Abortions again, from a practical point of view

[heidi_storage]

I like your post, but disagree that the OP needs to argue about potential vs actual human beings. “Potential” person is a nonsense term. How could you define it properly? What characteristics would be required to differentiate between a “potential” and “actual” human?

People think about unborn children in terms of feelings, not biology; a 32-week fetus feels so much more like a baby than does a zygote. An embryo or fetus has as much humanity as it is accorded by its mother. This isn’t objective reality, but subjective perception, and it frames the whole abortion debate to a great extent.

 

[heidi_storage]

Yeah, citation needed. Off the cuff, I seem to remember about half of pregnancies are “unplanned,” which is not the same as “unwanted.”

 

[Abrosz]

What are you talking about?

Reality.

You’re in a Catholic forum. We happen to think if you love someone, you would commit and not use them for sex. Shocking!

I have no problem with that. Just don’t think that everyone agrees with you. Why do you say “use them for sex”?

And there it is. There’s the root of the problem here. You’re better off debating this point first.

Belongs to a separate thread.

So you’ll end up talking past each other.

This is unfortunate.

No, Catholics do not promote LARC.

And that is the problem. Abstinence is impractical. If you wish to practice it, go ahead. Just don’t think that other people will follow. If one wishes to achieve a favorable result, sometimes a compromise is in order.

That said, there is always a price to pay for fornication.

Ah, the good old 4NICK8 It was an actual license plate some time ago.

This is a deeply practical as well as moral matter; fornication leads to sickness, unwanted pregnancy, broken bonds, decreased levels of marital satisfaction, and all kinds of emotional hurt.

It is not a good idea to speak for others.

Quite frankly, the most practical thing people could do is to stay abstinent until marriage and then go at it with their spouse.

That is your opinion, shared by an insignificant percentage of the people. And as such it is NOT practical.

Well stealing is pleasurable. To not steal is not to be practical. In all honesty sometimes being too practical also means to be contrary to logic. Life is hard, world is tough and we sacrifice something on daily (even hourly) basis. It gives you much more pleasure to just do drugs and it doesn’t risk life of others, yet they aren’t considered practical and sex while you don’t want baby is? I will try to stick to your premise but it isn’t very practical

Sorry. Since you confuse consensual activities with “stealing”, I cannot follow you.

Moment you reduce sex to pleasure and make it sort of transaction, it all falls apart

No, it does not. It might become temporary. An analogy: “just because you will get hungry again, it is still a good idea to fill your stomach”.

 

[Irishmom2]

A zygote, embryo, fetus are potential human beings, which potential will become actual at the time of birth. But that is the subject of other threads. Here the central question is - how to minimize / eliminate abortions.

Please help us understand why you think it is appropriate to come to a Catholic website and say things that are disrespectful, and inaccurate, and against the teachings of the Church? What are you going to get out of continually bringing your falsehoods and erroneous views to people that quite obviously do not share your views? If you think you will change their views, I can tell you that you will not sway them.

The obvious answer to your question of how to minimize or eliminate abortion is for women to not have them. But that isn’t what you are really asking, that isn’t the point you are trying to drive home in your repeated posts on this topic, is it?

 

[Abrosz]

Please help us understand why you think it is appropriate to come to a Catholic website and say things that are disrespectful, and inaccurate, and against the teachings of the Church?

Just because it is different, it is NOT disrespectful. And the reason is simple: I like to learn, and the only way to learn is to have a conversation with people of differing point of view.

To say that mere difference in opinion is “disrespectful” is not “charitable”.

 

[MarkoB0726]

What exactly is the point of your post? Are you trying to get people to validate your pro-abortion stance or something?

I hate to break the news to you (because apparently someone forgot to or you’re just incapable of thinking it through), but there is NO contraceptive method that is 100% fool-proof. It’s like trying to eliminate the chance of dying when you go skydiving, drive in your car or simply step out your front door. There’s ALWAYS a possibility that death could happen. It’s EXACTLY the same thing with sex.

So again, what’s the point of your post?

 

[Irishmom2]

What is it you are learning from everyone that does not share your views exactly?

 

[Abrosz]

I hate to break the news to you (because apparently someone forgot to or you’re just incapable of thinking it through), but there is NO contraceptive method that is 100% fool-proof.

Sure there is. I am not going to get into the details. And thank you for the “compliment” of “you’re just incapable of thinking it through”, if, of course you meant is as a compliment and not an insult.

 

[neophyte]

If that is how you wish to lead your life, no one should have problem with that. But an insult “behave like an adult” will not get you followers.

The idea of behaving like an adult, or that someone would suggest abandoning juvenile behavior in favor of it, is insulting to you? Interesting.

To say that mere difference in opinion is “disrespectful” is not “charitable”.

Unless someone presents you with the idea that certain behaviors are juvenile?

 

[Irishmom2]

To say that mere difference in opinion is “disrespectful” is not “charitable”.

Not all of your responses have been the kindest quite honestly. And the fact that you keep posting on the same thing in all of your threads and post does sound like you are pushing a pro-abortion agenda. That Is why it is disrespectful.

 

[sealabeag]

Don’t even try to suggest that if one does not want children, one should not participate in sex.

I suggest that if one does not want children, one should not participate in sex.

 

[MarkoB0726]

So if you already have an answer but won’t share the details of what it is with us, then why are you asking us? Based on the nature of your original post, it sounds like you’re here to antagonize rather than ‘learn’ as you claimed in an earlier post.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Sorry. Since you confuse consensual activities with “stealing”, I cannot follow you.

Sure, but abortion surely isn’t consensual. To borrow my own drug example, relationship between drug dealer and addict is consensual one. Doesn’t make it right.

No, it does not. It might become temporary.

How temporary? Child born from such action isn’t “temporary” and it is as much father’s responsibility as mother’s. In other words consensuality becomes temporary but effects don’t unless of course there is abortion which again isn’t very consensual towards the baby and ends someone’s life.

We don’t kill homeless people no one cares about for fun- we aren’t allowed to. It might give some people pleasure yet they aren’t necessarily allowed to do it. So why does consensual sex override this principle with babies and suddenly some are allowed to kill them?

 

[Wesrock]

Don’t even try to suggest that if one does not want children, one should not participate in sex. That is not “practical”. People like to have sex, because it is pleasurable.

This is just about the most absurd statement I’ve read this week.

 

[Abrosz]

What is it you are learning from everyone that does not share your views exactly?

That is not something that can be answered in a sound-bite. Maybe in a new thread.

The idea of behaving like an adult, or that someone would suggest abandoning juvenile behavior in favor of it, is insulting to you? Interesting.

What is “juvenile” (another insult!) about realizing that sex is NOT exclusively and NOT even primarily for procreation?

Not all of your responses have been the kindest quite honestly. And the fact that you keep posting on the same thing in all of your threads and post does sound like you are pushing a pro-abortion agenda. That Is why it is disrespectful.

You are welcome to chastise me for being uncharitable. But please bring up specifics. And I do not have an “agenda”. Also I am NOT pro-abortion. I am anti-abortion and this whole thread was designed to try to find a common platform of how to deal with this problem.

I suggest that if one does not want children, one should not participate in sex.

Your opinion is noted. But it is discarded by an overwhelming percentage of the people.

Based on the nature of your original post, it sounds like you’re here to antagonize rather than ‘learn’ as you claimed in an earlier post.

I think it is against the rules to make an uncharitable assumption about other people’s intentions.

So why does consensual sex override this principle with babies and suddenly some are allowed to kill them?

If only you use the proper terminology instead of 'babies", we could make a progress.

=================

The fundamental question is still: “how to preserve the positive aspects of sex and eliminate the unwanted pregnancies”?

Sometimes complicated problems require compromise. As long as any type of artificial birth control (including non-vaginal intercourse) is forbidden because it is considered “immoral”, there seems to be no solution.

We can end the conversation on this note. There are irreconcilable differences between us. Too bad, but there is nothing to be done.

I wish I could close the thread. Too bad that one is not allowed to close a thread that one opened.

Maybe the moderator would be so kind.

 

[Irishmom2]

To say that mere difference in opinion is “disrespectful” is not “charitable”.

You are welcome to chastise me for being uncharitable. But please bring up specifics.

You are the one that has brought up the word charitable and uncharitable, not me. I have no intention of going off on yet another tangent, or repeating what I already pointed out to you as being disrespectful.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

If only you use the proper terminology instead of 'babies", we could make a progress.

I consider my terminology to be proper. I don’t consider baby seconds before birth to not be a baby and I don’t think doctors are free to stab it at that point. I don’t think vaginal canal confers person-hood. I don’t consider people without heartbeat to be just potential people because I consider old people with pacemaker to be full people. I don’t consider unconscious people or people without memories just potential people because comma patients and those who had memory loss are full people to me. I will not redefine my terminology because I am convinced it would support false statements. I will keep my terminology even at risk of offending others.

The fundamental question is still: “how to preserve the positive aspects of sex and eliminate the unwanted pregnancies”?

Don’t have sex without accepting it’s effects. You want to do something without it’s cause and that is naive and not how world nor society work.

Sometimes complicated problems require compromise. As long as any type of artificial birth control (including non-vaginal intercourse) is forbidden because it is considered “immoral”, there seems to be no solution.

There is solution but it implies people can’t have everything they want and stay moral. Sometimes we need to choose and with choices come sacrifices. That’s just natural. I would really like trying to be a doctor and operate people but I won’t try because effects override my desires. If they don’t (such as when I drink alcohol despite losing some brain cells), I do it. We all do this daily- we evaluate desires with effects and we decide. To just cry out that you really have a desire but effect isn’t pleasant isn’t best way to live.

 

[Servant31]

I think this is kind of it tbh. If your abstinent it’s not a problem at all. If your married and use sex in a way which supports children, your good.

If your doing things outside the Catholic Christian perspective and using contraception, people say it’s an unwanted pregnancy, and therefore use that as grounds to “terminate”. I’m sorry but we’re never going to say that’s ok, because it isn’t…a baby is dying. That’s the result of sex, the potential for life.

From a practical perspective the way the world is now…I would say making abortion illegal would help. Mandatory ultrasounds (or at least free access) would be very useful. Education would go a long way…there are many euphemisms which confuse many people.

 

[sealabeag]

Your opinion is noted. But it is discarded by an overwhelming percentage of the people.

Catholicism is discarded by an overwhelming percentage of the people. Logic is discarded by an overwhelming percentage of the people. Shall I discard my faith and logic in order to pander to them? No, I won’t.

 

[MarkoB0726]

What rules are you referring to? And no, I don’t think I’m being ‘uncharitable’ in my assumptions at all. The language throughout your original post, particularly the last line, reveal your condescension and antangonism.

Your original reply to me also implied that there was a ‘practical’ solution but you were “not going to get into the details’” which implies you already have answer. So AGAIN, why do feel you the need post a question to which you already seem to know the answer, but don’t want to share?

Anyways, I"m done with you. I"ve got more important things to do than continue to let you waste my time. But that’s on me as I chose to engage with you.

Hope you’re able to find something more worthwhile in your life other than antagonizing strangers who you obviously don’t agree with with questions you already have answers for simply because you don’t know how else to get positive attention.