Pope Francis: No communion for pro-abortion politicians

[itshappening]

New Pope Francis I is a conservative in the mold of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II. That’s especially true on the issue of abortion, which he called a “death sentence” for the unborn in 2007. “We aren’t in agreement with the death penalty,” he said during that speech, “but in Argentina we have the death penalty. A child conceived by the rape of a mentally ill or retarded woman can be condemned to death.”

In the Aparecida Document, a document that represents a joint statement by Latin American church leaders but presented by Francis in 2007, the leaders stated, “we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence,’ that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortions, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.”

Francis is also anti-euthanasia: “Today,” he wrote, “elderly people are discarded when, in reality, they are the seat of wisdom of the society. The right to life means allowing people to live and not killing, allowing them to grow, to eat, to be educated, to be healed, and to be permitted to die with dignity.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/13/Francis-no-communion-abortion

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Makes me happy.

[ghengis86]

Private club can make their own rules. Good for them

[Christian Liberty]

If euthanasia is actually a voluntary choice by the person getting euthanasized, he should be able to make that choice. I don't like that choice, but he has the right to make that choice. Unlike abortion, we are actually talking about the decision makers' own body there.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

If euthanasia is actually a voluntary choice by the person getting euthanasized, he should be able to make that choice. I don't like that choice, but he has the right to make that choice. Unlike abortion, we are actually talking about the decision makers' own body there.

Suicide is a sin. Life is a gift from God and you have no right to take any life, not even your own. No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put that person to death. Rather, we have a duty to care for and preserve life. We do not have a "right to die." We do not decide when our life will end, any more than we decided when it began. Much less does someone else -- a relative, a doctor, or a legislator--decide when our life will end. None of us is master over life and death.

[torchbearer]

Suicide is a sin. Life is a gift from God and you have no right to take any life, not even your own. No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put that person to death. Rather, we have a duty to care for and preserve life. We do not have a "right to die." We do not decide when our life will end, any more than we decided when it began. Much less does someone else -- a relative, a doctor, or a legislator--decide when our life will end. None of us is master over life and death.


you could have someone else push the plunger.
they could then spend their life in penance.

[dannno]

Makes me happy.

If a politician wants to leave it to the states, are they pro-abortion?

[cheapseats]

Suicide is a sin...

In YOUR belief system.

Suicide is at record-highs among American Soldiers, FYI.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

you could have someone else push the plunger.
they could then spend their life in penance.

Having someone kill you is as sinful as killing yourself. It's the same way with abortion, if you have an elective abortion you are excommunicated from the Church, but also helping someone get an abortion carried the same penalty.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

If a politician wants to leave it to the states, are they pro-abortion?

If they want to leave it to the states so that states can legalize the murder of the unborn, then yes.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

In YOUR belief system.

Anyone who believes that life is an unalienable right must agree that murder, suicide, and euthanasia are immoral.


Suicide is at record-highs among American Soldiers, FYI.

How is that relevant?

[torchbearer]

Having someone kill you is as sinful as killing yourself. It's the same way with abortion, if you have an elective abortion you are excommunicated from the Church, but also helping someone get an abortion carried the same penalty.

it is as sinful, but god's grace is unlimited.
with suicide, some believe you don't get a chance for redemption because your last act is murder against yourself.
if i sacrifice my soul because my loved one doesn't want to suffer anymore before their imminent death- then i will make that sacrifice. then i spend my days in penance. true penance. i have a chance of redemption.

[cheapseats]

Having someone kill you is as sinful as killing yourself.

According to the belief system in which you have Faith.



It's the same way with abortion...

According to the belief system in which you have Faith.



...if you have an elective abortion you are excommunicated from the Church, but also blah blah.

Separation of Church and State . . . don't leave home without it.

[Christian Liberty]

Suicide is a sin. Life is a gift from God and you have no right to take any life, not even your own. No matter how ill a patient is, we never have a right to put that person to death. Rather, we have a duty to care for and preserve life. We do not have a "right to die." We do not decide when our life will end, any more than we decided when it began. Much less does someone else -- a relative, a doctor, or a legislator--decide when our life will end. None of us is master over life and death.

I'm a bit surprised that somebody with "Libertarian" in their username would take that position.

I agree with you ethically, but legally I think you do indeed have a right to do any victimless action. Killing yourself leaves no victim. If someone consents to being killed, there's also no victim in much the same way as organ sale, drug use, prostitution exc. has no victim.

Other than organ sale, which I have no moral problem with, I would morally object to any of the actions that I described in that last paragraph. But since there's no victim, you have no moral right to stop them from doing it. In my view, and some, although not all other libertarians, abortion would not fit in that paragraph at all because unlike prostitution, organ sale, exc. abortion actually does have an innocent victim.

If they want to leave it to the states so that states can legalize the murder of the unborn, then yes.

[Smart3]

Always makes me happy to see I'm right on an issue. If the Pope is against it, I am for it, at least when it comes to social issues.

[Christian Liberty]

If they want to leave it to the states so that states can legalize the murder of the unborn, then yes.

This is hard to define. I believe abortion should be illegal. but because of our constitution, unless it gets amended (I'd vote for such an amendment but it'll never happen) the Federal government doesn't have a right to ban abortion . Only the state governments do. I would support as many states as possible doing so. But unless/until an amendment makes it acceptable, I don't want the Federal governnment to usurp that power for itself.

I think I'm pretty clearly on the pro-life side of this though. In fact, pro-life purists might say I'm not pro-life because I support the death penalty for the abortionist.

(Assuming sufficient evidence, which is admittedly unlikely, but I'm still philosophically in favor of the death penalty for murder.)

Anyone who believes that life is an unalienable right must agree that murder, suicide, and euthanasia are immoral.

I don't believe in positive rights. They contradict themselves. I do believe that there is such a thing as an implied contract with your kids, but I don't believe in positive rights. I believe you have a right to be dealt with according to the NAP. Nobody has a right to take your life except without your consent, in defense of yourself, another person, or property*, or as the proper penalty for murder. those are the only cases where you can rightfully lose possession over your own life.

*To clarify, I support the right to use the least amount of violence necessary to stop any act of aggression. If that requires lethal violence, that's fine with me, but in most cases it probably requires less.

[Pisces]

I'm a bit surprised that somebody with "Libertarian" in their username would take that position.

I agree with you ethically, but legally I think you do indeed have a right to do any victimless action. Killing yourself leaves no victim. If someone consents to being killed, there's also no victim in much the same way as organ sale, drug use, prostitution exc. has no victim.



That's not always true. If you kill yourself you are victimizing all the people that care about you. I don't think a person that commits suicide necessarily goes to hell, though. For an act to be a mortal sin, it has to be committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Someone suffering from a mental illness or from severe pain may not be able to do that.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

This is hard to define. I believe abortion should be illegal. but because of our constitution, unless it gets amended (I'd vote for such an amendment but it'll never happen) the Federal government doesn't have a right to ban abortion . Only the state governments do. I would support as many states as possible doing so. But unless/until an amendment makes it acceptable, I don't want the Federal governnment to usurp that power for itself.

I think I'm pretty clearly on the pro-life side of this though. In fact, pro-life purists might say I'm not pro-life because I support the death penalty for the abortionist.

(Assuming sufficient evidence, which is admittedly unlikely, but I'm still philosophically in favor of the death penalty for murder.)

The federal Constitution already guarantees a right to life in the 5th Amendment.

And the death penalty is completely consistent with being pro-life. In fact, it is the pro-life position.


I don't believe in positive rights. They contradict themselves. I do believe that there is such a thing as an implied contract with your kids, but I don't believe in positive rights. I believe you have a right to be dealt with according to the NAP. Nobody has a right to take your life except without your consent, in defense of yourself, another person, or property*, or as the proper penalty for murder. those are the only cases where you can rightfully lose possession over your own life.

*To clarify, I support the right to use the least amount of violence necessary to stop any act of aggression. If that requires lethal violence, that's fine with me, but in most cases it probably requires less.

I don't believe in positive rights either, and life is not one. Life is also not an unalieable right, it is an inalieable right. There's a difference:


Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.


Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "

You cannot give away your right to life.

[FrankRep]

If a politician wants to leave it to the states, are they pro-abortion?
Obviously not.

Defending Roe V. Wade, does however.

[angelatc]

Always makes me happy to see I'm right on an issue. If the Pope is against it, I am for it, at least when it comes to social issues.

Yes, we know...you're a liberal. Perhaps you've forgotten, but Ron Paul is pro-life too.

[cheapseats]

Suicide is a sin.


In YOUR belief system.

Suicide is at record-highs among American Soldiers, FYI.



How is that relevant?


Just pointing out how heartless Bleeding Hearts can be.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." - Matthew 7: 1-5

[dannno]

If they want to leave it to the states so that states can legalize the murder of the unborn, then yes.

So Ron Paul is pro-abortion according to you?

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

So Ron Paul is pro-abortion according to you?

Ron Paul has called for the federal government to define life as beginning at conception and make abortion illegal in all 50 states plus DC. I don't, however, consider him 100% pro-life because he is not against contraceptives and abortion pills.


Response from Ron Paul Campaign:
Rep. Ron Paul to Personhood USA Re: Pledge

Let me begin by noting again that not only do I share Personhood USA’s goal of ending abortion by defining life as beginning at conception, but also that I am the only candidate who has affirmatively acted on this goal in his career. I am the sponsor of federal legislation to define Life as beginning at conception, and will promote and push this goal and legislation as President.

I believe the FEDERAL government has this power, indeed, this obligation.

As you probably know, this comes directly from Supreme Court’s misguided Roe decision, in which the court stated that it did not have the authority to define when life began, but that if it were ever decided, then that life would have to be protected.

It is the only bright spot in an otherwise poor moral and constitutional decision.

What you are seeing in my response is simply a clarification about the details of enforcing such a decision about where life begins.

Defining life as beginning at conception would define the unborn child as a life. Thereafter the taking of that life would be murder. Murder in our criminal code and constitutional history is punished by the laws of the individual states. The federal government does not dictate the terms of the state murder laws. Some have longer sentences. Some allow for parole, some do not. Some have the death penalty, some do not.

This is how our republican form of government was intended to function, and I believe we need to stay on that path.

Federal law needs to define Life. I have sponsored and will continue to promote legislation to federally define Life as beginning at conception, establishing the personhood of every unborn child, thus finally fulfilling the role of the government in protecting our life and liberty.

[cheapseats]

03-13-2013 08:06 PM
TokenLibertarianGuy

Neg Rep: "You are such a troll."

Oh, brother.

[Christian Liberty]

That's not always true. If you kill yourself you are victimizing all the people that care about you. I don't think a person that commits suicide necessarily goes to hell, though. For an act to be a mortal sin, it has to be committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent. Someone suffering from a mental illness or from severe pain may not be able to do that.

Well, it would be fair to mention that although I'm Christian, I'm not Catholic. I'm not really dogmatically anything other than "Bible-believing" but I attend a baptist church and would be closer to the Baptists than any other Christian group theologically. So I don't really believe in mortal sin, or at least not the way you do.

Anyway, as to the substantive point, that's where I'd make a distinction between legally and morality. While I don't think there's any such thing as "Positive rights" I do think there's some truth to the concept in that I think it is immoral, but should not be illegal, to deprive someone of such things. In the case of welfare, I think its wrong to refuse to give a poor person money, but I don't think its right to force people to do so. Why? While the poor person does need money, he has no intrinsic right to someone else's money. The property owner, by contrast, has a right to freedom from aggression. Nonetheless, I think he's wrong if he refuses to share with his fellow man.

Now let's look at this from the perspective of suicide. Life is a form of property (Note, I propose this only as a legal proposition, not a moral one), its a particularly important form of property (I support the death penalty for taking life, not for taking any other form of property) but legally it would be considered a form of property, albeit one that cannot be transferred (Well, most libertarians, and myself, would agree on that point. Walter Block would not.) Morally, you are correct. People are dependent on you. It would be wrong to kill yourself, therefore, and deprive them of a relationship with you. It would be wrong, in most cases, to simiarly cut off all contact with your family/friends/exc. even while not killing yourself. But since you are the temporal, legal owner of yourself (I would agree with your likely comment that we belong to God but that is not something the law can or realistically should have written in a legal statue. And while it would be immoral to cut off contact with those you love, it is certainly legally acceptable, since there is no such thing as positive rights, including the "Right to relationship" or something. And legally, you also should have the right to kill yourself, or agree to have someone else do it for you, though I think its immoral to do so and society should discourage it. (Non-forcible ways of protesting euthanasia, such as convincing people not to do it, or preventing doctors who provide the service from utilizing services at a business you own, should be legal).

Remember that the arguments used in favor of suicide bans could also be used to defend drug bans, smoking bans, fast food bans, exc. since all of these things likely reduce the length of your life, especially if regularly partaken of, and you are "Robbing the people that care about you the right to your time" (As if any such legal right existed.)

An exception that I would make is if you have a kid, and nobody else is willing to raise that kid for you. In that case, there is an implied contract, at the moment of intercourse, that a child you hypothetically have from that union is in your custody unless/until you voluntarily transfer that custody to another willing party. This would apply equally to the father and mother, but yeah, if you have a kid that no relative would take and you just kill yourself I'd agree that's an act of aggression (Child neglect, in violation of implied contract, if you want to legalistically precise) against the innocent child and should no more be legal than eviction of a fetus from the womb that would die upon eviction. Ie. Not.


The federal Constitution already guarantees a right to life in the 5th Amendment.

And the death penalty is completely consistent with being pro-life. In fact, it is the pro-life position.



I don't believe in positive rights either, and life is not one. Life is also not an unalieable right, it is an inalieable right. There's a difference:





"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "

You cannot give away your right to life.


Obviously not.

Defending Roe V. Wade, does however.

[Pisces]

Well, it would be fair to mention that although I'm Christian, I'm not Catholic. I'm not really dogmatically anything other than "Bible-believing" but I attend a baptist church and would be closer to the Baptists than any other Christian group theologically. So I don't really believe in mortal sin, or at least not the way you do.

Anyway, as to the substantive point, that's where I'd make a distinction between legally and morality. While I don't think there's any such thing as "Positive rights" I do think there's some truth to the concept in that I think it is immoral, but should not be illegal, to deprive someone of such things. In the case of welfare, I think its wrong to refuse to give a poor person money, but I don't think its right to force people to do so. Why? While the poor person does need money, he has no intrinsic right to someone else's money. The property owner, by contrast, has a right to freedom from aggression. Nonetheless, I think he's wrong if he refuses to share with his fellow man.

Now let's look at this from the perspective of suicide. Life is a form of property (Note, I propose this only as a legal proposition, not a moral one), its a particularly important form of property (I support the death penalty for taking life, not for taking any other form of property) but legally it would be considered a form of property, albeit one that cannot be transferred (Well, most libertarians, and myself, would agree on that point. Walter Block would not.) Morally, you are correct. People are dependent on you. It would be wrong to kill yourself, therefore, and deprive them of a relationship with you. It would be wrong, in most cases, to simiarly cut off all contact with your family/friends/exc. even while not killing yourself. But since you are the temporal, legal owner of yourself (I would agree with your likely comment that we belong to God but that is not something the law can or realistically should have written in a legal statue. And while it would be immoral to cut off contact with those you love, it is certainly legally acceptable, since there is no such thing as positive rights, including the "Right to relationship" or something. And legally, you also should have the right to kill yourself, or agree to have someone else do it for you, though I think its immoral to do so and society should discourage it. (Non-forcible ways of protesting euthanasia, such as convincing people not to do it, or preventing doctors who provide the service from utilizing services at a business you own, should be legal).

Remember that the arguments used in favor of suicide bans could also be used to defend drug bans, smoking bans, fast food bans, exc. since all of these things likely reduce the length of your life, especially if regularly partaken of, and you are "Robbing the people that care about you the right to your time" (As if any such legal right existed.)

An exception that I would make is if you have a kid, and nobody else is willing to raise that kid for you. In that case, there is an implied contract, at the moment of intercourse, that a child you hypothetically have from that union is in your custody unless/until you voluntarily transfer that custody to another willing party. This would apply equally to the father and mother, but yeah, if you have a kid that no relative would take and you just kill yourself I'd agree that's an act of aggression (Child neglect, in violation of implied contract, if you want to legalistically precise) against the innocent child and should no more be legal than eviction of a fetus from the womb that would die upon eviction. Ie. Not.

I wasn't really talking about legality. Other than in the military, I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for attempting suicide, at least not in the last 100 years. I was just disputing that suicide is a victimless act.

[Inkblots]

Just pointing out how heartless Bleeding Hearts can be.

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment that you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get." - Matthew 7: 1-5

The heartless ones are those who sent those poor young men and women over and over into such a soul-crushing environment. Endless warfare has a massive cost for the occupiers as well as the occupied.

But it is neither heartless nor judgmental to point out the truth that violence against self -- including suicide -- is just as much a sin in the eyes of God as violence against others. We do not judge or condemn the poor souls who take such a drastic step; just because it is a sin, we don't condemn them to Hell, for God alone knows the fate of their eternal soul. Many of those who commit suicide suffer from various forms of mental illness that render them incapable of making free moral choices in this matter, and the merciful God who loves them knows and understands that. We can't say anymore about it than that.

However, I'd like to make a larger point that you, like many people, misunderstand what "Judge not, that you be not judged" means. It is an injunction not to pronounce judgement upon other people -- not to say "you are condemned to Hell, you are an unforgivable sinner." A Christian should never presume to decide the ultimate worth or fate of any man. But what it is NOT is an injunction to point out when others are sinning, and help them to understand the true consequences of their actions. Those who throw that quote back against someone who points out that they are behaving contrary to the teachings of the Gospels is missing the point.

[Christian Liberty]

Yes, we know...you're a liberal. Perhaps you've forgotten, but Ron Paul is pro-life too.

I'm pretty hardcore pro-life (The only thing I disagree with the right to life crowd on is the support of a Federal ban without amendment, or if someone supports a law that bans abortion even in the case of the life of the mother being in danger, I oppose that. Otherwise, however, I believe abortion is consistently, always morally equivalent to murder.) Even still, I would vote for a pro-choice candidate that agreed with me on everything else. Government can only do so much about this, and its ultimately state-level nullification, not laws from Leviathan, that weaken abortion in this country, if it be any government at all.

I see nothing inconsistent with strongly supporting Ron Paul while still being pro-choice. As I've said, I have issues with being pro-choice, but assuming you already take that position you should still support Ron if you agree with him on everything else. In fact, I'd have much more of an issue with someone who refused to vote for Ron Paul on that issue. Walter Block is quite pro-choice (At least right now, the nuance in his position means he'll probably be pro-life in a century or two) but he still supports Ron Paul. So was, and so did, Murray Rothbard. I'd think any libertarian who refused to support Ron Paul on this one issue alone, especially when he doesn't support a Federal law, is kind of an idiot.

[Christian Liberty]

I wasn't really talking about legality. Other than in the military, I don't think anyone has ever been prosecuted for attempting suicide, at least not in the last 100 years. I was just disputing that suicide is a victimless act.

I actually got a similar argument when I (Falsely) stated that drug use only affects the user when I was arguing in favor of ending prohibition. I thought "Victim" was a stronger word. So I'd say it affects other people but since nobody's rights were taken away (Except in the one narrow case I discussed) there isn't a victim per say. "Victim" implies rights were violated.

And Euthanasia only violates someone's rights if it wasn't fully consented to. A child cannot consent, of course, nor can someone who's in a coma.

[otherone]

Oh, brother.

I've found it's usually the most christian among us who dole out the most old testament consequences... :)

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

However, I'd like to make a larger point that you, like many people, misunderstand what "Judge not, that you be not judged" means. It is an injunction not to pronounce judgement upon other people -- not to say "you are condemned to Hell, you are an unforgivable sinner." A Christian should never presume to decide the ultimate worth or fate of any man. But what it is NOT is an injunction to point out when others are sinning, and help them to understand the true consequences of their actions. Those who throw that quote back against someone who points out that they are behaving contrary to the teachings of the Gospels is missing the point.

Well said. I'm so sick of non-Christians or 'Christians' bringing that up when one condemns sin. Not only did Jesus rebuke sin, but He also commanded His disciples to rebuke sin.

Luke 17:3 - If your brother sins, rebuke him
Ephesians 5:11 - Do not have fellowship with sin, but reprove it.
2 Timothy 2:24-26 - The Lord's servant must correct those who have been taken captive by the Devil.
2 Timothy 4:2-4 - Preaching the word requires us to "reprove and rebuke" - this means to tell people when they are wrong.
Titus 1:9-14 - Elders must sharply reprove people who teach things they ought not.
James 5:19,20 - We should seek to convert those who go into sin and error.

Over and over again Scripture commands us to rebuke sin!

[Christian Liberty]

Ron Paul has called for the federal government to define life as beginning at conception and make abortion illegal in all 50 states plus DC. I don't, however, consider him 100% pro-life because he is not against contraceptives and abortion pills.

Why would you want to ban contraceptives? Abortion plls, yeah, but contraception?

And I thought you were a libertarian?

As for Ron Paul, its a bit weird because he supports that but only thinks states have the right to actually enforce penalties... so it didn't really make sense.


I've found it's usually the most christian among us who dole out the most old testament consequences... :)

Death penalty is sometimes justified.


Well said. I'm so sick of non-Christians or 'Christians' bringing that up when one condemns sin. Not only did Jesus rebuke sin, but He also commanded His disciples to rebuke sin.

Luke 17:3 - If your brother sins, rebuke him
Ephesians 5:11 - Do not have fellowship with sin, but reprove it.
2 Timothy 2:24-26 - The Lord's servant must correct those who have been taken captive by the Devil.
2 Timothy 4:2-4 - Preaching the word requires us to "reprove and rebuke" - this means to tell people when they are wrong.
Titus 1:9-14 - Elders must sharply reprove people who teach things they ought not.
James 5:19,20 - We should seek to convert those who go into sin and error.

Over and over again Scripture commands us to rebuke sin!

Yes, rebuke. But the Bible also says not to be a busybody. Criminalizing other people's vices would apply.

[Brett85]

I believe that abortion should be illegal but not euthanasia as long as it's voluntary.

[Christian Liberty]

Yep, exactly my view (With the one "Mother's life" exception on abortion.)

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Why would you want to ban contraceptives? Abortion plls, yeah, but contraception?

And I thought you were a libertarian?

Who said anything about banning? I don't want to ban contraceptives, but I think they are immoral and should never be used. I think drugs are dangerous and destructive, but I don't think they should be banned either.


As for Ron Paul, its a bit weird because he supports that but only thinks states have the right to actually enforce penalties... so it didn't really make sense.

It's not weird. States can't legalize the murder of people who are already born, so if you believe that the unborn are also human then killing them is also murder.


Yes, rebuke. But the Bible also says not to be a busybody. Criminalizing other people's vices would apply.

Who said anything about criminalizing? If my friend is doing something I think is immoral, I'll rebuke him, not call the cops. Some things, obviously, should be illegal, though. Murder, theft, rape, etc are all immoral and should not only be rebuked but punished by secular authorities.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Yep, exactly my view (With the one "Mother's life" exception on abortion.)

I don't agree with that exception. Abortion is always murder. Killing another human is only justifiable in self-defense from an aggressor. An unborn child is never an aggressor and is always an innocent life, therefore killing an unborn child is always wrong.

[dannno]

Ron Paul has called for the federal government to define life as beginning at conception and make abortion illegal in all 50 states plus DC. I don't, however, consider him 100% pro-life because he is not against contraceptives and abortion pills.

So if the entire world was pro-liberty and pro-life and one day Iran decided to legalize first tri-mester abortions, do you think we should go to war with them? How far is this proverbial democratic government control grid as mandated by the Bible supposed to travel?

[Icymudpuppy]

I think it is sickening and immoral how people who are beyond any ability to care for themselves, pass on knowledge, or enjoy their family are kept alive with machines, drugs, and other artificial life extension. I do not want to live as an infant or vegetable in a nursing home. When my body begins to fail, I plan to start taking risks that are likely to kill me at my age. Extreme downhill ski-ing in remote mountain wilderness, whitewater kayaking on remote glacier melts, sailing across oceans on small one-man sailing craft, etc. I hope one of these adventures will kill me before I end up in a nursing home, but barring that, I have written a living will that I am not to be cared for if I am no longer capable of remembering what I had for breakfast and cannot wipe my own ass.

[Christian Liberty]

Who said anything about banning? I don't want to ban contraceptives, but I think they are immoral and should never be used. I think drugs are dangerous and destructive, but I don't think they should be banned either.



I assumed that you wanted to ban contraceptives because you said Ron Paul "Wasn't pro-life" on the issue. What's wrong with contraceptives BTW? I'm pretty sure that particular Catholic argument has any Biblical basis.


It's not weird. States can't legalize the murder of people who are already born, so if you believe that the unborn are also human then killing them is also murder.

I agree with that second part of that comma. I don't think the first part of your comment is constitututionally accurate, and I don't think that Ron Paul is in agreement with it either. I'm pretty sure constitutionally only the states have the right to ban murder, theft, or anything else.




Who said anything about criminalizing? If my friend is doing something I think is immoral, I'll rebuke him, not call the cops. Some things, obviously, should be illegal, though. Murder, theft, rape, etc are all immoral and should not only be rebuked but punished by secular authorities.

Fair enough, and I agree, but I don't believe that (voluntary) euthanasia fits on that second list. I thought you were saying that you did.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't agree with that exception. Abortion is always murder. Killing another human is only justifiable in self-defense from an aggressor. An unborn child is never an aggressor and is always an innocent life, therefore killing an unborn child is always wrong.

I agree that the unborn is not committing aggression simply by being in the womb, as the pro-choice would claim. He was invited there, in most cases, by the woman. In rape, there is an act of aggression but it was by the rapist and only he should suffer for it. But if someone is a threat to your life, even if fully innocent, you do have the right to stop them from killing you. I believe in that case it should be legal. I don't think its the best choice, but that is an exception to my "Its murder" stance.


So if the entire world was pro-liberty and pro-life and one day Iran decided to legalize first tri-mester abortions, do you think we should go to war with them? How far is this proverbial democratic government control grid as mandated by the Bible supposed to travel?

Exactly... the state level is more than centralized enough. If we could get an amendment and it could be enforced without war, I'd take it, but otherwise, I am not giving Leviathan more power by stretching the constitution AGAIN. State-level only, until then.

[otherone]

So if the entire world was pro-liberty and pro-life and one day Iran decided to legalize first tri-mester abortions, do you think we should go to war with them?

They tried that several times. It was a disaster. King Richard was captured, iirc.

[cheapseats]

New Pope Francis I is a conservative in the mold of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II. That’s especially true on the issue of abortion, which he called a “death sentence” for the unborn in 2007. “We aren’t in agreement with the death penalty,” he said during that speech, “but in Argentina we have the death penalty. A child conceived by the rape of a mentally ill or retarded woman can be condemned to death.”

In the Aparecida Document, a document that represents a joint statement by Latin American church leaders but presented by Francis in 2007, the leaders stated, “we should commit ourselves to ‘eucharistic coherence,’ that is, we should be conscious that people cannot receive holy communion and at the same time act or speak against the commandments, in particular when abortions, euthanasia, and other serious crimes against life and family are facilitated. This responsibility applies particularly to legislators, governors, and health professionals.”

Francis is also anti-euthanasia: “Today,” he wrote, “elderly people are discarded when, in reality, they are the seat of wisdom of the society. The right to life means allowing people to live and not killing, allowing them to grow, to eat, to be educated, to be healed, and to be permitted to die with dignity.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/03/13/Francis-no-communion-abortion


2007?

And I'M accused of being a troll?

[cheapseats]

Transcript of the Pope's 1st Speech

via Detroit Free Press:


"Brothers and sisters, good evening.

"You all know that the duty of the conclave was to give a bishop to Rome. It seems that my brother cardinals have come almost to the ends of the Earth to get him ... but here we are. I thank you for the welcome that has come from the diocesan community of Rome.

First of all, I would say a prayer: Pray for our Bishop Emeritus Benedict XVI ... Let us all pray together for him, that the Lord bless him and Our Lady protect him.

"Our Father ...

"Hail Mary ...

"Glory to the Father ...

"And now let us begin this journey, the bishop and people, this journey of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity over all the churches, a journey of brotherhood in love, of mutual trust. Let us always pray for one another. Let us pray for the whole world that there might be a great sense of brotherhood. My hope is that this journey of the (Catholic) Church that we begin today, together with help of my cardinal vicar, be fruitful for the evangelization of this beautiful city.

"And now I would like to give the blessing, but first I want to ask you a favor. Before the bishop blesses the people, I ask that you would pray to the Lord to bless me — the prayer of the people for their bishop. Let us say this prayer — your prayer for me — in silence. ...

"I will now give my blessing to you and to the whole world, to all men and women of goodwill.

"Brothers and sisters, I am leaving you. Thank you for your welcome. Pray for me, and I will be with you again soon.

"We will see one another soon.

"Tomorrow, I want to go to pray the Madonna, that she may protect Rome.

"Good night and sleep well!"

http://www.freep.com/article/20130313/NEWS07/130313101/Transcript-new-pope-s-first-speech



Notably absent inflammatory remarks about "Pro Abortion Politicians".

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I assumed that you wanted to ban contraceptives because you said Ron Paul "Wasn't pro-life" on the issue. What's wrong with contraceptives BTW? I'm pretty sure that particular Catholic argument has any Biblical basis.

The Catholic Church has been opposed to contraception for as far back as one can historically trace.

Proverbs 3:5: Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight.

1 Timothy 2:15: Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

Luke 23:29: For behold, the days are coming when they will say, `Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never gave suck!'

Also:


Gen 1:28, 9:1,7; 35:11 - from the beginning, the Lord commands us to be fruitful ("fertile") and multiply. A husband and wife fulfill God's plan for marriage in the bringing forth of new life, for God is life itself.

Gen. 28:3 - Isaac's prayer over Jacob shows that fertility and procreation are considered blessings from God.

Gen. 38:8-10 - Onan is killed by God for practicing contraception (in this case, withdrawal) and spilling his semen on the ground.

Gen. 38:11-26 - Judah, like Onan, also rejected God's command to keep up the family lineage, but he was not killed.

Deut. 25:7-10 - the penalty for refusing to keep up a family lineage is not death, like Onan received. Onan was killed for wasting seed.

Gen. 38:9 - also, the author's usage of the graphic word "seed," which is very uncharacteristic for Hebrew writing, further highlights the reason for Onan's death.

Exodus 23:25-26; Deut. 7:13-14 - God promises blessings which include no miscarriages or barrenness. Children are blessings from God, and married couples must always be open to God's plan for new life with every act of marital intimacy.

Lev.18:22-23;20:13 - wasting seed with non-generative sexual acts warrants death. Many Protestant churches, which have all strayed from the Catholic Church, reject this fundamental truth (few Protestants and Catholics realize that contraception was condemned by all of Christianity - and other religions - until the Anglican church permitted it in certain cases at the Lambeth conference in 1930. This opened the floodgates of error).

Lev. 21:17,20 - crushed testicles are called a defect and a blemish before God. God reveals that deliberate sterilization and any other methods which prevent conception are intrinsically evil.

Deut. 23:1 - whoever has crushed testicles or is castrated cannot enter the assembly. Contraception is objectively sinful and contrary, not only to God's Revelation, but the moral and natural law.

Deut. 25:11-12 - there is punishment for potential damage to the testicles, for such damage puts new life at risk. It, of course, follows that vasectomies, which are done with willful consent, are gravely contrary to the natural law.

1 Chron. 25:5 - God exalts His people by blessing them with many children. When married couples contracept, they are declaring "not your will God, but my will be done."

Psalm 127:3-5 - children are a gift of favor from God and blessed is a full quiver. Married couples must always be open to God's precious gift of life. Contraception, which shows a disregard for human life, has lead to the great evils of abortion, euthanasia, and infanticide.

Hosea 9:11; Jer. 18:21 - God punishes Israel by preventing pregnancy. Contraception is a curse, and married couples who use contraception are putting themselves under the same curse.

Mal. 2:14 - marriage is not a contract (which is a mere exchange of property or services). It is a covenant, which means a supernatural exchange of persons. Just as God is three in one, so are a husband and wife, who become one flesh and bring forth new life, three in one. Marital love is a reflection of the Blessed Trinity.

Mal. 2:15 - What does God desire? Godly offspring. What is contraception? A deliberate act against God's will. With contraception, a couple declares, "God may want an eternal being created with our union, but we say no." Contraception is a grave act of selfishness.

Matt. 19:5-6 - Jesus said a husband and wife shall become one. They are no longer two, but one, just as God is three persons, yet one. The expression of authentic marital love reintegrates our bodies and souls to God, and restores us to our original virginal state (perfect integration of body and soul) before God.

Matt. 19:6; Eph. 5:31 - contraception prevents God's ability to "join" together. Just as Christ's love for the Church is selfless and sacrificial, and a husband and wife reflect this union, so a husband and wife's love for each other must also be selfless and sacrificial. This means being open to new life.

Acts 5:1-11 - Ananias and Sapphira were slain because they withheld part of a gift. Fertility is a gift from God and cannot be withheld.

Rom.1:26-27 - sexual acts without the possibility of procreation is sinful. Self-giving love is life-giving love, or the love is a lie. The unitive and procreative elements of marital love can never be divided, or the marital love is also divided, and God is left out of the marriage.

1 Cor. 6:19-20 - the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; thus, we must glorify God in our bodies by being open to His will.

1 Cor. 7:5 - this verse supports the practice of natural family planning ("NFP"). Married couples should not refuse each other except perhaps by agreement for a season, naturally.

Gal. 6:7-8 - God is not mocked for what a man sows. If to the flesh, corruption. If to the Spirit, eternal life.

Eph. 5:25 - Paul instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, by giving his entire body to her and holding nothing back. With contraception, husbands tell their wives, I love you except your fertility, and you can have me except for my fertility. This love is a lie because it is self-centered, and not self-giving and life-giving.

Eph. 5:29-31; Phil. 3:2 - mutilating the flesh (e.g., surgery to prevent conception) is gravely sinful. Many Protestant churches reject this most basic moral truth.

1 Tim. 2:15 - childbearing is considered a "work" through which women may be saved by God's grace.

Deut. 22:13-21 – these verses also show that God condemns pre-marital intercourse. The living expression of God’s creative love is reserved for a sacramental marriage between one man and one woman.

Rev. 9:21; 21:8; 22:15; Gal. 5:20 - these verses mention the word "sorcery." The Greek word is "pharmakeia" which includes abortifacient potions such as birth control pills. These pharmakeia are mortally sinful. Moreover, chemical contraception does not necessarily prevent conception, but may actually kill the child in the womb after conception has occurred (by preventing the baby from attaching to the uterine wall). Contraception is a lie that has deceived millions, but the Church is holding her arms open wide to welcome back her children who have strayed from the truth.

And if we read the Church Fathers (John Chrysostom, Jerome, Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Rome, Augustine of Hippo and various others.), they condemn the use of contraception.


I agree with that second part of that comma. I don't think the first part of your comment is constitututionally accurate, and I don't think that Ron Paul is in agreement with it either. I'm pretty sure constitutionally only the states have the right to ban murder, theft, or anything else.


5th, 9th, 14th Amendments would prevent any state from legalizing murder. If you believe, as Ron does, that the unborn are human then those protections extend to them. That's why Ron constantly introduced legislation to define life on a federal level as beginning at conception. It would prohibit states from allowing their murder.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Transcript of the Pope's 1st Speech

Notably absent inflammatory remarks about "Pro Abortion Politicians".

What's your point? He made the comments as a Bishop and there have been many other Bishops who have said the same thing (Cardinal Burke, for example). If you read Canon 915 those people fall within who is not allowed to take Communion.

[Christian Liberty]

I don't know what the point about pre-marital intercourse has to do with contraception. The purpose of sex is not specifically to have kids, it is to unite with your spouse! Granted, kids do sometimes come from that, and as this is always possible I believe engaging in the act does create an implied contract, should conception occur. But I see nothing wrong with trying not to have a child while still having sex.

Regarding the rest, those aren't really about contraception either, at least not as such. And as for the church fathers, they had an unhealthy view towards sex that was common back then. While they were correct in opposing promiscuity, they also thought that sex was solely to have children, which is absurd.

[RickyJ]

So far I like this Pope. I am not Catholic but sometimes it seems the Pope represents Christianity better than many protestants do. Jesus taught that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Apparently the neocons must think they should be bombed since they dish it out with such vigor to others.

[Christian Liberty]

So far I like this Pope. I am not Catholic but sometimes it seems the Pope represents Christianity better than many protestants do. Jesus taught that we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Apparently the neocons must think they should be bombed since they dish it out with such vigor to others.

Yep...

[torchbearer]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptTwi6-ii-s

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I don't know what the point about pre-marital intercourse has to do with contraception. The purpose of sex is not specifically to have kids, it is to unite with your spouse! Granted, kids do sometimes come from that, and as this is always possible I believe engaging in the act does create an implied contract, should conception occur. But I see nothing wrong with trying not to have a child while still having sex.

Regarding the rest, those aren't really about contraception either, at least not as such. And as for the church fathers, they had an unhealthy view towards sex that was common back then. While they were correct in opposing promiscuity, they also thought that sex was solely to have children, which is absurd.

Sex isn't only about kids, but it is mainly about kids. All other aspects are secondary and to willfully prevent the possibility of conception is to go against the purpose God gave intercourse.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, I think you're simply philosophically wrong here... But as long as you don't think it should be illegal I don't really care...

[rubioneocon]

In YOUR belief system.

Suicide is at record-highs among American Soldiers, FYI.

Suicide is a mortal sin . . . in Catholic theology.



the white smoke has been seen...




the joke I had heard . . .
a tradition that was started way back by Popes Cheech and Chong


I've read and re-read every one of these passages and nowhere does this support your assertion that some sins are worse than others.

All sin is mortal.


So, is mortal sin somehow different from an immortal sin?

Of course . . . fyi according to my nun Sunday school teacher . . . way back when


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z92bmlcmyq0

first ya' got your venial sins,
but if you commit one of the seven capital sins (btw, also called the seven deadly sins or the seven cardinal sins)
then you really should go to confession . . .

mortal sins are a condemnation to hell . . . but still, it aint my or anyone else's call



As a Catholic, I feel it is up to the individual to determine if they are able to take Communion.

Of course, I'd wonder why Rudy Giuliani (on with Hannity last night) would take Communion . . .
but it ain't really my call.

[Brian4Liberty]

Transcript of the Pope's 1st Speech

via Detroit Free Press:

Notably absent inflammatory remarks about "Pro Abortion Politicians".

Yep, the title of the article is in error.


Pope Francis: No communion for pro-abortion politicians

"Pope Francis" has said virtually nothing at this point. There's probably no other position in the world where a person ceases to be "himself" and becomes a new person, like becoming the Pope.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Suicide is a mortal sin . . . in Catholic theology.

Not always. A mortal sin must meet all three of these conditions:

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (no one is considered ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are inborn as part of human knowledge, but these principles can be misunderstood in a particular context).
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

[Napolitanic Wars]

Francis is also anti-euthanasia: “Today,” he wrote, “elderly people are discarded when, in reality, they are the seat of wisdom of the society. The right to life means allowing people to live and not killing, allowing them to grow, to eat, to be educated, to be healed, and to be permitted to die with dignity.”

Dying with dignity? You mean crapping in a bag...while screaming? Elderly people are discarded? You mean they are allowed the dignity and freedom to end their own life?

[rubioneocon]

Suicide is a mortal sin . . . in Catholic theology.

mortal sins are a condemnation to hell . . . but still, it aint my or anyone else's call


Not always. A mortal sin must meet all three of these conditions:



What . . . pretty wild of you to tell me what any other persons beliefs are . . . very un-libertarian of you.

There are three mortal sins taught to me by my nun Sunday school teacher way back when . . .
and which I chose to abide by . . . you can teach whatever btw

1. committing suicide

2. ( I aint telling you 'cause you would dispute it anyway . . . )

3. and the third mortal sin taught to me is , well the third mortal sin is . . . Oops . . .

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Biden to attend Pope Francis I’s Mass of Inauguration (http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/13/biden-to-pope-installation/#ixzz2NTl1bMkU)


Vice President Joe Biden will be heading to Rome later this month to attend Pope Francis I’s Mass of Inauguration.

Biden offered he and his wife Jill’s congratulations to the new pope in a statement Wednesday afternoon.

“I am happy to have the chance to personally relay my well wishes, and those of the American people, when I travel to Rome for his inaugural Mass,” Biden said.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/13/biden-to-pope-installation/#ixzz2NTlRhWBf


HAHAHAHAAHAHA. I guess he can expect not to receive Communion, then. His own Bishop in Scranton refused him communion in that diocese because of his support for abortion.

[eating_nachos]

Biden to attend Pope Francis I’s Mass of Inauguration (http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/13/biden-to-pope-installation/#ixzz2NTl1bMkU)




HAHAHAHAAHAHA. I guess he can expect not to receive Communion, then. His own Bishop in Scranton refused him communion in that diocese because of his support for abortion.


I so hope he gets denied communion. Liberals would go into seizures.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

I so hope he gets denied communion. Liberals would go into seizures.

He has been already, but being denied by the Pope himself would be amazing!

[No Free Beer]

GO FRANCIS!!!!

[DamianTV]

So would refusing life saving medical treatment for someone whose time had come be considered suicide?

[kcchiefs6465]

So would refusing life saving medical treatment for someone whose time had come be considered suicide?
Good question. I assume you mean assisted suicide?

I am not Catholic but am curious as to the answer to that question. I think it is sometime cruel to prolong life in an individual especially when they are in pain and do not wish to live any longer. Assisted suicide is a right that should be granted to whoever wishes to partake, though especially in terminal cases. I've read stories of a husband granting his ailing wife's last wishes and being put in jail. Or visa versa. Having seen some people go from the likes of cancer I can say that I will not be going down that road myself. Whether that means I would want someone to assist me I doubt. Though a pain free death would be appreciated/wanted.

[devil21]

I didnt read thread.



Francis is also anti-euthanasia: “Today,” he wrote, “elderly people are discarded when, in reality, they are the seat of wisdom of the society. The right to life means allowing people to live and not killing, allowing them to grow, to eat, to be educated, to be healed, and to be permitted to die with dignity.”


Sounds like new pope is in favor of making "food" a right, "education" a right, "health care" a right, and a whole bunch of other stuff that isn't a right in this country under the Constitution. You have a right to your life but not a right to whatever you wish to sustain your life if others have to provide it to you. Is Pope Francis a commie?

[gwax23]

Good I keep liking this guy more and more.

[Shane Harris]

I'd like to congratulate Francis on (as far as I've seen) starting his first RPF tangent issue debate thread! Here's to tradition!

(Thumbs up for denying communion to Pro-Choice politicians though)

[Shane Harris]

Now if we can only get the RCC to deny communion to pro-unjustwar politicians.

[Todd]

I think it is sickening and immoral how people who are beyond any ability to care for themselves, pass on knowledge, or enjoy their family are kept alive with machines, drugs, and other artificial life extension. I do not want to live as an infant or vegetable in a nursing home. When my body begins to fail, I plan to start taking risks that are likely to kill me at my age. Extreme downhill ski-ing in remote mountain wilderness, whitewater kayaking on remote glacier melts, sailing across oceans on small one-man sailing craft, etc. I hope one of these adventures will kill me before I end up in a nursing home, but barring that, I have written a living will that I am not to be cared for if I am no longer capable of remembering what I had for breakfast and cannot wipe my own ass.


Yep. Right now I'm trying to take care of my body, but when I know I have only so much time left.......... Going to die eating a Philly Cheese steak, with a side of Bacon Double Cheesburger and a Pranqster Belgian Pale Ale

[angelatc]

Why would you want to ban contraceptives? Abortion plls, yeah, but contraception?

I'm not of this mindset, but the far right wing of the pro-choice crowd believes that a fertilized egg is a life. So using birth control or the morning after pill is, to them, the moral equivalent as aborting a viable late term pregnancy.

[angelatc]

I didnt read thread.



Sounds like new pope is in favor of making "food" a right, "education" a right, "health care" a right, and a whole bunch of other stuff that isn't a right in this country under the Constitution. You have a right to your life but not a right to whatever you wish to sustain your life if others have to provide it to you. Is Pope Francis a commie?

Commie is probably over the line, but most Catholics are Democrats, if that tells you anything.

"Mommy" is a Catholic. She did not stand with Rand.

[angelatc]

Dying with dignity? You mean crapping in a bag...while screaming? Elderly people are discarded? You mean they are allowed the dignity and freedom to end their own life?

The problem is - who do you trust to draw the line? Now that government runs health care, the right to die is suddenly the responsibility to die. We have a whole generation of people who don't care enough about their spouse and children to stick around, and then moaning only about their financial losses when the marriage ends.

A government that refuses to treat people over the age of 90, or 80, or 70, or 65 because there's just not enough money isn't unthinkable.

And the right to life is one of the core tenants of a freedom philosophy.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm surprised so few see the danger in the Catholic Church punishing it's members who happen to be politicians and cast votes that can be interpreted as indirectly enabling someone else (non-Catholic) to commit a crime as defined by the Catholic Church.

Part of the agreement that took place when JFK was being elected was that American politicians would not be constrained in any way by the Catholic Church. Many Catholic politicians obviously have no problems in violating the spirit or letter of Catholic law, but others may feel constrained.

It is one thing for a church to preach, teach and have rules, it's another to punish certain members for violation (no matter how convoluted that connection is). In essence, the Catholic Church has made a given position by politicians illegal for it's members. And let's not forget, this is not taking part in a an abortion, having an abortion or recommending abortion for anyone. This is just voting to prevent the Federal government from making something illegal.

Is this a good precedence? The slippery slope is obvious.

-Guns are sometimes used for murder. Is a Catholic politician under penalty if they do not vote to ban guns?
-Without health-care in certain instances, a person might die. Does that mean that any Catholic politician that votes against Obamacare will be punished by the church?
-If the Church requires that all women be covered from head to toe in a veil, should all member politicians be required to vote for enforcement of that rule on all?

And the long range "solution" that will be at the bottom of this slope? State Religion.

[enjerth]

I'm a bit surprised that somebody with "Libertarian" in their username would take that position.

I agree with you ethically, but legally I think you do indeed have a right to do any victimless action. Killing yourself leaves no victim. If someone consents to being killed, there's also no victim in much the same way as organ sale, drug use, prostitution exc. has no victim.

Other than organ sale, which I have no moral problem with, I would morally object to any of the actions that I described in that last paragraph. But since there's no victim, you have no moral right to stop them from doing it. In my view, and some, although not all other libertarians, abortion would not fit in that paragraph at all because unlike prostitution, organ sale, exc. abortion actually does have an innocent victim.

I disagree. Someone who "consents" to be killed may generally be viewed as mentally unstable, at best. Just because someone consents to die doesn't mean we should in any way aid them.

We are always to strive for life, for survival, for helping each other overcome the difficulties we all share. Death is not something that ideally, in a libertarian society, we should easily consent to under any circumstance.

The Jewish ideal is proven to me more and more every day. We are quickly advancing towards a society where we may soon conquer death.

Who wouldn't want to hold on to a loved one with the hope that we could see that fulfilled in their lives... literally, any day now, if we can just get our act together as a people and overcome instead of shuffle our troubles?

Why shouldn't we hold on to that hope, in this ... potentially ... wonderful age?

[Christian Liberty]

I disagree. Someone who "consents" to be killed may generally be viewed as mentally unstable, at best. Just because someone consents to die doesn't mean we should in any way aid them.

I didn't say aid them. I'm certainly not going to. I said that someone who does aid them is not a criminal.

[enjerth]

I didn't say aid them. I'm certainly not going to. I said that someone who does aid them is not a criminal.

Perhaps, if it's later demonstrated that they were, obviously, not mentally stable, and they came to their "aid" too easily?

You must remember, it still may have the appearance of murder. And I don't believe there should be any particular legal framework to protect them from such a thing.

[TokenLibertarianGuy]

Commie is probably over the line, but most Catholics are Democrats, if that tells you anything.

"Mommy" is a Catholic. She did not stand with Rand.

Most 'Catholics' aren't Catholic.

[kcchiefs6465]

The problem is - who do you trust to draw the line? Now that government runs health care, the right to die is suddenly the responsibility to die. We have a whole generation of people who don't care enough about their spouse and children to stick around, and then moaning only about their financial losses when the marriage ends.

A government that refuses to treat people over the age of 90, or 80, or 70, or 65 because there's just not enough money isn't unthinkable.

And the right to life is one of the core tenants of a freedom philosophy.
True. Do you take issue with a terminally ill man not wanting to suffer or not wanting his family to see him suffer for his final weeks/months/or years and asking to be euthanized? Having seen a man with lung cancer go through hell his final year as of now I would not be partaking it. Nor would I want friends and families last memory of me to be in that condition. In a truly free society, I would expect that I would be allowed to take control over my life and end it if I saw fit. I would either way, but I would prefer for a panless death instead of having to take it into my own hands. From what I've read of Jack Kervorkian's work I do not disapprove. After all, who are we to tell anyone how much pain they should have to endure before passing, when after all, the death is inevitable and in the cases I'd specifically advocate the right for an assisted suicide, death is soon.

[eating_nachos]

Most 'Catholics' aren't Catholic.


Yep, CINOS.

According to Pew Research Catholics are evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. When you break it down by race the majority of white Catholics vote Republican and the majority of Hispanics vote Democrat.

[bolil]

Well, the way I see it: The Catholic Church is an organization based on voluntary association. The Catholic Church considers certain thing deal breakers, such as abortion and suicide. If the Catholic Church decides that people who advocate for or participate in are not welcome, that is their right. I don't see Pope Francis I advocating for Catholic takeover of secular institutions just saying that if you happen to be an authority figure in these institutions, and you either sit idly by, condone, advocate for, or practice certain things you are no longer in good standing as regards the Catholic Church.

I can dig it. Pelosi and her vile ilk are no longer welcome to take communion in the Catholic Church, unless they repent or what not. Another layer of deception stripped away, this is a good thing.

[kcchiefs6465]

I disagree. Someone who "consents" to be killed may generally be viewed as mentally unstable, at best. Just because someone consents to die doesn't mean we should in any way aid them.

We are always to strive for life, for survival, for helping each other overcome the difficulties we all share. Death is not something that ideally, in a libertarian society, we should easily consent to under any circumstance.

The Jewish ideal is proven to me more and more every day. We are quickly advancing towards a society where we may soon conquer death.

Who wouldn't want to hold on to a loved one with the hope that we could see that fulfilled in their lives... literally, any day now, if we can just get our act together as a people and overcome instead of shuffle our troubles?

Why shouldn't we hold on to that hope, in this ... potentially ... wonderful age?
As to the first part of mentally unstable, that would be where my belief that assisted suicide is a right draws the line. For a terminally ill person who is in constant pain, [cancer is really nasty in it's final stages, even with painkillers and drugs] to consciously say I do not want to live through this and I do not want to have my family see me like this to want to end his life, I think we should make all accomodations to make it as painless as possible and respectful for the person. I understand some religions would find this to be wrong and they should not be forced to do something that they think is morally sick. There are people who would willfully help the person end their life if they were in pain and wished to do so. Whether that be a family member, or a stranger.

As to living forever, I'd rather not. The future doesn't look that particularly promising. To see my kids grow sure, but life is precious because of death. As in, people would take for granted the beauty of life if they were guaranteed to live forever. Only the super rich [those who create 'everlasting' lines of credit] will be 'gifted' with a longer life. I could see petri organs and medical breakthroughs, but I don't see the average person being able to attain them. I probably wouldn't want to anyways.

[enjerth]

I think we should make all accomodations to make it as painless as possible and respectful for the person.

Absolutely! I agree!

The ideal, of course, is to not have the burdensome, unnavigable and costly mess that we know as health care. Advancing technology could certainly get there quickly if we... you know... stop spending trillions on killing machines and... you know... do productive things with the work of our hands instead.

What's in greater demand than health, today? If we could have some freedom, we might quickly develop an exploding market to reach out and solve such difficult problems. This thread is all about shifting focus away from creating death, and instead confronting and addressing what is killing us, imho.

[bolil]

Meh, why does someone seeking to kill themselves need help, from the state of all places. I don't think it should be illegal, which is ridiculous. Even failed attempts should not result in forced psychiatric help. Besides, what line is their to draw regarding "mentally unstable" people? They are still people, with every right anyone else has. Suicide seems to be a right, it is one of many precipitated by freewill.

I cannot understand suicide on these grounds: Try and fathom how many people came before you, think about the chances. How many times one of your ancestors cheated death in one form or another? Winning the UNFATHOMABLE lottery. That is life man. Take, for example, the sex act. We are all told how lucky we are that it was OUR sperm that reached and fertilized that egg. Something like 1 in 400,000,000. Now, how about the chances your (2)parents sperm reached and fertilized their respected eggs: 1 in 800,000,000. Now take your (4)grandparents: 1 in 1,600,000,000. I don't have the math skills or a graphing calculator to work out the odds taken together just two generations back, but as you can see your existence is the longest shot spot on. You are the target, and also the bullet.

If someone for some reason decides they no longer want to live there should be no way to stop them from ending their own existence on this plane. That being said, you don't need assistance to complete a suicide, and any direct assistance given should at least result in an investigation.

(Even trying to think about 100 generations back makes my brain hurt the dullards pain)

[Christian Liberty]

Perhaps, if it's later demonstrated that they were, obviously, not mentally stable, and they came to their "aid" too easily?

You must remember, it still may have the appearance of murder. And I don't believe there should be any particular legal framework to protect them from such a thing.

I'm not sure how "Mentally stable" is usually defined, but I would definitely draw the line at "Nobody can consent for you to die except you." Your family and friends can't, the government can't...

As for Obamacare, that's why we should abolish Obamacare.

[kcchiefs6465]

Meh, why does someone seeking to kill themselves need help, from the state of all places. I don't think it should be illegal, which is ridiculous. Even failed attempts should not result in forced psychiatric help. Besides, what line is their to draw regarding "mentally unstable" people? They are still people, with every right anyone else has. Suicide seems to be a right, it is one of many precipitated by freewill.

My thing is that the average cannot get their hands on drugs that would end their lives painlessly. A state controlled monopoly on medical care would mean that the state would have to be involved in your painless, respectful, assisted suicide as well. Someone could easily shoot themselves in the head, but that is miles apart from being injected with a drug and dying painlessly. The body would also be in better shape for a respectable funeral. I don't know, I think people should at least have that dignity. I knew a man who had to crush up his painkillers and put them into a 'container' [resevoir?... I'm not sure exactly what they call it] which had a hose connected to his neck to even drink them. He could barely speak and died in a lot of pain. I would not want to go out that way. I would not go out that way. It just seems to be the humane thing to do. Say a prayer for the man and assist him on his way. I think that God would understand.

[bolil]

I understand, and would even agree in cases of sudden trauma that leaves a person unable to carry out their own will. But they had better have a living will of some sort, otherwise no go. I don't know what God understands, only what my conscience dictates.

I was not entirely correct when I said one does not need assistance, there are cases when one does: paralyzation, extreme weakness, brain death, etc. To prepare for these cases people should write out documents detailing their desires and designating a (single agent) to carry them out. This agent will be investigated either way (not charged, unless fraud is detected).

There is a world of painless methods between drugs and gun blasts, but I will not go into them here.

Even in cases of a totally incapacitated individual the courts should have no place in assisting but should investigate any person/firms/ or doctors that do. In other words, if you would want to die should you be totally incapacitated you had better write out some documents now.

So: Suicide would not be illegal, it would considered a right. Like other rights, however, it could only be practiced by the individual to whom it belongs. I cannot speak for you, I cannot act for you, I cannot bear arms for you, I cannot suicide for you. There would be cases wherein a person is incapacitated and no longer able to manipulate the world in a physical way that is in congruence with their will. In such cases said person would need to have left a document, with many witnesses, designating a person(s) to act for them should they lose the ability to act for themselves. These persons, and this document, shall be investigated thoroughly prior to any action. A chooser of suicide should also be able to choose recipients for their organs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to legislate against free will.

when I use "you" I don't mean you. I will try to be more conscientious and use "when one" in the future.

[Lucille]

Buchanan (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/pope-francis-vs-america/):


One hears that President Obama will send to the official installation of the Holy Father to represent America our ranking Catholic officeholders, Vice President Joe Biden, along with former Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

One wonders what His Holiness will be thinking as he greets these ornaments of American Catholicism, both of whom regard Roe v. Wade, which has resulted in 53 million abortion deaths, as a milestone of progress for women’s rights and homosexual marriage as the civil rights cause of the 21st century.