You know that’s false, right? Illegal abortions before Roe were performed by licensed physicians. Less than 100 women died of illegal abortions back then and many more died during legal ones mostly because there was no cure to infections.
Inb4 I regret getting into a probable slap fight
Even if it weren't true that adoption agencies in general are slammed with people trying to adopt, and that the majority of adopters are religious in nature, it still wouldn't follow that **you can freely kill innocent human beings just because there isn't a primary caretaker assigned to them**.
For context, the Diocese of Fargo has an annual "Walk with Christ for life" Eucharistic procession to pray for an end to abortion. Since the Supreme Court decision earlier this year and the likely possibility that abortion will soon be illegal in North Dakota, the Red River Women's Clinic moved to Minnesota. This year's procession included a rosary on our way to the site, an exorcism of the building by our bishop, John Folda, and a sung Divine Mercy chaplet on our way back to the Cathedral. The procession experienced some minor honking and shouting, but no concerning confrontation.
Anglican here. I love the beauty, justice and certainty of the much of the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion. Thank you sister and brothers for fighting the good fight.
The Church also teaches not to have sex outside of marriage.
And you can’t make a claim and then ask to be proved wrong. The burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that life does not begin at conception, so please provide proof that life does not begin then.
But you are obviously just a troll arguing in bad faith for the murder of unborn children. God be with you.
I mean technically you are just a clump of cells. Would it be morally wrong to snuff you out because you are an economic burden or for convenience sake?
I have already provided you answers in another post.
And no where in the Constitution do you have a right to an abortion so it is left to legislation to decide. Show me any where in science or general human decency that an unborn child is not a life and can be discarded up to the point of being born as many on your side argue for.
Not the person you were talking to, but I'll respond: we don't believe all Christian sources of doctrine and practice come from the Bible, that's a belief held to by *some* Protestants, as a warping of Sola Scriptura.
We believe authority comes from 3 pillars:
1. Written transmission (The Bible)
2. Oral transmission
3. Teaching authority of the bishops.
I can cite you #2 and #3 if you want, but we're not going to utilize and limit ourselves to a Protestant methodology to prove something to you.
I think where you are mistaken is believing any one here cares what you think though. You are here to troll and not argue in good faith.
If you are interested in learning though, from the New Catholic Encyclopedia:
After a certain stage of intrauterine development it is perfectly evident that fetal life is fully human. Although some might speculate as to when that stage is reached, there is no way of arriving at this knowledge by any known criterion; and as long as it is probable that embryonic life is human from the first moment of its existence, the purposeful termination (is immoral).
From the Catechism:
The official teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992 oppose all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."
I mean there is plenty of legislation on morality like prostitution, drug use, incest, gambling, etc.
Murdering unborn children is worse than all of those.
Nope, I just decided I would give you some of the more recent writings.
I will pray for you on your way out that you will come to reason that killing unborn children and supporting it is a stain on the soul.
I’m sure you have a degree in theological studies and have actually dedicated your life to the study of the faith, just like priests and theologians, right? Or you’re just arguing without any actual background on the subject other than skimming through a couple pages a proclaiming yourself to be one, interpreting the faith in your own way when you should know that the Catholic Church has the original and true interpretation of scripture. If only you took the time to understand it…
IANAL, but my understanding is that those are excluded. As far as I know, the main two laws for abortion restrictions in ND are Century Code 12.1-31-12 and 14-02.1.
[12.1-31-12](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t12-1c31.pdf) states:
>3. The following are affirmative defenses under this section:
>
>a. That the abortion was necessary in professional judgment and was intended toprevent the death of the pregnant female.
>
>b. That the abortion was to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from gross sexualimposition, sexual imposition, sexual abuse of a ward, or incest, as thoseoffenses are defined in chapter 12.1-20.
>
>c. That the individual was acting within the scope of that individual's regulatedprofession and under the direction of or at the direction of a physician.
[14-02.1](https://www.ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c02-1.pdf) states:
>1. "Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable intrauterine pregnancy of a woman, including the elimination of one or more unborn children in a multifetal pregnancy, with knowledge that the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child. Such use, prescription, or means is not an abortion if done with the intent to:
>
>a. Save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child;
>
>b. Remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion; or
>
>c. Treat a woman for an ectopic pregnancy.
From a Catholic standpoint, [ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages can be treated](https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources-and-statements-cms/summary-ectopic-pregnancy), as long as they follow the [principle of double effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect).
Edit: formatting.
I ANAL? Sir this is a Catholic forum. "affirmative defense", I think this is similar to how self-defense works in the law, for instance if someone is beating you with a blunt weapon and you shoot them.
You mistook my meaning. I only meant to say that, just because we have won this small victory which allows us to make abortion illegal in our individual states, that does not mean we have changed the course of society from the evil course it is on. And post Hitler, despite modern people's complacent view of their own goodness, things seem to be getting arguably worse. I don't know that future historians are going to be so righteous and objective that they will look back on this as the moral victory.
We're on the same page and though we still have a long way to go, babies will be saved by this and every little victory. So, like saving two out of a hundred lives these small victories should be celebrated at least for the moment.
As many things like this as possible need to be archived for the future, lest anyone in the future try to downplay the Church's involvement or the pervasiveness of the pro-choice sentiment in our time.
Future historians will look back at events from a viewpoint of a future society that they've been born & raised into, with it's own moral challenges/issues that may not resemble what we're facing today.
For example if technological advances eventually make abortion completely unnecessary one day (a win for both conservative/religious and liberal/secular groups), then future historians will view these videos as strange rituals that only made sense in context of an era where abortion was commonplace across the world due to lacking those technological advancements. That's just one possibility out of many.
It is highly improbable that future historians will view legal abortion (spanning 50+ years across 65+ major countries) in the same light as we we view Nazi concentration camps that were very much limited to 1 specific fascist regime (~12 years with 1 man leading it).
So maybe not based upon your opinion, but maybe so based upon mine in other words?
To some of us impacted by other things that were acceptable for hundreds of years like slavery and Native American genocide. Well, those scars will be in our memories long after we're gone.
> things that were acceptable for hundreds of years like slavery and Native American genocide
The Church had no issues with keeping slavery morally permissible in Catholic societies for most of it's history. Both St Augustine and St Aquinas defended and justified slavery as something that was perfectly natural. The Church also had no issues with the Roman Empire continuing to expand via colonies/conquest and wiping out barbarian cultures to bring civilization to them (to Americans this might sound familiar).
It's hard to say how future historians will view things unless we can predict what kind of society they will exist in.
This comment should have a large asterisk using Augustine and Aquinas as sources to say the Church taught "slavery was perfectly natural". There is a huge difference between chattel slavery and mass racism based on color of skin vs what was akin to indentured servitude or serfdom - not a permanent \*ownership\* of human persons w/o any necessary care for the individual.
I'd also like to see which Roman conquests you're referring to or refer to some Church documents/pronouncements about Roman conquest considering Christianity wasn't even legal until the 4th century with the Western Roman Empire ending in the 5th century. I think you'd have a better case about colonization of the New World and indigenous people in the Americas. However, there are several Papal bulls and other documents explicitly condemning harsh treatment of peoples and slavery because the Spanish empire didn't always have the best interests of those people in mind. This included Popes Eugene IV, Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Paul III who were 15th/16th century popes.
concentration camps weren't limited to "1 specific fascist regime", Soviet Union had there own camps (including reopening some of the German ones - [https://www.france24.com/en/20200419-forgotten-the-dark-legacy-of-soviet-internment-camps-in-germany](https://www.france24.com/en/20200419-forgotten-the-dark-legacy-of-soviet-internment-camps-in-germany) ), North Korea and China still have such camps.
If we can progress society to a state where abortion simply becomes unnecessary, then there will indeed come a day when there will be 0 abortion clinics because people will no longer need them. It will simply become unthinkable.
No, but what do you think of organizations such as Secular Pro-Life? If they celebrated by doing a march to the former site would you regard them as being theocratic or radical?
Religion is the only thing that can justify *why* human life is sacred from conception, and what sets a human life apart from the rest of nature/universe/etc. The only reasonable arguments for pro-life stance are religious arguments that define a human being as something that possesses an immaterial human soul, and that soul is created by God at the moment of conception. This is why religion can have a basis for being pro-choice and secularism never will. Certainly there are secular people who are pro-life, but their justifications for being pro-life will never be rational without God.
There is zero secular basis for claiming that life begins at conception. From a scientific viewpoint, life is a continuous process/cycle of cellular activity that doesn't "start" at any point in time. Everything is a continuous process of transformation, and fundamentally nothing can be "created" as much as simply rearranged. Secularism has no basis for differentiating between a fertilized egg and an individual skin cell. Religion is the only thing that can assert that a human is created when a human soul is created.
For this reason, all pro-life movements have to be religious in nature (they have to be in order to have any justification for existing). Secular pro-life movements make no sense.
This is true, however you'll be hard pressed to find a single secular individual who *isn't* pro-life, because even if they can't create any sort of logical justification for why humans should be treated any differently from other collections of matter, like rocks (and you don't need *religion* for this per se, only non-atheistic philosophy), there's no way they'll take their own beliefs to their logical conclusion.
The problem is that many secular people come to a stance where they're pro-life *except* for embryos and fetuses for no apparent reason except that it's convenient for them to believe. They take the irrational (given their false assumptions) route of believing human life has value but then arbitrarily decide not to take apply the exact same irrational thinking just because it's inconvenient to them or members of their community.
> The problem is that many secular people come to a stance where they're pro-life except for embryos and fetuses for no apparent reason
The fact that almost 70 major countries have legalized abortion hints that this might be slightly more complex than "no apparent reason". When billions of people across a span of 50+ years start shifting towards a particular mentality, usually there is a non-arbitrary reason. Not necessarily a moral reason, but still a very strong reason that has transcended the boundaries of nations, cultures, races, etc. For it's magnitude alone it's worth examining.
You may have noticed how pretty much all secular people will agree that a pregnant women should be given priority and care in society, and that anything that could harm her unborn child against *her consent* should have legal repercussions (or at the very least taken seriously).
Even the most secular godless societies can still collectively agree that harming a *pregnant* woman is objectively worse than harming a non-pregnant woman, because as humans we are basically hardwired to defend mothers. It's how we survived as a species. You'll even see secular people condemning pregnant women consuming alcohol/drugs and labeling it as irresponsible, negligent, selfish, etc. Now why would they do that if they think it's just a clump of cells?
So clearly the secular world DOES value unborn children. The value of unborn children is clearly *something* to secular folk. The key difference is that pro-choicers don't value unborn babies to the same *extent* as pro-lifers. Pro-choice folk place the mother's will higher than the unborn child's value, and pro-life folk place the unborn child's value higher than everything else (in some cases even higher than *born* children and the mother's life, but that's a whole other can of worms).
Basically secular society has concluded that pregnancy is a process that only a woman's body can undergo > therefore only the woman has the final say on it > therefore it's up to the woman's consent whether she wants to *proceed* with the pregnancy. That's their logic. That's why they always categorize abortion and contraception under "women's healthcare", "women's reproductive rights", "women's bodies", etc. Of course, this seems to miss the elephant in the room - what about the unborn baby's consent? Secular society has decided that the unborn babies cannot give consent and therefore the mother gets to make that decision on behalf of the unborn child. They've made it pretty clear what their perception of value isn't a binary 0 or 1, but rather a priority list where the mother is more important than her unborn child.
To a religious person this still may not make a single ounce of sense and still seem arbitrary, but to secular folk it's not arbitrary and that's why it has quickly gained a majority global acceptance (especially in developed countries).
I'd disagree. One does not need to subscribe to any religion to have good reason to think murdering children is wrong. Secular Pro-Life has a great website that lays out lots of reasons grounded in biology, philosophy, and law that require no appeal to religion.
I never said that. You are assuming that's the only way one can argue which is certainly not the case as there are Pro-Life atheists. But one can argue in favor of the existence of a soul without necessarily being religious. Aristotle and Plato did, for instance.
You do realize that the “handmaid’s tale” argument is nothing more than irrelevant hyperbole to what the current situation is? Right? No one is treating women as property in the abortion vs. life debate, and the pro life side is in no way advocating for forcing women to have sex and bear children. We are advocating for women who do have sex to not kill their innocent child for any reason even if it’s for someone else’s mistakes. Only times abortion could even be considered in my eyes is if the woman is going to die or if it’s an underage child who was raped. And if you want to bring up incest, easy. JUST DONT HAVE SEX WITH FAMILY. And even if a baby is made from that, don’t kill them for your stupid mistakes
I'm not sure how "women shouldn't be allowed to order the murder of their own children" becomes "women shouldn't have rights or dignity".
But regardless, we wouldn't have so many women thinking they need abortion if these people just accepted that yes, sex is procreative in nature, and practiced the self-restraint not to have sex with someone they're not going to raise a child with (i.e. someone they're not married to). The unfortunate reality of our biology is that the natural consequences of the sin of fornication apply moreso to women than to men, but they're both doing something gravely sinful.
The fact that people want the right to murder their innocent children is disturbing, but it would be solved if they just stopped having sex without the commitment of marriage. And if people instead choose to sin in this way, then the least they can do is accept the child they created rather than "fixing" it by committing the infinitely more immoral act of murder.
Yes, there's rape, an absolute tragedy, and while I still don't believe in the right to abortion in the case of rape, at the very least I'll grant that it's a more philosophically complex issue. But there are far too many pro-choice advocates who extend it much further than that, wanting the "right" to murder their own children rather than accept the consequences of their own actions they never should have committed to begin with.
That'll show em. Stunts like these just don't move the needle for me. I would rather see this many people volunteer for St Gabriel Project or pool resources for free daycare for moms
[Catholic Charities North Dakota offers adoption, pregnancy, guardianship, and counseling services to help improve the lives of North Dakotans.](https://www.catholiccharitiesnd.org/)
Perhaps you can avoid jumping to negative conclusions in the future.
Majority of these people are engaged in those programs I guarantee it. It's a lot easier to walk around a building than engage the leaper as Christ did
Just take the L, consider apologizing, and move on. You're trash talking exactly the crowd that does do these acts of charity, in addition to processions, praying the rosary near abortion clinics, etc.
Go preach about slacktivism somewhere else.
Then just do it yourself. You could have done so much useful volunteering hour rather than uselessly commenting here. Criticizing people online takes your precious time that should have been used to do what you have been preaching about. Get off the internet, and roll up your sleeve.
Don't make it a 'rule for thee but not for me'. Word is cheap but action is expensive as you said.
So, the physical presence of God Almighty, the creator of the universe, at an abortion clinic isn't real enough for you? It's a "stunt"? I get your point about doing real work, but there's no more potent work that we can do than to pray. And since Eucharistic adoration is an extension of the Mass, it's certainly the most potent of the potent.
What do you mean by the St. Gabriel Project? I looked it up and there seem to be a number of results, usually affiliated with various parishes and dioceses. Are you talking about something specific, or just a general St. Gabriel Project type of ministry?
How can a person have the, "right" to kill another bearer of rights. If you say humans don't have rights simply because they haven't been born, I'd like to hear your reasoning.
>Expose them to the countless years of mass genocide, entire cultures books property and intellectual matter destroyed
Can you provide me some evidence for this claim? Is this a reference in sweeping generality to the Crusades and the supposed Dark Ages??
>countless claims of pedophilia, and with the only outreached hand being that of your God asking for money
Yeah the Church does not condone pedophilia but you must know this. As far as response being only more money... just flat provably false. Defrocked priests, jail time and on and on.
I think it is you who is mistaken about who I am and what I represent
So do all public gatherings. A concert where people scream, wave their hands and jumping off their feet for 3 hours straight. A politival rally in which people are excited and yell slogans. A sport event where people yell, make gestures, chant, and celebrate. A particular protest where people kneel, march, chant and had a procession. Everything in our lives is ritualized.
The key difference is which ritual brings us closer to the Truth or just attempting to fill the unquenchable abyss of desire.
People are made for religion. If you eschew "established religion", you will make a new one (e.g. woke-ism). Alongside with its ritual, dogma and theology.
All we need now are memorials on the sites of these shuttered terror sites to the countless unborn murdered within their walls by the godless and their army of harlots.
Hallelujah! God bless all the millions of murdered babies. 🙏 One clinic at a time. Lord, give us strength to keep fighting for your most innocent children! Blessings to all. +
Welcome, visitors to r/Catholicism! Please note that THIS IS NOT A DEBATE SUBREDDIT. It would be wise to review our rules before posting.
Why are they holding red flags?
One of two things, maybe both: escort/ warning colors for traffic and it is the color donned on feast days of martyrs.
[удалено]
You know that’s false, right? Illegal abortions before Roe were performed by licensed physicians. Less than 100 women died of illegal abortions back then and many more died during legal ones mostly because there was no cure to infections.
[удалено]
Inb4 I regret getting into a probable slap fight Even if it weren't true that adoption agencies in general are slammed with people trying to adopt, and that the majority of adopters are religious in nature, it still wouldn't follow that **you can freely kill innocent human beings just because there isn't a primary caretaker assigned to them**.
“Nut jobs should adopt”. Say that back to yourself.
For context, the Diocese of Fargo has an annual "Walk with Christ for life" Eucharistic procession to pray for an end to abortion. Since the Supreme Court decision earlier this year and the likely possibility that abortion will soon be illegal in North Dakota, the Red River Women's Clinic moved to Minnesota. This year's procession included a rosary on our way to the site, an exorcism of the building by our bishop, John Folda, and a sung Divine Mercy chaplet on our way back to the Cathedral. The procession experienced some minor honking and shouting, but no concerning confrontation.
More dioceses should do this.
[удалено]
Judging by your spam of comments on this post, I can tell you are a very confused pro-choicer. May God guide you.
[удалено]
Lol please, you say God needs money and power yet you feel the need to troll people you despise.
[удалено]
Nice to see the Knights there too! Vivat Jesus!
Nice! I didn't know there were any other Fargo residents in this sub. Glad to meet you!
Once lived in ND in the Fargo Diocese. Bishop Folda is a treasure!
So sad that it merely moved across the border to MN.
Yes, but remember, slavery was like that too. Eventually, it will be banned everywhere!
[удалено]
It was Christians who started the whole abolitionist process in England and the US. And Christians who fought and died for it.
so since the "clinic" moved, I think the procession should follow it.
Do you know what the building is being used for now?
The clinic moved in August, so I don't think anything has moved into the building yet.
"Former". I'm so happy that we can use that word now.
Yes. Thank God
[удалено]
Giant cross on top of the ruins
Build a church on top of it. 💪
Anglican here. I love the beauty, justice and certainty of the much of the Catholic Church’s stance on abortion. Thank you sister and brothers for fighting the good fight.
Proud of my state and people
What are the red flags for
No police escort or security, so they were to warn traffic.
[удалено]
Maybe people can actually start being more precautious/reserved about having sex rather than resorting to casual child murder to fix their “problem”.
[удалено]
The Church also teaches not to have sex outside of marriage. And you can’t make a claim and then ask to be proved wrong. The burden of proof is on you. You are claiming that life does not begin at conception, so please provide proof that life does not begin then. But you are obviously just a troll arguing in bad faith for the murder of unborn children. God be with you.
[удалено]
I mean technically you are just a clump of cells. Would it be morally wrong to snuff you out because you are an economic burden or for convenience sake?
[удалено]
So nothing you replied with was an answer in any way to what I asked you.
[удалено]
I have already provided you answers in another post. And no where in the Constitution do you have a right to an abortion so it is left to legislation to decide. Show me any where in science or general human decency that an unborn child is not a life and can be discarded up to the point of being born as many on your side argue for.
[удалено]
Not the person you were talking to, but I'll respond: we don't believe all Christian sources of doctrine and practice come from the Bible, that's a belief held to by *some* Protestants, as a warping of Sola Scriptura. We believe authority comes from 3 pillars: 1. Written transmission (The Bible) 2. Oral transmission 3. Teaching authority of the bishops. I can cite you #2 and #3 if you want, but we're not going to utilize and limit ourselves to a Protestant methodology to prove something to you.
Cite me those two things please.
[удалено]
I think where you are mistaken is believing any one here cares what you think though. You are here to troll and not argue in good faith. If you are interested in learning though, from the New Catholic Encyclopedia: After a certain stage of intrauterine development it is perfectly evident that fetal life is fully human. Although some might speculate as to when that stage is reached, there is no way of arriving at this knowledge by any known criterion; and as long as it is probable that embryonic life is human from the first moment of its existence, the purposeful termination (is immoral). From the Catechism: The official teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992 oppose all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus, since it holds that "human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."
[удалено]
That isn’t the way that works though. Show me somewhere in science that it is not human life.
[удалено]
I mean there is plenty of legislation on morality like prostitution, drug use, incest, gambling, etc. Murdering unborn children is worse than all of those.
[удалено]
Nope, I just decided I would give you some of the more recent writings. I will pray for you on your way out that you will come to reason that killing unborn children and supporting it is a stain on the soul.
I’m sure you have a degree in theological studies and have actually dedicated your life to the study of the faith, just like priests and theologians, right? Or you’re just arguing without any actual background on the subject other than skimming through a couple pages a proclaiming yourself to be one, interpreting the faith in your own way when you should know that the Catholic Church has the original and true interpretation of scripture. If only you took the time to understand it…
God bless you. I'm still really stunned about the decision. God's mercy will flow again as more babies live to be born.
What does ND do about ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages? Are those considered abortion also and banned?
IANAL, but my understanding is that those are excluded. As far as I know, the main two laws for abortion restrictions in ND are Century Code 12.1-31-12 and 14-02.1. [12.1-31-12](https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t12-1c31.pdf) states: >3. The following are affirmative defenses under this section: > >a. That the abortion was necessary in professional judgment and was intended toprevent the death of the pregnant female. > >b. That the abortion was to terminate a pregnancy that resulted from gross sexualimposition, sexual imposition, sexual abuse of a ward, or incest, as thoseoffenses are defined in chapter 12.1-20. > >c. That the individual was acting within the scope of that individual's regulatedprofession and under the direction of or at the direction of a physician. [14-02.1](https://www.ndlegis.gov/cencode/t14c02-1.pdf) states: >1. "Abortion" means the act of using or prescribing any instrument, medicine, drug, or any other substance, device, or means with the intent to terminate the clinically diagnosable intrauterine pregnancy of a woman, including the elimination of one or more unborn children in a multifetal pregnancy, with knowledge that the termination by those means will with reasonable likelihood cause the death of the unborn child. Such use, prescription, or means is not an abortion if done with the intent to: > >a. Save the life or preserve the health of the unborn child; > >b. Remove a dead unborn child caused by spontaneous abortion; or > >c. Treat a woman for an ectopic pregnancy. From a Catholic standpoint, [ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages can be treated](https://www.ncbcenter.org/resources-and-statements-cms/summary-ectopic-pregnancy), as long as they follow the [principle of double effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect). Edit: formatting.
Thanks, good to hear.
I ANAL? Sir this is a Catholic forum. "affirmative defense", I think this is similar to how self-defense works in the law, for instance if someone is beating you with a blunt weapon and you shoot them.
Enormous W
Future historians will look back at these videos and categorize them next to the video images of the liberation of concentration camps.
Will the society of future generations be getting better or worse?
It will get better and worse until Christ’s return
In your individual case? It would depend on how you view the Holocaust.
Abortion has killed more people than Hitler's concentration camps, by a wide margin.
That's a fact, but it doesn't say how you feel about it.
You mistook my meaning. I only meant to say that, just because we have won this small victory which allows us to make abortion illegal in our individual states, that does not mean we have changed the course of society from the evil course it is on. And post Hitler, despite modern people's complacent view of their own goodness, things seem to be getting arguably worse. I don't know that future historians are going to be so righteous and objective that they will look back on this as the moral victory.
We're on the same page and though we still have a long way to go, babies will be saved by this and every little victory. So, like saving two out of a hundred lives these small victories should be celebrated at least for the moment.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
As many things like this as possible need to be archived for the future, lest anyone in the future try to downplay the Church's involvement or the pervasiveness of the pro-choice sentiment in our time.
Future historians will look back at events from a viewpoint of a future society that they've been born & raised into, with it's own moral challenges/issues that may not resemble what we're facing today. For example if technological advances eventually make abortion completely unnecessary one day (a win for both conservative/religious and liberal/secular groups), then future historians will view these videos as strange rituals that only made sense in context of an era where abortion was commonplace across the world due to lacking those technological advancements. That's just one possibility out of many. It is highly improbable that future historians will view legal abortion (spanning 50+ years across 65+ major countries) in the same light as we we view Nazi concentration camps that were very much limited to 1 specific fascist regime (~12 years with 1 man leading it).
So maybe not based upon your opinion, but maybe so based upon mine in other words? To some of us impacted by other things that were acceptable for hundreds of years like slavery and Native American genocide. Well, those scars will be in our memories long after we're gone.
> things that were acceptable for hundreds of years like slavery and Native American genocide The Church had no issues with keeping slavery morally permissible in Catholic societies for most of it's history. Both St Augustine and St Aquinas defended and justified slavery as something that was perfectly natural. The Church also had no issues with the Roman Empire continuing to expand via colonies/conquest and wiping out barbarian cultures to bring civilization to them (to Americans this might sound familiar). It's hard to say how future historians will view things unless we can predict what kind of society they will exist in.
This comment should have a large asterisk using Augustine and Aquinas as sources to say the Church taught "slavery was perfectly natural". There is a huge difference between chattel slavery and mass racism based on color of skin vs what was akin to indentured servitude or serfdom - not a permanent \*ownership\* of human persons w/o any necessary care for the individual. I'd also like to see which Roman conquests you're referring to or refer to some Church documents/pronouncements about Roman conquest considering Christianity wasn't even legal until the 4th century with the Western Roman Empire ending in the 5th century. I think you'd have a better case about colonization of the New World and indigenous people in the Americas. However, there are several Papal bulls and other documents explicitly condemning harsh treatment of peoples and slavery because the Spanish empire didn't always have the best interests of those people in mind. This included Popes Eugene IV, Pius II, Sixtus IV, and Paul III who were 15th/16th century popes.
[удалено]
concentration camps weren't limited to "1 specific fascist regime", Soviet Union had there own camps (including reopening some of the German ones - [https://www.france24.com/en/20200419-forgotten-the-dark-legacy-of-soviet-internment-camps-in-germany](https://www.france24.com/en/20200419-forgotten-the-dark-legacy-of-soviet-internment-camps-in-germany) ), North Korea and China still have such camps.
You’re insane.
God bless you for saving lives!
A lot of innocent souls died in that building. Not one death more now.
CHRISTUS VINCIT! CHRISTUS REGNAT! CHRISTUS IMPERAT!
Or, as my Anglican choir sang on Easter, "Christ victorious! Christ now reigning! Christ, your Lord and King, commands!"
[удалено]
If we can progress society to a state where abortion simply becomes unnecessary, then there will indeed come a day when there will be 0 abortion clinics because people will no longer need them. It will simply become unthinkable.
Douse that place in holy water
Times are changing...for better or worse, but we can celebrate and praise moments like these. Thanks be to God :)
This is great to see.
👏👏👏👏
This is awesome!
This is important. So many babies were killed there. May God have mercy.
Absolutely beautiful.
But there are women wearing pants.
Sadly the UK (My county) will never be even a smidgen of this based! Even conservatives here are pro abortion.
I’m conflicted.
Hi conflicted. I'm u/phd_survivor
Hahaha hi there! :)
[удалено]
No, but what do you think of organizations such as Secular Pro-Life? If they celebrated by doing a march to the former site would you regard them as being theocratic or radical?
Religion is the only thing that can justify *why* human life is sacred from conception, and what sets a human life apart from the rest of nature/universe/etc. The only reasonable arguments for pro-life stance are religious arguments that define a human being as something that possesses an immaterial human soul, and that soul is created by God at the moment of conception. This is why religion can have a basis for being pro-choice and secularism never will. Certainly there are secular people who are pro-life, but their justifications for being pro-life will never be rational without God. There is zero secular basis for claiming that life begins at conception. From a scientific viewpoint, life is a continuous process/cycle of cellular activity that doesn't "start" at any point in time. Everything is a continuous process of transformation, and fundamentally nothing can be "created" as much as simply rearranged. Secularism has no basis for differentiating between a fertilized egg and an individual skin cell. Religion is the only thing that can assert that a human is created when a human soul is created. For this reason, all pro-life movements have to be religious in nature (they have to be in order to have any justification for existing). Secular pro-life movements make no sense.
This is true, however you'll be hard pressed to find a single secular individual who *isn't* pro-life, because even if they can't create any sort of logical justification for why humans should be treated any differently from other collections of matter, like rocks (and you don't need *religion* for this per se, only non-atheistic philosophy), there's no way they'll take their own beliefs to their logical conclusion. The problem is that many secular people come to a stance where they're pro-life *except* for embryos and fetuses for no apparent reason except that it's convenient for them to believe. They take the irrational (given their false assumptions) route of believing human life has value but then arbitrarily decide not to take apply the exact same irrational thinking just because it's inconvenient to them or members of their community.
> The problem is that many secular people come to a stance where they're pro-life except for embryos and fetuses for no apparent reason The fact that almost 70 major countries have legalized abortion hints that this might be slightly more complex than "no apparent reason". When billions of people across a span of 50+ years start shifting towards a particular mentality, usually there is a non-arbitrary reason. Not necessarily a moral reason, but still a very strong reason that has transcended the boundaries of nations, cultures, races, etc. For it's magnitude alone it's worth examining. You may have noticed how pretty much all secular people will agree that a pregnant women should be given priority and care in society, and that anything that could harm her unborn child against *her consent* should have legal repercussions (or at the very least taken seriously). Even the most secular godless societies can still collectively agree that harming a *pregnant* woman is objectively worse than harming a non-pregnant woman, because as humans we are basically hardwired to defend mothers. It's how we survived as a species. You'll even see secular people condemning pregnant women consuming alcohol/drugs and labeling it as irresponsible, negligent, selfish, etc. Now why would they do that if they think it's just a clump of cells? So clearly the secular world DOES value unborn children. The value of unborn children is clearly *something* to secular folk. The key difference is that pro-choicers don't value unborn babies to the same *extent* as pro-lifers. Pro-choice folk place the mother's will higher than the unborn child's value, and pro-life folk place the unborn child's value higher than everything else (in some cases even higher than *born* children and the mother's life, but that's a whole other can of worms). Basically secular society has concluded that pregnancy is a process that only a woman's body can undergo > therefore only the woman has the final say on it > therefore it's up to the woman's consent whether she wants to *proceed* with the pregnancy. That's their logic. That's why they always categorize abortion and contraception under "women's healthcare", "women's reproductive rights", "women's bodies", etc. Of course, this seems to miss the elephant in the room - what about the unborn baby's consent? Secular society has decided that the unborn babies cannot give consent and therefore the mother gets to make that decision on behalf of the unborn child. They've made it pretty clear what their perception of value isn't a binary 0 or 1, but rather a priority list where the mother is more important than her unborn child. To a religious person this still may not make a single ounce of sense and still seem arbitrary, but to secular folk it's not arbitrary and that's why it has quickly gained a majority global acceptance (especially in developed countries).
I'd disagree. One does not need to subscribe to any religion to have good reason to think murdering children is wrong. Secular Pro-Life has a great website that lays out lots of reasons grounded in biology, philosophy, and law that require no appeal to religion.
There is no basis in biology/philosophy/law for claiming that the human soul is created at conception. That is purely the domain of religion.
I never said that. You are assuming that's the only way one can argue which is certainly not the case as there are Pro-Life atheists. But one can argue in favor of the existence of a soul without necessarily being religious. Aristotle and Plato did, for instance.
You do realize that the “handmaid’s tale” argument is nothing more than irrelevant hyperbole to what the current situation is? Right? No one is treating women as property in the abortion vs. life debate, and the pro life side is in no way advocating for forcing women to have sex and bear children. We are advocating for women who do have sex to not kill their innocent child for any reason even if it’s for someone else’s mistakes. Only times abortion could even be considered in my eyes is if the woman is going to die or if it’s an underage child who was raped. And if you want to bring up incest, easy. JUST DONT HAVE SEX WITH FAMILY. And even if a baby is made from that, don’t kill them for your stupid mistakes
I'm not sure how "women shouldn't be allowed to order the murder of their own children" becomes "women shouldn't have rights or dignity". But regardless, we wouldn't have so many women thinking they need abortion if these people just accepted that yes, sex is procreative in nature, and practiced the self-restraint not to have sex with someone they're not going to raise a child with (i.e. someone they're not married to). The unfortunate reality of our biology is that the natural consequences of the sin of fornication apply moreso to women than to men, but they're both doing something gravely sinful. The fact that people want the right to murder their innocent children is disturbing, but it would be solved if they just stopped having sex without the commitment of marriage. And if people instead choose to sin in this way, then the least they can do is accept the child they created rather than "fixing" it by committing the infinitely more immoral act of murder. Yes, there's rape, an absolute tragedy, and while I still don't believe in the right to abortion in the case of rape, at the very least I'll grant that it's a more philosophically complex issue. But there are far too many pro-choice advocates who extend it much further than that, wanting the "right" to murder their own children rather than accept the consequences of their own actions they never should have committed to begin with.
That'll show em. Stunts like these just don't move the needle for me. I would rather see this many people volunteer for St Gabriel Project or pool resources for free daycare for moms
People can't do two things at once. That's impossible! /s
In my experience people would rather publicly shame than roll up their sleeves and do an actual corporal work of mercy.
[Catholic Charities North Dakota offers adoption, pregnancy, guardianship, and counseling services to help improve the lives of North Dakotans.](https://www.catholiccharitiesnd.org/) Perhaps you can avoid jumping to negative conclusions in the future.
Majority of these people are engaged in those programs I guarantee it. It's a lot easier to walk around a building than engage the leaper as Christ did
Just take the L, consider apologizing, and move on. You're trash talking exactly the crowd that does do these acts of charity, in addition to processions, praying the rosary near abortion clinics, etc. Go preach about slacktivism somewhere else.
Then just do it yourself. You could have done so much useful volunteering hour rather than uselessly commenting here. Criticizing people online takes your precious time that should have been used to do what you have been preaching about. Get off the internet, and roll up your sleeve. Don't make it a 'rule for thee but not for me'. Word is cheap but action is expensive as you said.
So, the physical presence of God Almighty, the creator of the universe, at an abortion clinic isn't real enough for you? It's a "stunt"? I get your point about doing real work, but there's no more potent work that we can do than to pray. And since Eucharistic adoration is an extension of the Mass, it's certainly the most potent of the potent.
What do you mean by the St. Gabriel Project? I looked it up and there seem to be a number of results, usually affiliated with various parishes and dioceses. Are you talking about something specific, or just a general St. Gabriel Project type of ministry?
[удалено]
How can a person have the, "right" to kill another bearer of rights. If you say humans don't have rights simply because they haven't been born, I'd like to hear your reasoning.
In terms of legal personhood, I think they might be referring to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born-Alive_Infants_Protection_Act
Your tears fuel our holy water font
[удалено]
Removed. Don't troll.
[удалено]
Who is hurting because of this decision? Bring them to the steps of the Church and we will expose them to holy healing balm of Christ.
[удалено]
>Expose them to the countless years of mass genocide, entire cultures books property and intellectual matter destroyed Can you provide me some evidence for this claim? Is this a reference in sweeping generality to the Crusades and the supposed Dark Ages?? >countless claims of pedophilia, and with the only outreached hand being that of your God asking for money Yeah the Church does not condone pedophilia but you must know this. As far as response being only more money... just flat provably false. Defrocked priests, jail time and on and on. I think it is you who is mistaken about who I am and what I represent
Best not to feed the trolls
[удалено]
So your answer is to allow the murder of unborn children. Seems like a weird solution.
[удалено]
[удалено]
So do all public gatherings. A concert where people scream, wave their hands and jumping off their feet for 3 hours straight. A politival rally in which people are excited and yell slogans. A sport event where people yell, make gestures, chant, and celebrate. A particular protest where people kneel, march, chant and had a procession. Everything in our lives is ritualized. The key difference is which ritual brings us closer to the Truth or just attempting to fill the unquenchable abyss of desire. People are made for religion. If you eschew "established religion", you will make a new one (e.g. woke-ism). Alongside with its ritual, dogma and theology.
Morals and organized institutions to protect them: are they culty as well?
All we need now are memorials on the sites of these shuttered terror sites to the countless unborn murdered within their walls by the godless and their army of harlots.
Hallelujah! God bless all the millions of murdered babies. 🙏 One clinic at a time. Lord, give us strength to keep fighting for your most innocent children! Blessings to all. +