Bert

A few months ago one of the news channels were talking about how many South Koreans were growing tired of the American Military being there and wished we would close the base and leave. I am guessing most of those who held that view do not want us leaving any time soon.

If the death toll could be limited to Kim, senior party officials and senior military leaders I may be able to support this. However, there are millions of North Koreans who do not know any better other than what they have been indoctrinated to that would be wiped out in an attack. If NK starts the war then I understand, we must respond and there will be high civilian casualties but I hope we can avoid that.

I think I remember reading that part of Kim's education came from England? Is that correct? When I heard that, my hope was that he more enlightened to the reality of the work outside of North Korea rather than what was indoctrinated to him. Doesn't look like that worked out too well. Maybe instead of Dennis Rodman we should send Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Kareem and Bill Russel over there to give him high 5's.

I am not an expert but on another pit bull thread from a year or two ago someone posted an article about how sensitive certain breeds were to improper treatment meaning how likely certain breeds were to turn violent as a result of improper treatment (constantly chained up, neglect, etc..). Pit bulls were the top of the list while I seem to remember boxers being towards the bottom of the list meaning that boxers (while look agressive) are good to have around children because if they are being teased by kids, the will generally only bark, swat threats away with their paws or simply leave the area rather than turn violent.

I would hope that every First Lady going into the White House understood the next 4 or 8 years would be a sacrifice. A sacrifice knowing that you will not be able to go anywhere you want or do anything you want because you and the President are constantly under a microscope and something that is actually innocent and reasonable could have the preception of being excessive and be taken critically by the public. I know if I were in a position to run for president, I would sit down with my wife (assuming I was married) and have a long talk about how life will change for us and our children should I win and if she HONESTLY can put up with that for 4/8 years. I would have no problem at all if the answer was no because I could completely understand it.

Please don't take this as me belittling your priest friend, but so much of me believes that your view being more constitutional rather than philosophical/theological would not bar you from communion. I would love to say what your bishop or vicars would say about the subject.

I would believe the performance of miracles was a way to reach out to the masses. If the person who benefitted from the miracle did not follow Jesus afterwards, not much else can be done. Again, the church is not forcing people from the pews, they are still welcome to attend. All that is being stated is that if you want to participate in communion, you need to be in communion with the church as a whole. The church, like Jesus knew people would stumble, that is just part of being human. It is when someone is actively and continuously promoting a position that the church contrary to a major teaching of the church, then the church says that the person should excuse themselves from communion. I don't see it as a power play. The idea of communion is that a group comes together in the form of communion of beliefs and expresses this through the Eucharist. If someone actively has removed themselves from this communion of beliefs, the should probably refrain from the Eucharist. I am wondering if the OP has removed himself to the degree to justify refraining from the Eurcharist.

I thought Evangelicals were one of the few sects over the past few decades that saw growth? I know mainline Protestant churches are shrinking. Catholicism is having some growth but that is being slowed due to many liberal Catholics leaving the Church due to the "counter reaction" from Vatican Council II.

Honestly I probably would not. I think when you are a politician, perception is almost as important as reality. So, if the economy was in the slump it is now, I would probalby limit my vacations and would stay within the US if anything to show support for the US tourism industry. While our beaches may not be as exotic as the Bahamas, I think I could handle limiting myself to the US beaches and islands. I would also make some of my vacations coming back home to Louisville. I don't think too many people get too upset about a president going home to spend time with extended family especially since several past presidents would make those working vacations.

True, Jesus did sit and eat with the sinners at His time. The thing that is always overlooked is that it is understood that those sinners were reconciled to Jesus and were commited to doing their best as humanly possible to turn away from their sinful ways and to follow Christ. If anyone had refused to repent of their past and had every intention of continuing their prior ways, my guess is He would have gently informed them that by THEIR choice (not His) they are not part of His flock but are always welcome back should they change their mind. The church is similar. ALL are welcome to attend church in the hopes that they will be reconciled but until they are reconciled, they cannot fully participate in the flock. A friend of mine once told me that the church has never once excommunicated someone. I gave him a confused look. He then replied that the church has only informed people that they have excommunicated themselves. That made sense to me.

If she is divorced but did not remarry, that priest is in error.

Call your bishop, vicar general or your judicial vicar. While the church does not agree with your view, I don't believe such a view would bar one from communion.

Slavery used to be legal, was slavery OK then or is just because something is legal does not make it just or moral.

I worked in the finance area of Trinity High School when the Archdiocese made its settlement. Didn't affect out tuition rates at all. We were expected to be self sufficient so the finances of the chancery didn't affect us and I assume would be the same for NKY Catholic schools. Why are you so confident it is affecting the NKY Catholic schools? I assume they take care of themselves just like Trinity, X and the other schools down here.

He was removed from his position. Not sure what else the Vatican could do. The Vatican does not have right to inprison anyone.

I often hear viability being used as the line where abortion is justified or not. Has viability been used for a long period of time or is this something recent? How did it come about. I am not sure I understand the reasoning. Being Pro Life I completely understand I am biased but I generally thing I am pretty decent and seeing both sides of an arguement and am pretty fair in debating the sides but I never did get how viability was used as the measure of the acceptability of abortion. When some teenagers were in a wreck a few months ago, one was in a coma for a period of time. During the early stages of the coma, she was on a respirator, fluids and other life preserving methods. One could argue that during that time frame she was not viable because pulling the plug too early would have ended her life. Just because she was not viable I don't think anyone would have said letting her die would be just, ethical or moral since it was understood that her odds of recovering were very good, similar to how it is well known that the fetus will continue developing and eventually reach viability. This question is not pointed at Beechwoodfan, I welcome receiving the rationale from anyone. That does bring me down. I really don't think there is a such thing as an unwanted baby. There are so many parents who would give anything for the mother to carry the child to term and have that baby but mothers I have talked to said they chose abortion because they did not think they could give up the child which is hard to understand if they are able to abort the child. I serve on the board of a maternity home in Louisville which was founded to provide a safe and supportive atmosphere for a mother of an unplanned pregnancy who lives in an environment where bringing a baby into that environment would be not ideal ie unstable home life, lives with the father who was perfectly fine with laying with the mother but cannot be a man and support her and the child after he gets her pregnant, etc.. Many of the mothers there do choose to give up the child for adoption but this is not their first pregnancy, they aborted their first child. When the subject of why were they able to abort the first child but did not think they could give the child up for adoption. Many state that they felt once the saw the child it would become too real for them that there really was a child inside them but if they never saw the child, that reality would not be there and aborting it would not be as hard. Strange logic but I have heard it more than once. All we (those of us affiliated with this maternity home) can do is continue to work to provide a safe and supportive environment for the mother and child.

While extremists who blow up abortion clinics make my beyond sick, why would they affect your abortion views? Their evil really doesn't affect the acceptability or unacceptability of abortion.

To get back to the original questions, Can you be both Catholic and Pro Choice? Well, I guess in reality anyone who is a baptised Catholic can call themselves a Catholic even if they disagree with numerous Catholic Dogmas/Doctrines and never attend church on Sundays. I think the question could be reworded to say, If you are Catholic and do not agree with one or more Dogmas/Doctrines of the Church (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, women as priests, etc.), are you obligated to deeply study the reasons for the Church Dogma/Doctrine in an honest attempt to reconcile to that teaching? I would say the answer is yes. However, that would make a really long bumper sticker. Related to this, if you are Catholic and you do not agree with a Discipline of the Churche (celibacy of priests for example) are you obligated to study the reasons for the Church Discipline in an honest attempt to reconcile to that teaching? Ummmm, I guess not but even though you are not obligated to do so, I would say you should just for understanding your faith better.

Some said the read Heroin has taken the place of Oxycontin and Meth as the preferred drug as an explanation of its growth.

Isn't partial birth abortion still (unfortunately) legal? If so, the law only recognizes the child as a life when its entire body is outside the mother.

I see where you are coming from but I see two problems with the the arguement. The first being that laws are based upon facts and proof. If that were true, why are some counties in KY dry and some are wet? It is not possible to prove that the sale of alcohol has an overall negative affect on society. The laws on the sale of alcohol are primarily based upon opinions, emotions and people's view on how much should public safety impede others rights to buy alcohol. The second problem I see with the arguement is the assumption that it is even possible to prove a fetus is a life. When life begins is a HUGE matter of opinion that really can never be proven. Similar to if I believe painting A is more beautiful than painting B. You and I could argue all day long and point out certain attributes but not neccessarily prove one way or the other. I have always viewed the "prove a fetus is a life" arguement as a ploy by the Pro Choice movement to set up the Pro Life Movement to prove something that the Pro Choice Movement already knows really cannot ever be proven. On the flip side, can they prove that a fetus IS NOT A LIFE? Nope, it goes both ways.

I don't know about that, I think even the president of the National Organization of Women would admit that abortion does infringe on the fetus but she would argue that the fetus's life is not as valuable as that of a born individual or that the woman's choice to do what she chooses with her body is more important than the life of the fetus. I often think the abortion debate comes down to how society measures the value of the life inside the mother versus the value of the mother having the choice to do what she chooses with her body. My opinion is that while I respect the fact that the woman has rights over her body, those rights should not go as far as doings something that destroys a life inside of her. I would argue that laws passed decades ago outlawing child and spousal abuse were based on the immorality of those actions. I would assume you don't have a problem with abuse laws? Are drugs illegal because of morality or more so because of the belief that drug use harms overall public good? My guess is that they are more so for the second reason than morality.

I think here is just a case where we look at the definition of what it means to be Pro-Life and Pro-Choice as a little different. I look at Pro-Life as being one seeing abortion as similar (or the same) as murder and therefore should be illegal. I look at Pro-Choice as being you may or may not fine abortion morally offensive but you don't want governments to be able to legislate it. During the elections, Joe Biden I believe explained that while his is morally against abortion and would try to talk any woman he encountered considering an abortion to not choice abortion, he did not feel it was right to push his values on others and therefore he felt the choice should stay with the mother and therefore is Pro-Choice. While on the surface I can see where many hold this view that it is not right to legislate morals, but I would argue that if you go deeper than the surface you will see that numerous laws we have were based upon morals. An earlier poster mentioned child abuse which is a good example. What gives the government the right to tell a father that he does not have the right to raise his hand to his wife and kids in order to maintain an orderly home? Just because I may find it morally wrong to do so, is it right for me to intrude into the household of others and impede my will? As a nation we have said yes, that spousal and child abuse are morally wrong and that laws can be made justifiably to protect spouses and children. In the same way, I believe it is justifiable for the government to outlaw abortion for the protection of the child in the womb from the ultimate child abuse.

RM, I don't think being pro-life automatically makes one against unnatural birth control. I know the church often draws parallels between the two to show a relationship between the two but I would say that bumper sticker is addressing abortion only.

Technically wouldn't that mean you are pro-choice? Pro-choice doesn't mean you are necessarily pro-abortion, it just means you are against the government outlawing abortion. There can be a fine line between pro-choice and pro-abortion but I do think there can be a line.