Abortion and Politics

[Matt Hummel]

I simply note that Charles

1)  has finally answered the question re: those contraceptives that have have been shown to function as abortifacients.  He said such knowledge would not change his mind on their usage.  He, who has argued that contraception would decrease abortions  is apparently actually indifferent on the killing of children. Or am I misunderstanding? Please note- because I am talking with people who think differently from me on this issue, I am referring not to ALL contraceptives- but to those that inhibit/prevent implantation after conception.

2) when asked (yet again) to list one new thing the ELCA has done that has helped to reduce abortions has no answer.  Which is good.  Because there is none.

[Brian Stoffregen]

I simply note that Charles

1)  has finally answered the question re: those contraceptives that have have been shown to function as abortifacients.  He said such knowledge would not change his mind on their usage.  He, who has argued that contraception would decrease abortions  is apparently actually indifferent on the killing of children. Or am I misunderstanding? Please note- because I am talking with people who think differently from me on this issue, I am referring not to ALL contraceptives- but to those that inhibit/prevent implantation after conception.

I don't consider inhibiting/preventing implantation to be the same thing as removing/destroying an implanted zygote.

2) when asked (yet again) to list one new thing the ELCA has done that has helped to reduce abortions has no answer.  Which is good.  Because there is none.

The purpose of the ELCA is not to reduce abortion, but to offer God's forgiveness to sinners.

[Matt Hummel]

I simply note that Charles

1)  has finally answered the question re: those contraceptives that have have been shown to function as abortifacients.  He said such knowledge would not change his mind on their usage.  He, who has argued that contraception would decrease abortions  is apparently actually indifferent on the killing of children. Or am I misunderstanding? Please note- because I am talking with people who think differently from me on this issue, I am referring not to ALL contraceptives- but to those that inhibit/prevent implantation after conception.

I don't consider inhibiting/preventing implantation to be the same thing as removing/destroying an implanted zygote.

2) when asked (yet again) to list one new thing the ELCA has done that has helped to reduce abortions has no answer.  Which is good.  Because there is none.

The purpose of the ELCA is not to reduce abortion, but to offer God's forgiveness to sinners.

I was woried that this thread had gone on so long without any word from Brian.  I am glad you ar OK.

As to your first point, in the NATO phonetic alphabet, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.  I say again Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

As to the second point, does that mean I can tell friends in the ELCA that they can tell Mark & Co. to sod off with regards to the malaria project, since the purpose of the ELCA is not to reduce malaria, but to offer God's forgiveness to sinners?

[Matt Hummel]

Several postings up, I used the phrase "incessant name dropping of Catholic heirarchs" with regards to Charles' posting.  Incessant was the wrong word to use in that instance.  Therefore I owe Charles an apology.  I was wrong.  No excuse.  No rationalization.  No hiding with a private note.

And we're moving on...

[Charles_Austin]

Mr. Hummel, your views on how certain contraceptives work and your views on the mechanics of human reproduction are yours. Some of them may be mine, some of them not.
But you still dodge my question. Is a form of sexual intimacy between a husband and wife which does not lead to the possibility of procreation right or wrong or sinful or indifferent? That very same husband and wife may have children or may have children in the future, but on this occasion....
And unless you are ELCA or even in one of the denominations in fellowship with us, I suggest you back off the snippy orders telling us what we should do.
I'm open to your views and would even commend you for your work in the "pro-life" movement, even as I think it is too often dominated by the fringe. But you seem to be obsessed with telling me how wrong I am.
Enough already.

[readselerttoo]

Let Mr. Hummel answer for himself.
He (and others here) have declared that there is something wrong with forms of sexual intimacy that do not reach that "final destination," namely that place where the possibility of procreation exists.
I hear him (and others) saying that if you get in the car and turn on the engine, you'd better drive all the way to Duluth. Stopping at Gooseberry Falls is sinful.

Charles, human sexuality is beautiful, sacred, God's gift to us and and is not ours alone to do with what we will. As with any gift, He created it with distinct ends and purposes.  As has been stated many times here, the Catholic church (and all Christendom prior to 1930s) has always understood and taught that there are two distinct ends and purposes of human sexuality; the unitive purpose, in which the husband and wife give themselves to each other in totality, freely, and without reservation, and the procreative purpose, in which through this act of total self giving to each other, the possibility of God giving new life to the world is not intentionally denied.

The Catholic church holds it to be true that to deny either of these ends and purposes of God's gift of human sexuality is to fall short, to sin, to choose our own will over God's will and desire for us.

No matter how many times you falsely claim that those you disagree with hold the position that "it is ALL about procreation", it simply is not true.

Until 1930s, and the Lambeth conferences, this is something all Christians agreed on.  This is not a reformational dividing line.  Maybe you hold it to be true that the Holy Spirit has guided the many denominations to embrace the artificial denial of the procreative aspect for the sake of focusing entirely on the the unitive/loving/pleasure aspect.

If any "side" on this has a narrow view, it it this side which chooses to elevate the one end and purpose (unitive) to the only end by artificially denying the other.

This statement is indicative of a presupposition that I believe is not consistent with the New Testament.  It seems from the sense of the statement and how I read it that there is an arena in which one can claim to be doing God's will and that one becomes a sinner only when one does something sinful.  Actually it is the other way around.  Because we are sinners we do sinful things.   First make the tree good and then the fruit will be good, as Jesus claims.  This speaks volumes to our confined human-to-human centered dialogues/arguments when we can convince ourselves and each other through presuppositions of our own making that our persons are neutrally valued by God until we do something.   God is not only creator and preserver in the way we understand the first article of the Apostles' Creed, but that God is also judge at the same time.  Since the fall of humanity God's judgment is always to the negative despite our own valuations which we create through systems of morality.

The second article of the Apostles' Creed talks about redemption exclusively through and in Jesus' person.   On the cross persons have been exchanged out and in.  "He (Jesus) was made to be sin who knew no sin so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (Jesus)." ala 2 Corinthians.  Jesus' relationship of redemption with the baptized is constant from God's side.  It is we sinners' who refuse God's forgiveness and the relationship that God has established with us in Jesus by choosing to "worship" our own opinions on political and social matters rahter than to trust God's act of redemption for us exclusively in Christ's person. (Galatians 2:19-20)


I continue to view the Lutheran relationship with Rome officially to have no real agreement on doctrine as long as Rome disagrees with the first article of contention in the Augsburg Confession regarding the nature and effect of sin.  This continues to be a stumbling block to unity as it was in the 16th century and has not changed even since JDDJ.  The issue of justification by faith is the article of contention even after JDDJ.  Our official "agencies" do not have agreement on this.  All this has to do with resultant issues which flow from the doctrine of sin including how morality is defined and used in public discourse.   Both Rome and Augsburg did not come to agreement and until this matter is resolved there can be no official harmony in doctrinal matters.

[Steven Tibbetts]

But you still dodge my question. Is a form of sexual intimacy between a husband and wife which does not lead to the possibility of procreation right or wrong or sinful or indifferent? That very same husband and wife may have children or may have children in the future, but on this occasion....

Since holding hands can be a form of sexual intimacy...

[Matt Hummel]

Is a form of sexual intimacy between a husband and wife which does not lead to the possibility of procreation right or wrong or sinful or indifferent? That very same husband and wife may have children or may have children in the future, but on this occasion....

Charles- my lack of response at first was because I figured you knew the answer.  And then I suggested several sources that could give you the full overview.  But you dismissed that.

Deliberately breaking the unitive from the procreative  is dangerous and it is sinful.. Does all sexual intimacy between husband and wife have to be orgasmic or ejaculatory?  I would say, "no."  Some interesting studies on the strengthening of relationships in couples practicing fertility awareness based family planning and refraining when deemed necessary.

I would think that reasonable people could see that in attempting to grasp the unitive without the procreative, that our society has lost both. 

[cssml]

Both Rome and Augsburg did not come to agreement and until this matter is resolved there can be no official harmony in doctrinal matters.

I understand where your coming from.  We have placed our trust in different doctrinal authorities to authentically discern truth in questions of faith and morals.  My point in the discussion is that this issue was not a point of doctrinal difference in the first 400 years or so of after the reformation.  It has become so only since it was permitted by the Anglicans in 1930, beginning with the Lambeth conference.  The position of Rome on this pre-dates the reformation, and remains unchanged, and is indeed (in Rome's view) unchangeable as it is understood to be objectively true, a part of the magisterium.  Even if the Rome of today wanted to begin to teach that artificially denying the procreative aspect of human sexuality is good, or that discarding the natural results of human sexuality through abortion is good, she cannot.  She simply does not have the authority to redefine what she already holds to be truth any more than she can revisit what was discerned at Nicaea and rewrite the Nicaean Creed to deny the Virgin Birth.  It is simply a historical fact that Anglicans, Lutherans and others have discerned a new truth on this matter, and they have done so very recently.  Maybe time will show that the Holy Spirit is behind this.

Taken to the extreme, denying the procreative aspect of human sexuality results in ideas like this Hollywood director:

   http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2012/09/10/top-hollywood-director-believes-incest-is-acceptable/

In an interview with The Wrap, director Nick Cassavetes believes no one should judge a brother and sister being with each other if they are in love.

“I’m not saying this is an absolute but in a way, if you’re not having kids – who gives a damn? Love who you want.  Isn’t that what we say? Gay marriage – love who you want?” Cassavetes told The Wrap. “If it’s your brother or sister it’s super-weird, but if you look at it, you’re not hurting anybody except every single person who freaks out because you’re in love with one another.”

[Brian Stoffregen]

I simply note that Charles

1)  has finally answered the question re: those contraceptives that have have been shown to function as abortifacients.  He said such knowledge would not change his mind on their usage.  He, who has argued that contraception would decrease abortions  is apparently actually indifferent on the killing of children. Or am I misunderstanding? Please note- because I am talking with people who think differently from me on this issue, I am referring not to ALL contraceptives- but to those that inhibit/prevent implantation after conception.

I don't consider inhibiting/preventing implantation to be the same thing as removing/destroying an implanted zygote.

2) when asked (yet again) to list one new thing the ELCA has done that has helped to reduce abortions has no answer.  Which is good.  Because there is none.

The purpose of the ELCA is not to reduce abortion, but to offer God's forgiveness to sinners.

I was woried that this thread had gone on so long without any word from Brian.  I am glad you ar OK.

As to your first point, in the NATO phonetic alphabet, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.  I say again Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.

I didn't think you'd understand the difference.

As to the second point, does that mean I can tell friends in the ELCA that they can tell Mark & Co. to sod off with regards to the malaria project, since the purpose of the ELCA is not to reduce malaria, but to offer God's forgiveness to sinners?

The ELCA was not created to reduce malaria. It does not exist to reduce malaria, even though many see that as an important ministry at this time. Some congregations and many of our members will not support the Malaria campaign and they remain members in good standing of the ELCA.


A member who refuses to receive Holy Communion and its benefit of forgiving sins over a period of time, is not considered a member in good standing in the ELCA.

[Charles_Austin]

Steven writes:
Since holding hands can be a form of sexual intimacy...

I chide:
Don't be intentionally dense. We are not talking about martinis and caviar in the dining car of the 20th Century Limited. We speak of that noble means of both pleasure and transportation entering the tunnel full speed and whistle blowing. 

[peter_speckhard]

Steven writes:
Since holding hands can be a form of sexual intimacy...

I chide:
Don't be intentionally dense. We are not talking about martinis and caviar in the dining car of the 20th Century Limited. We speak of that noble means of both pleasure and transportation entering the tunnel full speed and whistle blowing.

You mean those movies showing a train entering a tunnel were...double entendres? Euphemisms for...sex? I'm...I'm...I feel so...betrayed. Yes, a train entering a tunnel with the delibrate intent not to come out on the other side is not a good train to be on. Nor is it wise to ride a train that can't figure out which tunnels were designed to have trains enter them.

[Charles_Austin]

 rather clever for you, Peter. But as usual it pushes the metaphor too far.

[George Erdner]

Is there anything more annoying than listening with someone who whines like a little old lady if someone posts something sexually explicit in here instead of using a euphemism, and yet who acts like a character from the Beavis and Butthead TV cartoon if someone does use a euphemism, demanding to know what the euphemism is referring to? Such hypocrisy!
 
 
 
 
 

[peter_speckhard]

rather clever for you, Peter. But as usual it pushes the metaphor too far.

Thanks. But is was your metaphor. Perhaps for clarity's sake I should have specified that the train was somewhere in Minnesota.