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
If genes are the vehicle for our structure, then why are our genes replicated but we are not?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
The replicate to maintain us, and then we pass part of ourselves on to the next generation. Like I said, Life comes from Life. Well technically that was Louis Pasture, but who's counting.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
Try a little earlier, say, early 1800's, (cell theory). A single cell is life is it not? I think you said that earlier. Bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes - the three kingdoms of living organisms (excluding viruses which are very, very close to fitting the definition). And of course, you can clone a plant simply by rooting a branch. You see why I ask for a definition of when life begins in regard to humans? It is important and will be even more so as time passes.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
But the genes replicate in tact. We, do not. The gene, if it is the chosen allele, survives exactly as it was. Our bodies deliver the replicated genes to the next body (organism) with a chance of survival. What is your chance of survival as an individual organism? zero. You, do not survive but you are the organism/vessel, that carries the genes to another chance at survival. Is it any wonder that libido is second only to the drive for sustenance?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
So, life does not necessarily require unique 'genetic structure' does it? Unless your answer to my twins question was anything other than recognition of both siblings as human. Then what about your other requisite for defining 'human'? Mother and father and fertilized egg. Maybe not though. Every cell in your body (except red blood cells), carries everything that is needed to create a 'human' (I'm guessing you wouldn't argue) without the benefit of fertilization. It's been done.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Your point about cells carrying all the makings of a human is almost correct, but all you have proven is that a cell other than a sperm cell can fertilize an egg or replace a zygote's nucleus. Though to my knowledge, no human has been cloned. Still it would be a human where one was not before. And it would grow on its own. Take on a life of its own, so to speak. Life comes only from life, and new life is sovereign of old life.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
The sovereignty of life is basically if mom dies, the baby does not die because of that. The baby may die from starvation or exposure, but its life is not directly linked to the life of the mother. The baby is dependent on the mother to provide food and shelter, in a radical way during pregnancy and in a more mundane way after. But the child's body lives of its own accord.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
If this is so, then shouldn't the rule be that this sovereignty may be exercised when and only when the baby is NOT dependent on the mother for life? I'm being brutal with your definitions, not with your view point. For instance, if the fetus could be maintained outside the womb and the mother did not want to carry, feed, nurture, be responsible for a 'sovereign' being, then the fetus could be removed and raised by...I don't know, you.?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
If a fetus could be maintained outside the mother then yes, someone taking care of the child is preferable to killing him or her. I've never had a problem with adoption so if presented with the situation, sure I would take in the tyke.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
It is not almost accurate, it is a fact. It took 277 tries to clone a sheep from an adult, fully differentiated, somatic cell. Dolly the sheep did not require sperm or egg cell for fertilization. Nuclear transfer is not the same thing as fertilization. It is illegal to clone a human being in most countries capable of the experiment. Regardless, when the inevitable happens, would you refer to the somatic cell as a human?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Yes.
It is a sovereign human being that if fed and sheltered will continue to grow. A body is a body even if it is only a few cells, simply a matter of age. I am not more human because I have more cells than a 5 year old.
A person's conception has little bearing on their humanity. Whether they be from a loving family, a rape, a one-nighter, or a genetic experiment. A human is human. Simple.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
Doesn't the word sovereignty imply independence? That's like saying France was still a sovereign nation during the occupation isn't it? I'm sure the Nazi's didn't believe it. And if all persons are sovereign, then why do we insist on discriminating laws regarding age? Is this not an impingement on sovereignty and doesn't it have to do with a persons propensity toward independence?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Sovereignty is something unto itself. France was indeed a sovereign nation, even if Germany had won. They could take her land, her people, her fortunes, but they cannot take her self. Germany could no more become France than it could become a tomato. They could strike her from the history books, but they cannot take 'France' from France.
So too with people. I may be beaten, drugged, killed, burned, and erased. However 'I' cannot be taken from me, hence I am sovereign in my existence.
BaronvonKorf 2 years ago
So then, Texas is actually Mexico? And of course, there is still such thing as Palestine? Just making a point about the word. You actually could take my sovereignty and I willingly give part of it to be a member of society.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
We're not literally shouting, but are you listening to whatever the pro-lifers are saying? You yourself said, "You will not change my mind". So, what's the point in discussing? Are you getting anything out of it.
anthtan 2 years ago
yes i am lisening to you but are you listening to the pro choicers.. not everything is as black and white as you want it to be are you getting anything out of that point of view?
abominableangel 2 years ago
I'm not sure what your latest question is. But I'm certainly not getting any benefit out of this "discussion". So far, I've had two exchange where my points aren't addressed, and in one of them, I've been accused of killing someone's father. I could spend my time going through various explanations saying why it's illogical that I am the cause of someone's death, but I don't think it's worth it. Basic rules of polite, rational discussion aren't in force here. If you still want to talk, email me.
anthtan 2 years ago
you havent addressed any points with me that you wish to discuss instead you called me a spammer, which is not the case. i will explain why i am pro choice i feel it is important to take the "mother" into account, she should have the choice to carry on with her pregnancy or not. you may feel life begins at conception but i do not, i consider life to begin when it is viable outside of the womb we do not live our lives inside our mothers. cont..
abominableangel 2 years ago
a feotus born at 16 weeks has a 0% chance of servival but i do not agree with termination after the 12week mark for these reasons
1 it now looks like a very small child
2 it has a well established heart beat
3 if the body has not terminated the pregnancy its unlikely that it will making it a viable pregnancy
4 if the mother has not decided to terminate by the 12 week mark to do so after would be callus as i feel she has had plenty of time to consider her options.
cont
abominableangel 2 years ago
these considerations are purely for a rape pregnancy and not accidental pregnacy, or an unwell feotus who has a condition not compatible with life.
abortion is NOT a form of contraceptive and if the pregnacy turns out to yeld a child whos condition is not compatible with life then the mother should have the right to discontinue her pregnancy for her sake and that of the childs
abominableangel 2 years ago
i dont think abortion should be an option for a stupid person who thought oh never mind i got up the duff i can just get rid of it.
they need to face the responsability of their actions, but my husband disagrees he feels that termination should be an option due to economic reasons he feels that there is sufficent evidence to sujest that teenage mothers dont work, are single and dont offer anything to the country.
abominableangel 2 years ago
he feels that it puts an unneccesary strain on already stretched resources. i personally feel that the economics of unplanned pregancy is a secondary issue. there needs to be a form of compromise reached as neither the pro lifers or the pro choicers are going to get everything they want. i will look into the policys put in place for planned parenthood in usa as we have family planning in the uk which certainly needs improving.
abominableangel 2 years ago
for example the condition Trisomy 13 and holoprosencephaly where there is no chance of servival the child WILL die
abominableangel 2 years ago
there is indeed the posibility that the pregnancy will terminate itself but some are albe to carry to term but the choice needs to be there for mothers who just couldnt cope with contiuing the pregnancy knowing that their child will die as ive said before its not always so black and white and there are so many considerations to be taken into account and not just theological considerations
abominableangel 2 years ago
i suspect you have been asked this many times, but im interested on your point of view. if a woman is attacked and raped then finds out that because of that rape she is pregnant with her attackers child, should she not have the right in this instance to refuse to continue this pregnancy? it may be said that the child growing in her womb is also an inocent victim but why should she be forced into carrying such a child? its unlikley she'd ever be able to mentally cope with or love said child
abominableangel 2 years ago
even if she gave the baby up to adoption she still has to live with the pregnancy itself, she may not be able to take that strain mentally. what of her rights where is her peace on having been forced into this situation, how would you council in such a case?
abominableangel 2 years ago
It is hard, but the right thing is sometimes not the easy thing. Or is your position, "Do the right thing, except when it gets too hard. Then, give it up and, even if you have to, snuff out an innocent life."? Is that your counsel? As for peace, the mother will have no peace for the rest of her life knowing that she denied someone the right, the possibility to be born and live. The pregnancy may be unplanned or even forced, but abortion only makes things worse.
anthtan 2 years ago 4
Well what about those who are naturally aborted by Nature or God if you will....Hmmmm I personally see no problem with abortion as long as it is in the first portion of deveolping and is only murder when its at the point that much of the baby has been devloped.
GuardianOfTheGrove 2 years ago
In other words, you advocate playing God--*you* get to define human according to your whims.
Have you ever considered that when you claim to have the right to play God, you give everyone else the right to play God as well; what happens when someone playing God decides that *you* don't make the cut as human?
DJMahon 2 years ago
The reverse is true isn't it? You have simply added a buffer to the same argument. You believe that there is a god. You believe that god has involvement in life on earth. You believe your ideology is supported by this god figure. All those steps though, revolve around your belief and your ideology.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
The difference is that that "buffer" demands that I treat the weakest and most defenseless among us as human--no matter the inconvenience it might cause me.
Your ideology, on the other hand, leaves you at the mercy of the stronger; when you inconvenience them, what will protect you from the chopping block?
DJMahon 2 years ago
You presume too much.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
The buffer is not required for the same ideology to exist. That is why you presume too much. You presume that it is the buffer that forces your ideology on the topic but the same ideology exists even where the buffer is absent. You don't need to experiment on yourself by stopping believing in God. You can look for those that believe in other gods or no god that share this same view. They are out there.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
How does that change my point--that your ideology leaves you vulnerable to those stronger than you?
DJMahon 2 years ago
You don't know what my ideology is. You guessed. You inferred. You presumed. But you don't know.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Considering that your original post was seleted, we can't revisit what you stated.
DJMahon 2 years ago
The direct taking of innocent human life is intrinsically evil. Therefore, it cannot be countenanced under any circumstances. If I may pursue an analogous example. Many argued in 1945 that it was morally acceptable to kill hundreds of thousands of innocents in Nagasaki and Hiroshima in order to attain the enormous good of ending WWII and saving millions of lives. But that kind of proportionalist reasoning was bad then, as it is bad now in reference to the abortion issue.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
But Father Barron, let me ask you this...why is it that in South America, a 9 year old was raped and impregnated by her stepfather, and the doctors and her mother who aided her in getting an abortion were excommunicated BUT nothing was done to the rapist stepfather, who also molested the 9 year old's 14 year old sister? There's no justice in that, and the Church did not call for the stepfather to be excommunicated for what he did to those two girls. And a 9 year old cannot carry a baby to term.
chalicechica 2 years ago
A 9 year old's body simply isn't ready for that. Look, Father, I do not mean to be rude or difficult here, but sometimes I think the Church just assumes all pregnancies are perfect and healthy and all babies conceived are conceived in the context of a loving marriage and two consenting adults making love and consciously conceiving a wanted baby.
But...it's just not. like. that. all the time. It's almost like the Church is completely blind to how sex is used in a forceful manner at times.
chalicechica 2 years ago
And there are so many questions...what is innocence? And according to whose standards is someone "innocent" - because to me, to be truly pro-life, people should be strongly and 100% anti-war along with this. Life is life, right? Oh my...
chalicechica 2 years ago
Could you give definitions for evil and countenance please?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
Did you delete my comment about playing God? Why?
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
And aborting the baby would take the "trauma" out of her? I don´t think so, getting rid of the baby can add an additional level of "trauma" to that unfortunate woman.
fk04us 2 years ago 2
indeed but what if having the pregnancy let alone the child sends her over the edge? do you have the right to do that to her? i couldnt live with myself knowing that a decison to force her into having the child made her loose her dignity or worse her mind. it was never my choice to make for her, it isnt anyones choice but hers
abominableangel 2 years ago
Why would "her dignity" be above the child´s life? As long as we have life, we can overcome our problems, take life out of ourselves and it is over. What about the bay´s choice? Can we take his/her right to choose life? A society that does not take care of the weakest of all, the most defenseless of all is not doing a proper job. A dead baby cannot choose.
fk04us 2 years ago
why should the baby win over the mother what makes her life less precious than that of a fetus the woman should have the right to choose to go through the pregnancy or not
abominableangel 2 years ago
Weird isn't it? Children do not have the right to forego education, to enter into a legal contract, to drink alcohol or take drugs, gain admittance to R rated movies or rent them, gamble, drive, work, live on their own, join the military, etc... We make a lot of distinctions about rights based on age. We also make distinctions about rights based on IQ. I happen to agree with you but I disagree with your argument.
PrairiePie23 2 years ago
So, you're saying you can live with yourself killing an innocent unborn child? And people should be allowed to kill unborn children? Go look at some pictures of aborted foetuses, and ultrasounds of babies in the womb.
anthtan 2 years ago
you will not change my mind, the mother has rights too and to force her into motherhood in this nature aka rape your no better than a murderer as well as you could have distroyed her life and if the child is given up and bounced from foster home to foster home then what life is that your decision has recked two lives
abominableangel 2 years ago
you can live with her life of suffering but not the so called death of an fetus that doesnt even know it exists how can you live with yourself knowing that you added to her trama (that is based on the assumption that she wanted to abort)
how can you be that cruel to this poor rape victim hasnt she been through enough
abominableangel 2 years ago
anthtan: listen to yourself. You are using deliberately inflammatory language and you know it. People like you use words like "unborn baby" instead of "foetus" to describe that which is inside a woman's body when an ovum and sperm meet and the ovum is fertilized. And people like you do this on purpose and you know it. That's utter nonsense.
chalicechica 2 years ago