Moral Principles for Catholic Voters

Originally posted by ivanhoe
[b]Palynka: "So I'm not a person of good will."

I never stated such a thing and I never implied such a thing either .... please.

"..... what you've detailed there as principles are basically meaningless because they are too abstract and general."

Are they ? I do not agree.

Palynka: "So, unless you detail what you mean by those principles, able to follow and adhere to the reasoning in question, because of this very fact.[/b]

Please read my point about things like 'valuing human life and dignity' and how almost everyone agrees with such statements, even if they believe that statement entails completely different things. This is essential to my point that they are 'meaningless' (obviously an over-exaggeration of my part, but still such declarations would be of little value beyond symbolic)

Edit - And I'm born in the EU country with the highest percentage of Roman Catholics bar Poland and I'm quite familiar with RCC doctrine, even if I'm not one (probably still am in the official statistics, though).

Originally posted by Palynka
Please read my point about things like 'valuing human life and dignity' and how almost everyone agrees with such statements, even if they believe that statement entails completely different things. This is essential to my point that they are 'meaningless' (obviously an over-exaggeration of my part, but still such declarations would be of little value beyond ...[text shortened]... RCC doctrine, even if I'm not one (probably still am in the official statistics, though).

The following site explains in more depth what is meant by the importance of the human person and the notion of what is called "common good"

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/social_justice/sj00187.html

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The following site explains in more depth what is meant by the importance of the human person and the notion of what is called "common good"

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/social_justice/sj00187.html

I'm sorry to see you're not willing to discuss my points. So be it.

Originally posted by Palynka
Please read my point about things like 'valuing human life and dignity' and how almost everyone agrees with such statements, even if they believe that statement entails completely different things. This is essential to my point that they are 'meaningless' (obviously an over-exaggeration of my part, but still such declarations would be of little value beyond RCC doctrine, even if I'm not one (probably still am in the official statistics, though).

What about the following principle ?


The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers

In a marketplace where too often the quarterly bottom line takes precedence over the rights of workers, we believe that the economy must serve people, not the other way around. Work is more than a way to make a living; it is a form of continuing participation in God's creation. If the dignity of work is to be protected, then the basic rights of workers must be respected—the right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, to organize and join unions, to private property, and to economic initiative. Respecting these rights promotes an economy that protects human life, defends human rights, and advances the well-being of all.


I've chosen the above principle because the liberal market ideology is conquering Europe in a fast pace.

I think the above principle about workers' rights is a very important one in the Social Doctrine of the Church seen in the perspective of present developments in Europe and the pressure under which the rights of workers are.

This is a very clear and positive position the Church takes and goes way beyond symbolism of any kind.

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm sorry to see you're not willing to discuss my points. So be it.

???

Originally posted by ivanhoe
You forget the simple fact that the unborn child is one of the most vulnerable human beings. Looking around you, you'll establish that indeed this section of the human family is in need of protection and care. Mothers who have become pregnant should not get the advice to abort, to kill, their child, but help and care should be provided to them in order to ma ...[text shortened]... uestion are also vulnerable people and need care and protection, especially when they are poor.

rape victims?

Originally posted by Rolfey
rape victims?

They also need protection and care.

I assume that you are referring to the possibility that a rape victim gets pregnant and that performing abortion should be morally justified because the pregnancy is the result of this rape.

You cannot bring justice, protection and care to a pregnant rape victim by committing yet another crime and that is killing the child which is totally innocent of the rape. The raper should be punished, not the innocent child. The mother in question should receive all the support and help she needs in order to be able to give birth to the child, then it should be decided whether the mother and her family raises the child themselves or put it up for adoption. I'm not claiming this is the easy way for either of the parties involved, I'm claiming this is the just and morally correct way for all the parties involved.

You see that all the members of the human family are being protected by the Social Doctrine of the Church, not just a segment of it.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
They also need protection and care.

I assume that you are referring to the possibility that a rape victim gets pregnant and that performing abortion should be morally justified because the pregnancy is the result of this rape.

You cannot bring justice, protection and care to a pregnant rape victim by committing yet another crime and that is killing t ...[text shortened]... man family are being protected by the Social Doctrine of the Church, not just a segment of it.

I wonder if you would be so pious if it was your daughter/mother/sister/grandmother that was the victim.
I agree that it is certainly not the child's fault the rapist decided to attack his victim however I do not believe that with today's technology the mother should be forced into bringing her attackers offspring into her life as a daily reminder of her torment. Please don't blame the technology - she could abort throwing herself down some stairs.

Originally posted by Rolfey
I wonder if you would be so pious if it was your daughter/mother/sister/grandmother that was the victim.
I agree that it is certainly not the child's fault the rapist decided to attack his victim however I do not believe that with today's technology the mother should be forced into bringing her attackers offspring into her life as a daily reminder of her torment. Please don't blame the technology - she could abort throwing herself down some stairs.

If it was your daughter it would be your grandchild you were killing. If it was your mother it would be your brother or sister you were killing.

It has NOTHING to do with being pious. It has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with protecting the Right to Life of an innocent unborn human being. I repeat, I do not claim to choose the easy way, but I do claim to follow the morally correct way for ALL the parties involved, including the unborn child and including the mother to be.

The child can be given up for adoption if the mother could not face the possibility of raising the child herself. Her family could also take that task of her shoulders.

Technology does not have any bearing on the issue of the moral acceptability of performing abortion.

If pregnant women threaten to commit suicide they should be helped and cared for on the road to delivering the child. They should not be given the advice or encouraged to commit a crime.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If it was your daughter it would be your grandchild you were killing. If it was your mother it would be your brother or sister you were killing.

It has NOTHING to do with being pious. It has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with protecting the Right to Life of an innocent unborn human being. I repeat, I do not claim to choose the easy way, but I ...[text shortened]... ad to delivering the child. They should not be given the advice or encouraged to commit a crime.

Species membership is neither necessary nor sufficient for having rights, Ivanhoe, and you know it. Your view has everything to do with religion. Your theo-teleological views undergird your presupposition that rights to life and dignity accord to beings for whom there is nothing it is like to be. For the life of me I can't understand why you would prefer the suffering of a woman, an entity that actually has interests and projects and a practical identity to the life of an entity that for the majority of its gestation has no mentality at all; that can't suffer, that has no interests.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If it was your daughter it would be your grandchild you were killing. If it was your mother it would be your brother or sister you were killing.

It has NOTHING to do with being pious. It has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with protecting the Right to Life of an innocent unborn human being. I repeat, I do not claim to choose the easy way, but I ...[text shortened]... ad to delivering the child. They should not be given the advice or encouraged to commit a crime.

I'm calling you out Ivanhoe.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=32043&page=19
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=32043&page=25

&c &c

Almost a year ago, when you brought this topic up, you insisted I present my position
on the issue. I did so. You also claimed that you would define identity as it is essential
to you claim that your presentation is a non-religious one. You did not do so, even though
I reminded you a few times over.

You insist that Bbarr's position is flawed, yet you provide no argument that doesn't rest
on the authority of the Church and its theological position.

Your assertions are nothing but that and your insistence that Bbarr adopt it is nothing but
theocratic bluster.

Either play ball by defining and defending your terms, or expect people to sneer at your
arrogance.

Nemesio

Originally posted by ivanhoe
If it was your daughter it would be your grandchild you were killing. If it was your mother it would be your brother or sister you were killing.

It has NOTHING to do with being pious. It has NOTHING to do with religion. It has to do with protecting the Right to Life of an innocent unborn human being. I repeat, I do not claim to choose the easy way, but I ...[text shortened]... ad to delivering the child. They should not be given the advice or encouraged to commit a crime.

your view has everthing to do with being pious and religious. A ball of cells is NOT the same thing as a child. It catagorically cannot feel pain, as it has no nervous system, and therefore cannot suffer as a person can and is not entitled to the prevention thereof. Why is it always men that bring up these anti-abortion arguements? I say if you don't like abortion, don't haave one, and leave the rest of us to do what we want with our bodies.

Originally posted by Palynka
Keep this line of thought and you'll soon find out that all religious people should create or vote for religious parties.

Not necessarily. A non-religious party can happen to agree with many core social doctrines of a religion.

Originally posted by bbarr
Species membership is neither necessary nor sufficient for having rights, Ivanhoe, and you know it. Your view has everything to do with religion. Your theo-teleological views undergird your presupposition that rights to life and dignity accord to beings for whom there is nothing it is like to be. For the life of me I can't understand why you would prefer th ...[text shortened]... e majority of its gestation has no mentality at all; that can't suffer, that has no interests.

Species membership is neither necessary nor sufficient for having rights, Ivanhoe, and you know it.

Only because your definition of 'person' (as a bearer of rights) decrees it.

Your view has everything to do with religion.

This is a common ad hominem attack levelled at pro-lifers so that their arguments needn't be examined.

For the life of me I can't understand why you would prefer ... majority of its gestation has no mentality at all; that can't suffer, that has no interests

Because the test of humanity is how we treat our weakest, most vulnerable members.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Only because your definition of 'person' (as a bearer of rights) decrees it.

How about either Ivanhoe or you provide a definition of 'person' that stands up to
rationale that isn't based on theological dogma (such as the existence of the soul)?

Ivanhoe never produced (even though he said he would), so I am not holding out
much hope on his end. I predict your posts will take the same sort of meandering
between 'logical' and 'dogmatic' that your discussion about the Church (infallible...
no wait...only authoritative...no wait...we changed out minds) tends to go, but
who knows, it may yield something.

Nemesio