Should the Church be silent ?

Originally posted by Nemesio
[bThe number of arguments has no bearing of the validity of the arguments. They all depend on what you take as axiomatic truths.

Those axiomatic truths which are rooted in theology have no basis for
the formation of law in the US....
Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by Nemesio
...
This statement is absolutely absurd. The wall between Church and
State is one of the fundaments upon which the United States rests.
It is at the root of the abortion debate.
...

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
...There are a lot of people against abortion, and vehemently so. When
that group of people presents an internally consistent philosophical
and scientific argument demonstrating that the entity which forms at
conception is entitled to ...[text shortened]... l authority (unless we want to establish
a theocracy).

Nemesio

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Please re-read my post(s) when you have more time and then come back with a more considered response.

EDIT: And note that Dignitatis Humanae is also part of Catholic teaching.

Originally posted by Coletti
That assertion is based on you philosophical belief system. Saying it has no basis does not make it so.

My assertion is based on the Constitution of the US and is
applicable only in the context of US Law. It is not representative
of a belief system that I personally hold, but is at the fundament of
US Law as it is enacted, applied, and adjudicated.

Originally posted by Coletti
If the State is going to make law - it must be based on moral principles - there is no way to avoid that. No wall can separate moral principles and civil law.

Absolutely. Moral principles can and do derive independently from
theological axioms. The ones that merit attention and laws are the
ones which are non-contradictory (for example, the pro-slavery stance
is riddled with contradictions and, as such, was a weak moral theory).

Given that the moral principle of abortion, choice, personhood and all
that is entailed in the debate is very hotly argued and given that I
have yet to see a single argument against abortion that didn't involve
a theological framework (a soul or Scripture citation), I see no reason
why, despite my personal feelings about the issue, a law should be
passed preventing this. I may be appalled at the idea, but that does
not entail that it should be illegal. Immorality and illegality are very
separate issues, in any event.

When I read a compelling argument against abortion that doesn't
entail theology, you will find that I will be the first to adopt it.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Coletti
If the State is going to make law - it must be based on moral principles - there is no way to avoid that. No wall can separate moral principles and civil law.

noOriginally posted by ivanhoe

The last quote you gave is very essential to consider if you are contemplating life and death issues like abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I am going to presume that you think pornography is a violation of
some moral principle. Are you suggesting that it should be illegal?

How about adultery? Should that be illegal as well?

If not, then I've just found some wall between moral principles and
civil law.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm thinking about fair pay, theft, taxes, etc. All of which can go in either direction if you assume utilitarian viewpoint or purely secular world view. That is not the case for a Christian.

Also, private property laws, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. The principles which are the basis for our civil law, are a reflection of the principles e ...[text shortened]... our founding fathers - with a few exceptions - that formed the freedoms we have today in the US.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Okay then, Ivanhoe, I am opposed to abortion. I was born to an unwed 16-year-old mother in 1972, who had the courage to give birth to me in spite of the fact that it meant she couldn't go to college. Of the many ways I try to honor her, I try to honor that first decision she made that meant that I would exist.

I'm surprised to realize that we're ...[text shortened]...
Funny - "Catholic" is greek for "universal". It's not very universal. Just a thought.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Originally posted by Coletti
[b]That assertion is based on you philosophical belief system. Saying it has no basis does not make it so.

My assertion is based on the Constitution of the US and is
applicable only in the cont ...[text shortened]... gy, you will find that I will be the first to adopt it.

Nemesio[/b]

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Nemesio: "When I read a compelling argument against abortion that doesn't
entail theology, you will find that I will be the first to adopt it."


Libertarians for Life.

http://www.l4l.org/


A secular case against abortion.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/debates/secularist/abortion/roth1.html

Originally posted by frogstomp
HUH?

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/calvin.htm

http://latter-rain.com/eccles/calvin.htm

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/western/bldef_calvinjohn.htm

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect03.htm

Originally posted by kirksey957
Have you ever encountered a situation (or heard of one) where abortion would be permissible?

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm thinking about fair pay, theft, taxes, etc. All of which can go in either direction if you assume utilitarian viewpoint or purely secular world view. That is not the case for a Christian.

Also, private property laws, freedom of ...[text shortened]... few exceptions - that formed the freedoms we have today in the US.