Pope Francis I: Powerfully Pro Life

Bergog

Pundits who were pushing for a pope who would abandon 2,000 years of Catholic teaching and go chasing after the moral fashions of the world will probably be disappointed in Pope Francis I.

The new Holy Father has a decades-long record of supporting the sanctity of human life, traditional marriage and the Gospel support of the poor. For instance, he called abortion a “death penalty” for unborn children in a 2007 speech. 

The LifeNews.com article describing this says in part:

The archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio … once called abortion a “death sentence” for unborn children, during a 2007 speech and likening opposition to abortion to opposition to the death penalty.

In an October 2, 2007 speech Bergoglio said that “we aren’t in agreement with the death penalty,” but “in Argentina we have the death penalty.  A child conceived by the rape of a mentally ill or retarded woman can be condemned to death.” …

… The remarks came during the presentation of a document called the Aparecida Document, a joint statement of the bishops of Latin America.

The new pontiff also denounced euthanasia and assisted suicide, calling it a “culture of discarding” the elderly. (Read the rest here.) 

  • http://jewishcatholicsimplified.blogspot.com/ miriammom

    Our Holy Father also blasted clerics who refused to baptize babies born out of wedlock! He also visited AIDS patients. He’s pro-life in every sense of the word: http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/papabile-day-men-who-could-be-pope-13 VIVA EL PAPA!!!

  • http://www.patheos.com Deacon Tom

    Rebecca:
    To be a bit nit-picky, but as announced from the balcony at St. Peters today, he is Pope Francis–there is no number “I” attached. There may never be another Francis, or “II.”

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I’m learning!

  • Bill S

    “Pundits who were pushing for a pope who would abandon 2,000 years of Catholic teaching and go chasing after the moral fashions of the world will probably be disappointed in Pope Francis I.”

    Uh, yeah!

  • marilove

    So he’s anti-woman, then? How unsurprising.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      By “anti-woman,” are you talking about abortion?

    • Theodore Seeber

      Most feminists are anti-woman. More witches were killed last month in their mother’s womb for the crime of being conceived than were burned in 800 years of witch trials in Europe- and the modern victims of the misogyny of the feminists didn’t even get a trial first.

      • Bill S

        Ted,

        I don’t know when this is going to get into your head? We don’t count abortions. Taking the life of a person who has developed from a young child into a fully mature adult is different than terminating a pregnancy. People who can’t see that are just being difficult. Marcus Aurelius called the Christians “obstinate”. I think that is a good word for them.

        • Rebecca Hamilton

          Yes Bill, we’re obstinate. Terminating a pregnancy means that you have to terminate the life of the child. Why do you deny what is an obvious fact of biology?

          • Bill S

            Yes, Rebecca. It means terminating the life of the child. What exactly are the consequences of terminating the life of say a first trimester fetus? Compare that to the potential consequences of an unwanted pregnancy to a woman’s entire life. Whose decision is it as to the direction that woman’s life should go? Where do you think you stand in that picking order?

            Now if you say that God should be number 1 in the picking order, that would be based on your religious beliefs. This country does not operate on religious beliefs. I know that is a terrible thing to you, but it isn’t so terrible to me and many others.

            The correct answer is that the woman is number 1 in the picking order. If she is incapacitated, the number 2 person would make the decision. I don’t know who that would be in any given situation, but it certainly isn’t you, me, the Church, the government, etc.

            If you are against abortion, then what you should do is try to convince pregnant women that there are other options. I have no problem with that. But that does not mean forcing them to look at an ultrasound or listen to a heartbeat. That is just playing on someone’s motherly instincts which were acquired from natural selection in order to make her pass on the genes of the couple. While nature gave her that instinct, she is under no obligation to act on it. We are not required by any moral law to pass on our genes. It is just a natural inclination that we are not bound to follow.

            • Rebecca Hamilton

              So Bill, you are arguing that the life of a human being may be snuffed out at will because someone else will have a hard time of it? We should do away with the discriminations against women and mothers that leads to your argument. The SOLUTION to misogyny is NOT to allow women to kill their children, it is to end misogyny.

              “Yes, Rebecca. It means terminating the life of the child. What exactly are the consequences of terminating the life of say a first trimester fetus? Compare that to the potential consequences of an unwanted pregnancy to a woman’s entire life. Whose decision is it as to the direction that woman’s life should go? Where do you think you stand in that picking order?”

              Why should women not look at ultrasounds of their babies? If that informs them of what they are doing and persuades them to stop, then you have saved a life. At the very least, they are seeing the truth instead of lies like the ones you have told on this blog that the unborn child is not a human being. If seeing the baby puts that story to the lie — and, even in the first trimester it does — then what is wrong with the truth? As for helping women, be careful who you’re talking to when you say things like that. I have a track record on that issue that I doubt either you or most of the readers on this blog could evince.

              As for “passing on our genes,” you’ve been reading too much Dawkins. Go out, lift your face to the sunshine and inhale.

              “f you are against abortion, then what you should do is try to convince pregnant women that there are other options. I have no problem with that. But that does not mean forcing them to look at an ultrasound or listen to a heartbeat. That is just playing on someone’s motherly instincts which were acquired from natural selection in order to make her pass on the genes of the couple. While nature gave her that instinct, she is under no obligation to act on it. We are not required by any moral law to pass on our genes. It is just a natural inclination that we are not bound to follow.”

            • bcarpe

              “What exactly are the consequences of terminating the life of say a first trimester fetus?”
              The loss of the entire life of a human being.

              “Compare that to the potential consequences of an unwanted pregnancy to a woman’s entire life.”
              The loss of some (maybe many) freedoms in the life of a human being.

              I’m thinking the loss of some (maybe many) freedoms in a life is of less consequence than the loss of a life in its entirety.

        • Cecilia

          Obstinate? How about consistent? Truth does not change. That is hard to accept in a culture that changes truth with popular opinion. Call it terminating a pregnancy if you want. It is still the ending of a life. And the problem with being in the business of decided who lives and who dies is that one day it might be me. Or you. Peace.

    • Cecilia

      Pro-life, pro-unborn woman.

  • Bill S

    “So Bill, you are arguing that the life of a human being may be snuffed out at will because someone else will have a hard time of it?”

    Yes. I am saying that. That is what happened Indy case. I was spared the hard time. So that makes one vote for and one against.

  • Bill S

    Make that “in my case”.

  • pagansister

    Having 3 members in my family who had to make that very difficult decision (all 3 had different, reasons) over the last 25 years, and chose to terminate, I am just glad they had a save place to have the procedure.

    • R.S

      I have a friend who would have died if she didn’t have an abortion. I too am glad she was able to have a safe place for the procedure.

      • Rebecca Hamilton

        If abortion truly is necessary to save the woman’s life, then I think the law should allow it. However, that does not in any way require the mass slaughter of abortion on demand.

  • Araghast

    I wonder whether if the pope were faced with the choice between supporting access to contraceptives or supporting keeping abortion legal (without any alterntative in this hypothetical), which he would go for.

    I can guess in reality he won’t support either, but I wonder which would be the “lesser of 2 evils” to him, and if they were equivilants for him, how he would he choose between them.

    Quick note: This in reality is obviously a false dichotomy, but I’m curious how people would respond if this dichotomy was in fact true; that one must choose one or the other, and no third option (not even refusing to weigh in) is available.

    • bcarpe

      What a fun question! Took me a lot of thinking and looking at different angles. I think the most intriguing conclusion I’ve reached (which depends on perhaps a very specific understanding of your question) is that your forced dichotomy would require a world wherein the dynamics of the free will of human beings were tampered with and made different from how the actually are. And I think something as fundamental to the human person as free will has potential to shift what is moral and what should be legal if it is changed. Of course, I don’t know what changes to those dynamics would have to occur in order to force that dichotomy, so I’m really not sure what the effects would be on the comparative ill effects of access to contraceptives and legal abortion.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X