Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Kansas58; NYer; Salvation
Absolutely incorrect. You better polish off Evangelium Vitae and the commentaries on it:

"The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

'The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.'(79) 'The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights.' (80) 2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. But today, in many people's consciences, the perception of its gravity has become progressively obscured. The acceptance of abortion in the popular mind, in behaviour and even in law itself, is a telling sign of an extremely dangerous crisis of the moral sense, which is becoming more and more incapable of distinguishing between good and evil, even when the fundamental right to life is at stake. Given such a grave situation, we need now more than ever to have the courage to look the truth in the eye and to call things by their proper name, without yielding to convenient compromises or to the temptation of self-deception. In this regard the reproach of the Prophet is extremely straightforward: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness" (Is 5:20). Especially in the case of abortion there is a widespread use of ambiguous terminology, such as "interruption of pregnancy", which tends to hide abortion's true nature and to attenuate its seriousness in public opinion. Perhaps this linguistic phenomenon is itself a symptom of an uneasiness of conscience. But no word has the power to change the reality of things: procured abortion is the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.

No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church."

1,139 posted on 05/31/2009 4:03:55 PM PDT by big'ol_freeper ([Advocate for] Mitt Romney[?], God help you, but you're on the wrong website ~ Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1119 | View Replies ]


To: big'ol_freeper
You need a course in logic.
Nothing you have posted refutes anything I have posted.

Passing a law that forbids abortion, in some cases, and would therefore END or PROHIBIT most or many abortions, does NOT make “some abortions legal” -— that is stupid and not at all logical!

When ALL abortions are currently LEGAL, any law is better and more moral than what we have now!

Let me ask this: If you are opposed to late term abortion restrictions, would you like to see New York, California, Massachusetts and the rest of the country REPEAL their “compromise” late term abortion laws???

If not, why not?

You do not have the legislative competentence to be in this battle, quite frankly, if you can not answer that question.

1,169 posted on 05/31/2009 4:24:22 PM PDT by Kansas58
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies ]

To: big'ol_freeper

Your argument stands on its own two feet, or it does not. Big dark letters dont make it more convincing.


1,189 posted on 05/31/2009 4:34:04 PM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1139 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson