tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post3469963588067675495..comments2024-03-18T11:10:18.708-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Two consistent propositionsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16866999081777787722017-02-19T21:01:45.294-07:002017-02-19T21:01:45.294-07:00Like I said, passing strange.Like I said, passing strange.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16766911876337103222017-02-19T20:52:57.374-07:002017-02-19T20:52:57.374-07:00B. Prokop said...
" You compare a fetus p...B. Prokop said...<br /><br />" You compare a fetus prior to "brain function" occurring to a brain dead patient who is beyond hope of recovery. But do you really find no difference between an organism which is reasonably certain to possess brain function in the future with one for whom all brain functions are in the past?"<br />If I have unprotected sex with my wife a number of times I am reasonably certain she will get pregnant in the future. Am I a murderer if I instead use a condom every time?<br /><br />Theists who discuss abortion often suffer a time comprehension breakdown. Throwing blueprints into the fireplace is not arson. <br /><br />Murder requires the taking of an actual human life in the present. <br /><br />All human beings have functioning brains. A thing that lacks a functioning brain is not a human being. This principle allow us to establish sound and consistent criteria for the ethics of medical procedures when there is a question of whether or not a human life is being ended.<br /><br />" This seems very strange (and undefendable) to me. It's like equating a seed with a piece of driftwood."<br />If there is a law against cutting down a tree of a particular species then neither cutting a piece of driftwood or a seed meet that criteria, because neither are living trees.<br /><br /><br /> February 19, 2017 8:18 PMStardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72432091518200922482017-02-19T20:18:06.534-07:002017-02-19T20:18:06.534-07:00Stardusty,
You compare a fetus prior to "bra...Stardusty,<br /><br />You compare a fetus prior to "brain function" occurring to a brain dead patient who is beyond hope of recovery. But do you really find no difference between an organism which is reasonably certain to possess brain function <i>in the future</i> with one for whom all brain functions are <i>in the past</i>?<br /><br />This seems very strange (and undefendable) to me. It's like equating a seed with a piece of driftwood.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32790039861977963782017-02-19T17:13:52.647-07:002017-02-19T17:13:52.647-07:00Mr. Green said...
" I am curious as to what ...Mr. Green said...<br /><br />" I am curious as to what other forms of murder you would allow on demand? "<br /><br />The question presupposes that abortion is murder.<br /><br />The OP does nothing to clarify, only offering these 2 grossly oversimplified assertions<br /><br />1) Abortion is murder. <br />2) The Constitution, properly interpreted, makes it unconstitutional to outlaw abortion. <br /><br />In the USA abortion is variously illegal, legal, or restricted.<br /><br />At present outlawing abortion post viability has been found constitutional, and 43 states have done so. The court has found, further, that it is constitutional to use 20 weeks as a presumption of viability.<br /><br />Any reasonable discussion of abortion should start by defining it, which was not done in the OP, and I did not see any definition in the comments, although I could possibly have missed one.<br /><br />I can state my view rather simply, that brain function defines our humanity. An unborn human being in possession of a level of brain function that would ethically require the sustenance of life in an adult near the end of life is equally entitled to the sustenance of life in utero. Self defense is the only justification for removal of that sustenance in that case.<br /><br />An organism not in possession of such brain function is no more of a human being than an expired adult patient who is still breathing and still has a functioning heart but is now legally brain dead. In that case there is not human individual in utero and the tissue may ethically be disposed of just as one disposes of the still functioning body of a legally brain dead adult patient.<br /><br />Viability is merely a poor proxy for determination of intrinsic humanity and will be rendered obsolete as an abortion criteria with the advent of the artificial womb.<br /><br /><br /> February 15, 2017 5:33 PM StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1548190879771917202017-02-16T07:18:11.049-07:002017-02-16T07:18:11.049-07:00My point is that the strategy of ending abortion b...My point is that the strategy of ending abortion by attempting to change the law <i>has failed</i> - utterly, totally, completely. It has not only failed in its prime objective, but has alienated (possibly millions of) people from the faith by painting a false picture of Christians as being obsessed with the issue to the exclusion of everything else. Which leads me to wondering just how "false" that picture actually is. How is it good policy (or strategy, for that matter) to toss overboard everything we presumably hold dear (see yesterday's comment from 7:37 PM) in the futile hope of overturning Roe v Wade? Christ Himself told us to "count the cost" before setting out on any endeavor. (Luke 14:28-32)<br /><br />In this case, the cost was unacceptably high. For it has also had the disastrous side effect of identifying American Catholicism with partisan politics, and worse, with a specific political party. A pure case of what C.S. Lewis so accurately described as "Christianity and..." The danger behind such an attitude is that the "and" so often assumes a greater importance (and certainly a greater emphasis) than the "Christianity".<br /><br />Remember how Our Lord rebuked the Pharisees. "You tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, <b>without neglecting the others</b>." (Luke 11:42, my emphasis) I read that to mean that we ought not to have sacrificed our Catholic concern for other matters of social and economic justice on the altar of a single issue. <br /><br />(By the way, I thoroughly enjoyed watching <i>The Sands of Iwo Jima</i> last night. Hadn't seen it in decades, and didn't realize how much of the movie is actual WWII combat footage, skilfully woven into the scenes with the actors. Brilliant!)B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24955024230612372072017-02-16T06:27:30.985-07:002017-02-16T06:27:30.985-07:00@B. Prokop:
"My intent was to say we ought n...@B. Prokop:<br /><br />"My intent was to say we ought not to care what the law is."<br /><br />I will quote the Cathechism 2273 again (* emphasis in the original):<br /><br />"2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a *constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation*"<br /><br />Can you please enlighten me how you can square the statement that the "The inalienable right to life" is a "constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation" with being positively indifferent to what the law actually says?<br /><br />"We ought to be fixated on converting individual human beings to the idea that pre-born babies are people (and corporations aren't), and ought not to be killed."<br /><br />So if I am understanding you right, the idea here is that we should concentrate on changing the hearts of people, because even if we were successful and managed to change the law, presumably there would still be women procuring (now illegal) abortions.<br /><br />There are at least three problems with this. (1) It assumes a false dichotomy. The situation is not that of an either/or but both/and. It is extremely unfair to the members of the pro-Life movement that did go out into the field and tried to help women in all sorts of practical ways. (2) As Mr. Green noted, the Law is also a tutor, so changing the law is also and by itself a means to changing the hearts of the people. (3) As Mr. Green also noted, the underlying principle is obviously false for other murders, or even other types of wrong doings (theft say), so what makes abortion special? Is the specific historical context in which we find ourselves? How does the justification go exactly?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61425518805282092952017-02-15T20:27:15.470-07:002017-02-15T20:27:15.470-07:00@B. Prokop,
Have a good night.
And use some smile...@B. Prokop,<br /><br />Have a good night.<br />And use some smiley's when you're using levity :-)bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21886441832859920442017-02-15T20:22:11.826-07:002017-02-15T20:22:11.826-07:00The "and corporations aren't" was an...The "and corporations aren't" was an (apparently unsuccessful) to introduce a bit of levity into an otherwise grim conversation. I don't come to DI to get depressed.<br /><br />And now I'm shutting down for the evening. Going to watch <i>The Sands of Iwo Jima</i> on DVD. Love me some John Wayne!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26285574484727474402017-02-15T20:16:15.430-07:002017-02-15T20:16:15.430-07:00@B. Prokop,
”Abortion is never a good thing. Agre...@B. Prokop,<br /><br /><i>”Abortion is never a good thing. Agreed.”</i><br />Thanks for clarifying. We are in agreement.<br /><br /><i>”My intent was to say we ought not to care what the law is.</i><br />Are you sure about that, because then you say:<br /><br /><i>”We ought to be fixated on converting individual human beings to the idea that pre-born babies are people <b>(and corporations aren't)</b>”</i><br /><br />I’m sorry, but all I’ve been talking about is the morality of abortion. If you agree that abortion is wrong, murder even, then should we not care what the law says it? Should we not care what the law says about murder? Is this what the Catholic Church taught you? <br /><br />Also, why include the phrase I highlighted in discussion about the morality of abortion? If you agree with the Catholic Church that abortion is the taking of a human life do you mean to imply that killing innocent human life is the same as whatever you are talking about wrt corporations?<br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76717281057464410902017-02-15T19:37:53.462-07:002017-02-15T19:37:53.462-07:00My intent was to say we ought not to care what the...My intent was to say we ought not to care what the law is. We ought to be fixated on converting individual human beings to the idea that pre-born babies are people (and corporations aren't), and ought not to be killed. A generation of people who regard abortion with the same horror as infanticide will simply not be having them.<br /><br />Also, the law of unintended consequences has struck with a vengeance over the past four decades. By making a candidate's stand on this single issue a litmus test has resulted in many vitally important issues being sidelined or worse, because of an insistence on ideological purity.<br /><br />A devout Catholic can with a good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate as long as they are voting for them <i>in spite of</i> their position on abortion and not <i>because</i> of it. That makes perfect sense to me. Otherwise, (another thought experiment here) let's imagine you're faced with a choice between Candidate A, who agrees with you on every single issue, but is pro-choice, and Candidate B, who has diametrically opposed views to yours on literally everything, but is pro-Life. I know, I know, there are people who would say you must vote for Candidate B. And that is precisely why Life should not be a political issue at all, and it was a terrible mistake to ever make it one.<br /><br />"<i>Can we agree that you misspoke then and "abortion on demand" could never be a good thing?</i>"<br /><br />Abortion is never a good thing. Agreed.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78210288409275326732017-02-15T19:19:17.283-07:002017-02-15T19:19:17.283-07:00@B. Prokop,
"I am not saying the end justifi...@B. Prokop,<br /><br /><i>"I am not saying the end justifies the means!"</i> <br /><br />I take you at your word that you did not intend that.<br /><br />But everyone reading this statement read it that way:<br /><i>"If we could lower the rate of abortion by legalizing "abortion on demand", then doing so would be a Good Thing, because the end result would be less abortions."</i><br /><br />Can we agree that you misspoke then and "abortion on demand" could never be a good thing?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66466029936082378802017-02-15T17:51:58.325-07:002017-02-15T17:51:58.325-07:00Great God in Heaven! (And no, I am not taking His ...Great God in Heaven! (And no, I am not taking His name in vain, but merely expressing my wonder at the obtuseness of some people in this conversation.) <b>I am not saying the end justifies the means!</b> I am <b>not</b> saying we should <i>advocate</i> for repealing laws against abortion. No, <i>no</i>, <b><i>NO!</i></b> I <i>am</i> saying we should not concern ourselves with such things at all. All pro-Life efforts should be directed at changing peoples minds, not our laws.<br /><br />And why? Because that actually accomplishes more than stroking our egos and patting ourselves on the back. 40 plus years of batting our heads against Roe v Wade have not advanced the ball one yard, yet amazingly there are more pro-Life people amongst the next generation than ever before. Why? Because of evangelization. Now just imagine where that figure would be had we concentrated 100% of our efforts in that direction. Abortion would be a matter of historical interest only!<br /><br />Now how is that advocating doing evil hoping that good will result? How is that saying the ends justify the means? Think, people, think!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-83791140081972386542017-02-15T17:33:38.191-07:002017-02-15T17:33:38.191-07:00(That reply to Mr. Prokop belonged to the previous...(That reply to Mr. Prokop belonged to the previous thread, but at least the topic is same. Here's my reply that belongs to this thread:)<br /><br />B. Prokop: <i>What I am saying is that results matter - not ideological purity. Do what works</i><br /><br />Or, to use the more common phrasing, "the end justifies the means". Hm. Do you not know that we must never do good that evil may come of it? "Ideological" purity may not matter, but moral purity does. (GRodrigues's shock is hardly surprising given that the end's justifying the means is contrary to any interpretation of Catholic or Christian morality.)<br /><br />Now I suppose that you are somehow thinking that legally endorsing "abortion on demand" does not qualify as something bad. So again, I am curious as to what other forms of murder you would allow on demand? Please give us some examples.<br /><br /><i>Is it ever the case where a doctor will tell a mother "The baby is going to die no matter what, but we can still save your life if we act now."? I don't know.</i><br /><br />Very rarely. And you do know, because Legion of Logic already cited a figure for pregnancy-related deaths (around 0.015% in the U.S.). And in fewer of those cases would the baby die anyway, let alone its death help the mother. Dr. Alan Guttmacher said: <i><a href="https://www.nrlc.org/archive/abortion/pba/HowOftenAbortionNecessarySaveMother.pdf" rel="nofollow">Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life.</a></i> — and that was back in 1967. (Yes, <b>that</b> <a href="https://www.texasrighttolife.com/alan-f-guttmacher-a-wolf-in-sheep-s-clothing/" rel="nofollow">Guttmacher</a>.)<br /><br /><i>And Jimmy's question ("Is [the rate of maternal death] only low because abortion is legal?") is another stumper.</i><br /><br />You have access to a search-engine, right? <a href="http://www.afterabortion.org/research/DeathsAssocWithAbortionJCHLP.pdf" rel="nofollow">"When mortality rates associated with abortion and childbirth are examined using a single uniform standard, significantly higher mortality rates are associated with abortion."</a><br /><br /><br /><i>But the entire Augustinian/Thomist Just War Doctrine is precisely that - a "look for practical solutions". Killing another human being is an objective evil. But it is allowable if the good that results from such an action outweighs the evil of the act itself.</i><br /><br />As already noted, this is incorrect. Just War doctrine is based ultimately on self-defence; if the conditions apply and you really are killing in self-defence, then it is not evil. If it is evil, then it is <i>not</i> a just killing (or just war).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51472741927958953372017-02-15T17:24:32.251-07:002017-02-15T17:24:32.251-07:00B. Prokop: Outlawing aborting is like setting a 55...B. Prokop: <i>Outlawing aborting is like setting a 55 mph speed limit on I-95 going into Baltimore.</i><br /><br />Except that's <i>obviously</i> false. Not <i>everyone</i> goes 75mph (even if only tourists) precisely because some people are concerned with explicitly obeying the law. In fact, your example shows the opposite: people drive too fast because they think the speed-limit is not very important; how much less important will people think something that has no law at all? Sadly, there are many people who believe the propaganda surrounding abortion that it does not take a human life; if you tell someone that abortion is murder, he might think that couldn't possibly be true, because we have laws against murder — <i>especially</i> for anything as serious as murder! — and therefore if there are no such laws, then abortion cannot be that serious.<br /><br />Conversely, because abortion is serious, because it is murder, we ought to take a serious stand against it, which at a minimum includes laws, just as with any other form of murder. Or can you name another species of murder for which you want to strike down the law?<br /><br /><i>It's like those damned riders and "poisoned pills" that congressmen so often slip into bills.</i><br /><br />"Thou shalt not murder" is a poisoned pill?!<br /><br /><i>So, tragically, all the single issue voters out there sacrificed everything they held dear upon the altar of opposition to abortion. And they got nothing for doing so. </i><br /><br />What in the world is a "single-issue voter"? I've never seen such a thing. Maybe you mean "single-candidate voter"? After all, it's not as though you can vote for Trump for pro-life issue and for Clinton for healthcare issues, say — the system just doesn't work that way, so you have to pick one person based on a combination of issues, including whichever are most important. So <i>some</i> voters may have "sacrificed" <i>some</i> things they held dear for the sake of something even dearer. For good or ill, that's how the system was designed.<br /><br /><i>Probably the stupidest thing the Democratic Party has ever done was to allow itself to be identified with the pro-abortion folks. Admittedly I've never done a scientific survey, but my gut tells me that a vast number of voters (primarily Catholics) who would otherwise be solid Democrats have pulled the lever for the other party</i><br /><br />I can't disagree it was a bad move. Their positions on other issues are not so clearly aligned with Catholic teaching nowadays compared to the past, but before <i>Roe v. Wade</i> Democrats were more pro-life than Republicans, and the party had a lot of support from Catholics.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68115883592235245662017-02-15T16:35:32.917-07:002017-02-15T16:35:32.917-07:00Listen folks! What matters here is that the pro-Li...Listen folks! What matters here is that the pro-Life movement (of which I consider myself a member) has <i>wasted</i> decades of effort trying to change laws, when we should have focused like a laser beam on changing hearts. By concentrating on judicial remedies, we have <br /><br />1. accomplished basically nothing<br />2. alienated millions to no good purpose<br />3. sacrificed every other vital issue to this one obsession, thus losing everything<br /><br />The pro-Life movement reminds me of a football team who thinks it's more important to keep their appearance pristine and unsullied than to actually gain yardage. At the end of the day, everyone can go back into the locker room proud of their bandbox clean uniforms while losing the game.<br />B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10754972426565412012017-02-15T15:40:50.125-07:002017-02-15T15:40:50.125-07:00@B. Prokop,
"But the entire Augustinian/Thom...@B. Prokop,<br /><br /><i>"But the entire Augustinian/Thomist Just War Doctrine is precisely that - a "look for practical solutions". Killing another human being is an objective evil. But it is allowable if the good that results from such an action outweighs the evil of the act itself."</i><br /><br />I think you need to do a little more research here. This is a quote from "City of God" by Augustine:<br /><br /><i>"They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill.'"</i><br /><br />You'll notice the themes that Aquinas uses in his treatment also, notably:<br />It must be done by the proper authority, for public justice against wicked men. In this case saying "Killing another human being is an objective evil" is false. It is just and justice is a good. <br />bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-20606738789268753752017-02-15T13:05:35.797-07:002017-02-15T13:05:35.797-07:00@Jimmy S. M.,
"If a Catholic is not required...@Jimmy S. M.,<br /><br /><i>"If a Catholic is not required to pursue the political solution, then they are free to look for practical solutions. So I want to know if that is actually the case."</i><br /><br />Could you perhaps re-phrase the question? What do you mean "if a Catholic is not required to pursue a political solution"? Do you think that the Catholic Church should not have an opinion on moral issues, as in what we should and should not do?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45930592831205223572017-02-15T13:04:37.521-07:002017-02-15T13:04:37.521-07:00The second quote is from B. Prokop; apologies for ...The second quote is from B. Prokop; apologies for the wrong formatting.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88463279586606060352017-02-15T13:02:53.308-07:002017-02-15T13:02:53.308-07:00@Jimmy S. M.
"If a Catholic is not required ...@Jimmy S. M.<br /><br />"If a Catholic is not required to pursue the political solution, then they are free to look for practical solutions. So I want to know if that is actually the case."<br /><br />I am honestly not understanding what you are asking here, neither the relation, if any, to the original loaded question.<br /><br />"Killing another human being is an objective evil. But it is allowable if the good that results from such an action outweighs the evil of the act itself."<br /><br />Both statements are false. For the first, a ready counter example is given by the fact that the death penalty is affirmed by the majority of the Catholic tradition (and by St. Thomas in particular). The second is consequentialist thinking explicitly denied by, once again, the uniformity of the Catholic moral tradition, and by St. Thomas in particular. Just War theory, which indeed does exist, has nothing to do with the parody that Bob Prokop imagines reading into it.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18246165784501763672017-02-15T12:54:20.738-07:002017-02-15T12:54:20.738-07:00@Joe Hinman,
"Miller you seem to be assuming...@Joe Hinman,<br /><br /><i>"Miller you seem to be assuming makimng abortion illegal will reduce to 0. That wont happen, It will mean more women die because they will get so called "coat hanger" abortions. I don't see how allowing it will reduce the number but disallowing will get more women killed."</i><br /><br />Well first, I don't assume making abortion illegal will reduce the abortion rate to 0 any more than I think making murder illegal will reduce the murder rate to 0. You actually hold that abortion is killing an innocent person after a certain point right? If so, then your disagreement with RTL folks is only about the timing.<br /><br /><br /><i>"what I cam't understand how RTLers can assume unborn lives are more important than born lives."</i><br /><br />Can't they assume that all persons lives are important? What makes one person's life more important than another?bmillerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05855545675821692382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-11667756751346392622017-02-15T12:43:55.437-07:002017-02-15T12:43:55.437-07:00"So I want to know if that is actually the ca..."<i>So I want to know if that is actually the case.</i>"<br /><br />According to grod, it seems not.<br /><br />But the entire Augustinian/Thomist Just War Doctrine is precisely that - a "look for practical solutions". Killing another human being is an objective evil. But it is allowable if the good that results from such an action outweighs the evil of the act itself.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-47842686107757699192017-02-15T10:45:33.761-07:002017-02-15T10:45:33.761-07:00I'd like to give this question one more try, I...I'd like to give this question one more try, I'm not Catholic nor have I ever been Catholic, so I don't see why it's "asinine." Absolute political supply-side prohibition of certain activities often have unintended consequences, like not actually reducing demand and making products life-threateningly unsafe. If a Catholic is not required to pursue the political solution, then they are free to look for practical solutions. So I want to know if that is actually the case. Jimmy S. M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05429294734852937431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-51583370005232456032017-02-15T10:45:16.079-07:002017-02-15T10:45:16.079-07:00@B. Prokop:
"I agree with every word of the ...@B. Prokop:<br /><br />"I agree with every word of the passages you quoted, and fail to see how they are in conflict with what I have posted."<br /><br />Hmmm, this I was not expecting.<br /><br />If you cannot see the obvious contradiction then I am afraid there is a little else I can do that would shed light on the matter.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24612056286176689392017-02-15T10:27:03.799-07:002017-02-15T10:27:03.799-07:00grod,
I agree with every word of the passages you...grod,<br /><br />I agree with every word of the passages you quoted, and fail to see how they are in conflict with what I have posted.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71482489939225178092017-02-15T10:21:54.401-07:002017-02-15T10:21:54.401-07:00@Jimmy S. M.
"Is using political machinery t...@Jimmy S. M.<br /><br />"Is using political machinery to compel the prohibition of abortion to diverse societies an Ex Cathedra teaching of the RCC?"<br /><br />Do you expect me to answer an asinine question? What kind of an answer do you hope to get?grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.com