Garfield,
You are looking at this from an entirely different place. My point is IF you believe as the Roman Catholic Church does that abortion is murder and therefore a sin then as a Catholic there is no abortion debate. It's 100% wrong 100% of the time. Frankly it is theologically impossible for it to be otherwise.
I understand that and I agree with it in so far as a religion must be absolute in it's principles.
The question I have is more about the followers. I do not believe that when it comes right down to it that there are many catholics who believe in their own mind that it is right to compel a 9 yr old child who was raped by her step father to bear the children of that rape. Assuming my premise it correct that not many people agree with the decision, how does one reconcile ones belief in the religion with ones disagreement with one of it's core beliefs?
I am not one who believes that religion is an a-la-carte. I think by it's nature a you pointed out it is absolute. The religion it's self is absolute and faith in that religion is absolute. You either believe in it all, or none.
Can you explain to me how one disagrees with a certain aspect of ones religion yet still believes in the religion and I would assume, the absolute correctness of everything that religions god has laid down in the scriptures of that religion? This is something I do not understand and I believe is largely responsible for my lack of faith.
I think for a society to thrive and prosper both financially and spiritually you have to have some moral absolutes. An example is the crime of Murder. In this case as a society we agree 100% that murder is wrong. In order for society to function we have established "Degrees" of culpability based on standards set by society. If you plan it all out in advance with "Malious aforethought" then you go to prison for a very long time versus getting behind the wheel drunk and killing another person. While we do have degrees of punishment we still maintain the moral absolute of "Thou Shalt Not Kill"
I think it is important to have moral absolutes as they are important in deciding just what the role of government and religion is in our society. The debate over this fundamental conflict keeps many a news/political junkie busy and provides ample fodder for the media.
I am not so sure about absolutes. I think justifiable exceptions can be made for nearly any absolute. Stealing? A prisoner who is being starved, can they steal from their captor? It's still stealing IMO. Killing, sure bad in most cases but what if you kill to save others? Is the sacrifice of a few lives worth saving other lives? I guess one could make the distinction that murder for personal gain is bad. Not sure if there is an exception for that one or not. Robin Hood? That story is popular because a lot of people feel that it is OK to steal from the rich and give tot he poor especially if they perceive that the rich being stolen from are bad in some way. What about breaking the law? How many people can say that they have never knowingly and willfully broken the speed limit?
I think we all like the idea of absolutes but when it comes down to it, we cannot live with absolutes. Were that not the case, wouldn't we still be stoning adulterers?
On a separate note, I believe that someone who consumes alcohol and gets behind the wheel of a car did so with malice aforethought and should be treated as such.
