Your argument here is whacked out.If you believe it is wrong to kill a child at any time, even day one, but are only trying to refocus efforts start with saving the 9 month babies first, then the eight monthers, and so on, I agree with your strategy. We should be focusing our limmited resources on where we get the most impact. However, I also believe it is a waste of resources to engage the more purist pro life people to try to convince them that they should not be trying to save the day one babies also.
And I think you’re coming into this particular discussion a day late and a dollar short. If you do some more reading, you’ll see that royal IS an advocate for defending life at all stages, without prioritization for any age. So is twinklers. This discussion is more about how to engage the fight and make progress, since there are several battle fronts and limited strategies. I personally agree with fighting the fights you can win, while always keeping the total war in sight…fighting until it is completely won. This is what is being discussed.Your argument here is whacked out.
If ultimately you had to decide who to defend on a life issue, " A 60 year old man or a 30 year old man" Which one would you defend more?
Would you be unjustified not to argue for both equally?
I think you are drinking the Obama kool aid
Your decisions on how to engage and make progress leaves many of the innocent without hope.And I think you’re coming into this particular discussion a day late and a dollar short. If you do some more reading, you’ll see that royal IS an advocate for defending life at all stages, without prioritization for any age. So is twinklers. This discussion is more about how to engage the fight and make progress, since there are several battle fronts and limited strategies. I personally agree with fighting the fights you can win, while always keeping the total war in sight…fighting until it is completely won. This is what is being discussed.
God Bless
Give it a rest, my friend. And check yourself. You don’t know me. You can’t possibly grasp the essence of my stance on abortion from one or two posts. If you care to delve into it, explore some of my posts over the past year regarding the subject. Better yet, just look back at some of mine within this thread. I wasn’t the first to suggest fighting easier battles, my friend. In fact, at first I challenged it. And furthermore, it’s not about taking the “easy” road. It’s about exploring the idea that we’re fighting an enemy that can be sooner convinced that late-term abortions are an abomination and outrage, than they can about the very truth that aborting an hour-old fertilized egg is equally abominable and outrageous. I could easily say that you, who would want to spend all your time trying to convince the secular world that a cell is a human (which I believe too), are doing so at the expense of late-term babies who are dying while you waste that time. This was twinklers position, and I see some merit in it.Your decisions on how to engage and make progress leaves many of the innocent without hope.
So fight the easier fight and those that die during the time period that did not get the 100% effort that you gave the other is justified because it is a fight that is harder to win.
A father’s son and daughter are condemned to death. The father can argue to commute either. The son would be an easier argument to win and the daughter more of an argument. However to argue the daughter’s case and win-- will commute the son’s sentence as well.
What would you do?
Think of it as focused fire. early i WWII would you have advocated bombing Berlin and taking resources away from Normandy? Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between those who disagree with the strategy and those who disagree with the effort.Your decisions on how to engage and make progress leaves many of the innocent without hope.
So fight the easier fight and those that die during the time period that did not get the 100% effort that you gave the other is justified because it is a fight that is harder to win.
A father’s son and daughter are condemned to death. The father can argue to commute either. The son would be an easier argument to win and the daughter more of an argument. However to argue the daughter’s case and win-- will commute the son’s sentence as well.
What would you do?
I am not trying to convince anyone but to state fact. To kill a child in the womb from day one to birth is extrinsically evil.Give it a rest, my friend. And check yourself. You don’t know me. You can’t possibly grasp the essence of my stance on abortion from one or two posts. If you care to delve into it, explore some of my posts over the past year regarding the subject. Better yet, just look back at some of mine within this thread. I wasn’t the first to suggest fighting easier battles, my friend. In fact, at first I challenged it. And furthermore, it’s not about taking the “easy” road. It’s about exploring the idea that we’re fighting an enemy that can be sooner convinced that late-term abortions are an abomination and outrage, than they can about the very truth that aborting an hour-old fertilized egg is equally abominable and outrageous. I could easily say that you, who would want to spend all your time trying to convince the secular world that a cell is a human (which I believe too), are doing so at the expense of late-term babies who are dying while you waste that time. This was twinklers position, and I see some merit in it.
I’m not exactly convinced of the idea, but willing to engage in dialogue about it. You, on the other hand, engage in shotgun tactics…rattling off your pro-life stance to the first post you see that suggests it’s not fully aligned with your thinking…simultaneously taking people out of context, and not doing a little homework within the thread to gain situational awareness.
Happy to do dialogue with you once you start to relax. Last time I checked, all of us here talking about this particular subject are Catholics, seemingly devoutly so. So, I’m sure we’re all on the same page about the sanctity of ALL human life.
Exactly. When thr proabortion crowd wants to talk about common ground they are saying maybe they will only kill half as many babies and that is okay.I am not trying to convince anyone but to state fact. To kill a child in the womb from day one to birth is extrinsically evil.
To choose month 9 over month 1 makes no sense and only gives first term or second term abortions accreditation.
There is no negotiation on the subject to do so is to bend to the pro-choice advocates.
Science itself states the baby in the womb is human life. What is there to debate.
The law in most states declare to kill the baby in the womb is murder except for the abortion doctor.
If you also see my posts over the past several years you will see the same pro-life stance.
I am not arguing your pro life stance and believe it is the same as I.
I am arguing that the fight needs to concentrated on all stages of pregnancy.
The first argument to get abortion acceptable is the attempt to declare at what point in pregnancy is abortion ok and when is it not. The fight should always be from the day of conception. Which I understand and have read yours is.
Human Beings are born with a concious so the mother to kill or have killed her child defies even the world of the aniimal kingdom.
Rather argue and defend that every woman whom goes to have an abortion must sit through a film of a previous abortion at the stage she wants to have her child killed. She should have to watch what is done to the woman and the child.
Only then will a truly educated and informed pro-choice be made. Only then will true conciousness come into play. If the woman wants still then to have the abortion then that is her choice to committ evil, God Gave Adam and Eve the choice to eat of the tree of knowledge or not to. God did not stop Cain from killing Abel. All did though suffer the consequences.
The only fightr is that to kill the baby in the womb is wrong at all stages
I am not foolish enough to think that all evil to include abortion will ever come to an end on this earth. This is not just a religious view but a moral one.
By the way you did not answer my previous question on the son and daughter.
Fair enough. We are both definitively pro-life. Some advocate fighting more win-able battles, some say that this is too much of a sacrifice for the cause. I see the merit in both arguments. But I’d like to say to you, that to plead your case by suggesting that those who would consider fighting it a different way are unaware of the sanctity of life from conception is presumptuous and sanctimonious. Your soap-box was, therefore, misdirected and essentially unnecessary. I can’t speak for others who’ve suggested this strategy against pro-choicers, but I will tell you that, for me, it’s not about sacrificing morals or ignoring the essential premise of the problem, namely the sanctity of all human life. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we dismiss the ‘just conceived’ babies in favor of the ‘late term’ babies. I think it’s more a matter of sequence and timing, and smart time management in the fight. Again, I see merit in that prioritization of effort…just as I see merit in fighting it on all fronts simultaneously.I am not trying to convince anyone but to state fact. To kill a child in the womb from day one to birth is extrinsically evil.
To choose month 9 over month 1 makes no sense and only gives first term or second term abortions accreditation.
There is no negotiation on the subject to do so is to bend to the pro-choice advocates.
Science itself states the baby in the womb is human life. What is there to debate.
The law in most states declare to kill the baby in the womb is murder except for the abortion doctor.
If you also see my posts over the past several years you will see the same pro-life stance.
I am not arguing your pro life stance and believe it is the same as I.
I am arguing that the fight needs to concentrated on all stages of pregnancy.
The first argument to get abortion acceptable is the attempt to declare at what point in pregnancy is abortion ok and when is it not. The fight should always be from the day of conception. Which I understand and have read yours is.
Human Beings are born with a concious so the mother to kill or have killed her child defies even the world of the aniimal kingdom.
Rather argue and defend that every woman whom goes to have an abortion must sit through a film of a previous abortion at the stage she wants to have her child killed. She should have to watch what is done to the woman and the child.
Only then will a truly educated and informed pro-choice be made. Only then will true conciousness come into play. If the woman wants still then to have the abortion then that is her choice to committ evil, God Gave Adam and Eve the choice to eat of the tree of knowledge or not to. God did not stop Cain from killing Abel. All did though suffer the consequences.
The only fightr is that to kill the baby in the womb is wrong at all stages
I am not foolish enough to think that all evil to include abortion will ever come to an end on this earth. This is not just a religious view but a moral one.
By the way you did not answer my previous question on the son and daughter.
The analogy is not skewed in my opinion as time does not matter. Not of this earth but from this earth. The analogy is simple as one reason you give is time in supposing the son could be released in a year but to fight for the daughter also could mean ten, twenty, or a hundred years as this should not be a determination unless one can foresee the hand of God and the future?Fair enough. We are both definitively pro-life. Some advocate fighting more win-able battles, some say that this is too much of a sacrifice for the cause. I see the merit in both arguments. But I’d like to say to you, that to plead your case by suggesting that those who would consider fighting it a different way are unaware of the sanctity of life from conception is presumptuous and sanctimonious. Your soap-box was, therefore, misdirected and essentially unnecessary. I can’t speak for others who’ve suggested this strategy against pro-choicers, but I will tell you that, for me, it’s not about sacrificing morals or ignoring the essential premise of the problem, namely the sanctity of all human life. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that we dismiss the ‘just conceived’ babies in favor of the ‘late term’ babies. I think it’s more a matter of sequence and timing, and smart time management in the fight. Again, I see merit in that prioritization of effort…just as I see merit in fighting it on all fronts simultaneously.
As for your son/daughter dilemma…
Logic would at first compel me to fight for my daughter so that both can be saved. But it’s an unfair analogy, because you don’t express any time limit for the son while he waits for me to save the daughter. In the abortion war, late term babies are dying every day, while the fight is being waged for ALL babies. Now, I agree with fighting hard for ALL babies, but if I saw an opportunity to win a battle over late term babies, I could see merit in prioritizing that fight. If the murder of late term babies could be put on hold while we fight for the murder of ALL babies in the womb, everyone would fight for ALL of them right away. That’s why your analogy is skewed. To throw the analogy back at you, would you fight for the daughter if you knew that doing so would result in the death of the son? This is closer to what’s going on with abortion in our world.
Using your previous logic this last statment would be condoning abortion as long as she watched the movie. I see it differently In war yoiu don’t just bomb the other side and eventually they give up. Typically you soften them up by bombing all over and take land where they are weakest. Plese understand I do not see this as a difference of theology or moral interpretations. I see it as a difference in strategy.I am not trying to convince anyone but to state fact. To kill a child in the womb from day one to birth is extrinsically evil.
To choose month 9 over month 1 makes no sense and only gives first term or second term abortions accreditation.
There is no negotiation on the subject to do so is to bend to the pro-choice advocates.
Science itself states the baby in the womb is human life. What is there to debate.
The law in most states declare to kill the baby in the womb is murder except for the abortion doctor.
If you also see my posts over the past several years you will see the same pro-life stance.
I am not arguing your pro life stance and believe it is the same as I.
I am arguing that the fight needs to concentrated on all stages of pregnancy.
The first argument to get abortion acceptable is the attempt to declare at what point in pregnancy is abortion ok and when is it not. The fight should always be from the day of conception. Which I understand and have read yours is.
Human Beings are born with a concious so the mother to kill or have killed her child defies even the world of the aniimal kingdom.
Rather argue and defend that every woman whom goes to have an abortion must sit through a film of a previous abortion at the stage she wants to have her child killed. She should have to watch what is done to the woman and the child.
.
What I am saying is that you or I are not going to stop evil or abortion. The same way we cannot stop homocides, robberies, etc…Using your previous logic this last statment would be condoning abortion as long as she watched the movie. I see it differently In war yoiu don’t just bomb the other side and eventually they give up. Typically you soften them up by bombing all over and take land where they are weakest. Plese understand I do not see this as a difference of theology or moral interpretations. I see it as a difference in strategy.
There are two aspects of the fight to save these children, the moral one and the secular one. While I agree that forcing women to see these movies would be a good way to discourage them from murdering their children, the fact is that in teh secular side of our society groups like planned parrenthood are actively trying to promote abortion and will not allow the movies in to interfere with their profits. While in the moral fight it is better to address the sanctity of live regardless of age, in the secular fight we have to realize that some babies are seen by secular society of more worthy of saving. It is best that we enlist thes secular resources to assist us in fighting these aspects of the battle than to be constantly engaging them in the areas of the secular battle where we have more opposition. This is not to say that those who seek to secular protection of life at all levels should not dedicate their resources. For instance, in WWII if an ally were only willing to help us push the Germans out of France but was unwilling to help us defeat Germany over all. Should we have accepted their help in the first aspects of the campaign or should we have fought them also since they would not help us through the entirety of the war?What I am saying is that you or I are not going to stop evil or abortion. The same way we cannot stop homocides, robberies, etc…
Jesus knew that He could not get everyone to follow but to not follow leads one into darkness and fires of hell.
It would be great to overturn Roe vs Wade so that our tax dollars do not support such actions.
That alone though will not stop the action on part of the mother in committing this evil act along with the doctors to whom perform them.
The baby in the womb however is who needs defending and equally at all stages.
The mother contemplating such a course of action needs to be educated on the proceedure to include film and photos as many of these women are uneducated. The cause and effect possibiities as a result of her action physically, psychologically, and morally.due to what her action will cause. Do this in places such as a planned Parenthood clinics and the ***truth ***will in itself stops 99% of all abortions.
The women needs to know there are alternatives out there that only makes her reasoning to committ such an action only that of selfishness, pride, and greed.
If you change the rationality, mind and heart of the consumer( mother ) than you stop the need for such an evil at all stages for most except for those hell bent on committing such an act no matter what the cause and effect.
We must be heaven bent on stopping these atrocities starting with conception till natural death through telling truth and stopping the lies and omissions
Pontius Pilot asked the question, What is truth? Jesus is the*** Truth ***He said I am the way, the ***truth ***and the life.
Never be afraid of stating the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God.
I know we have the same opinion on life issues but I beg to differ on the way of battling this as to not allow the clouding of this issue as a life is a life. we are all at different stages of life and all deserve the right to life and to be defended from those that think otherwise.
On this Memorial Day weekend remember the Declaration of Independence
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
As a man, I find it very difficult to really get my head around this issue and put myself in the shoes of a pregnant woman. Generally speaking, I don’t like abortion. The destruction of human life is always a very bad, highly undesirable thing.
However, the legalization of abortion is not a cut-and-dry simple matter for me. The fetus is a creature that’s living inside of a woman, it takes up resources, causes emotional and physical transformations, and a pregnancy may negatively impact the mother socially and economically. And, of course it could potentially cause that woman harm. And, the woman has to endure this for 9 months. Do I *force *every woman who gets pregnant in the United States to endure that? Admittedly, a woman keeping the baby fetus inside of her for most of a year - even while it turns her life upside down - is usually the merciful, praiseworthy thing, but it’s not something that should be inscribed and demanded by law. It’s a decision that each woman needs to make on her own, and government needs to get the heck out of it.
Define “person”. Wouldn’t the first criteria for “person” be LIFE?Yep I agree though one thing different for me I am a woman lol. Also I should note from what I understand at least I think this way. We do see the fetus as a life. The question is it a life worthy of personhood and protection under the law.? And at the stage mentioned in the article I find it to be a very grey area. But the fact of the matter is most abortions take place far far sooner.
Maybe we need to invent a new moniker for Pro CHOICERS. Maybe “Pro JUST GO AWAY, HAVE YOUR ABORTION, I DON’T WANT TO BE BOTHERED”.I know I am new and I don’t want to be rude, but that attitude is what causes many to not every express their opinions and actually pushes people away from faith. I am pro-choice, only because God gave us free will and if the government is going to restrict that will would we really and truly be Godly people?
I would never want to or have even thought of my wife having an abortion. With that said, I think that women need to be educated and invited to come to the Lord as we have. Stating that pro-choice is a false term is almost as bad as calling people who are pro-choice, pro-abortion, something I hope no one in the world truly is.
Revert TSIEG
I know I am new and I don’t want to be rude, but that attitude is what causes many to not every express their opinions and actually pushes people away from faith. I am pro-choice, only because God gave us free will and if the government is going to restrict that will would we really and truly be Godly people?
I would never want to or have even thought of my wife having an abortion. With that said, I think that women need to be educated and invited to come to the Lord as we have. Stating that pro-choice is a false term is almost as bad as calling people who are pro-choice, pro-abortion, something I hope no one in the world truly is.
Revert TSIEG
I believe several things:I believe two things:
The problem with the prolife political movement (as distinct from the prolife religious movement) is that its focus is overwhelmingly negative, propsing legistation to outlaw abortion which perforce means to impose criminal penalties.
- Abortion is wrong.
- The state should not incarcerate a woman who has one.
I have yet to see legislation seriously discussed that promotes life positively, such as providing massive state assistance of all types to anyone experiencing pregnancy.
And I don’t expect to because the most ardent advocates for criminalizing abortions are likely to be those who would complain about the cost of such programs.
I guess I would have to sit at the end of the counter, or at another table, because I wouldn’t be able to talk about any of the “politically controversial issues”. Now if you were to identify the underlying evils of this “morally controversial issue”, we might, just might, get somewhere, but then again we may not.MaryGirls, I am soooo glad to see your post. You it the nail on the head. I think that more, frankly, everyone should feel like you. Although I do not call myself pro-life, I think would be willing to have a cup of coffee with you and talk about any of the politically controversial issues.
Revert TSIEG
MaryGirls, I am soooo glad to see your post. You it the nail on the head. I think that more, frankly, everyone should feel like you. Although I do not call myself pro-life, I think would be willing to have a cup of coffee with you and talk about any of the politically controversial issues.
Revert TSIEG
What you say is a direct reflection of American society… With your rationale, we should create laws that only we believe to be applicable. I think you had better re read his post. You didn’t get the point he was making at all. It sounds like we or you or all of us are so good in our morals that we should choose what laws need to be made and for whom they are applied to. What he was asking was, would you be comfortable having no laws protecting anyone? And if you concede the baby in the womb is a human baby, why do we have laws protecting society from many evils, but not one law to protect the child in the womb from conception to natural death.My main point is that if we restrict one thing why not another. I strongly believe that legislation should first be passed to make those who are living lives better before we start messing with those who are not living (according to the law of the land). The fact is that we do not live in a society and country that helps its own people, why do you think they would help people who are not even classified, by their own definition, a person?
I know, you know, we all know that abortion is wrong. The argument should not be to restrict… My thought is to get restriction out of your mind for one second and look at this from the perspective of someone with no bias. Legislation needs to be passed to help people, all people, not just those who are capable, if faith, or rich. I think that before we start labeling and judging, the fundamental paradigm of America needs to change. Divisive issues, such as abortion, are issue rooted in both ignorance and fear, two things we need to overcome before we are a better America.
Now as a Church of the faithful… we need to be above this bickering. The Biblical law as well as the Church law states that we will not, so we will not. It is that simple for us, but not all in this country and we need to understand their reasoning and not just say they are wrong, even though we know, from our perspective, they are.
I pray for them.
– Revert TSIEG
As Catholics we are called to engage the world and to evangelize the truth. This idea that we can have our own beliefs but should hide in the shadows when these issues come up in the secular world is simply wrong. Morality can and is legislated. In my state, liquor stores must close at 9 pm and cannot be open for business on Sundays. A child must have parental consent to have a body piercing or to receive a baby aspirin at school, but for some reason many people ( SEE O-B-A-M-A) advocate for underage girls to be able to have abortions (a potentially fatal procedure) without parental consent. The Church wants and Christ demands that we be Catholic in every aspect of our lives. For some reason people become embarrassed or even ashamed when this means taking a clear and moral stance on an issue.
Evil often comes in the guise of good intentions and tolerance. Evil especially flourishes in the so called “grey” areas of controversies. I suppose it’s the proliferation of moral relativism in our society that causes many people to cower in the middle of the road instead of making a stand for what is right.
Like it or not, good and evil still exist. The question is, which side are you on?
As Catholics we are called to engage the world and to evangelize the truth. This idea that we can have our own beliefs but should hide in the shadows when these issues come up in the secular world is simply wrong. Morality can and is legislated. In my state, liquor stores must close at 9 pm and cannot be open for business on Sundays. A child must have parental consent to have a body piercing or to receive a baby aspirin at school, but for some reason many people advocate for underage girls to be able to have abortions (a potentially fatal procedure) without parental consent. The Church wants and Christ demands that we be Catholic in every aspect of our lives. For some reason people become embarrassed or even ashamed when this means taking a clear and moral stance on an issue.
Evil often comes in the guise of good intentions and tolerance. Evil especially flourishes in the so called “grey” areas of controversies. I suppose it’s the proliferation of moral relativism in our society that causes many people to cower in the middle of the road instead of making a stand for what is right.
Like it or not, good and evil still exist. The question is, which side are you on?
I hope and pray it doesn’t happen, but if someone in your family is killed by a drunk driver, a terrorist, or some other insane person, you will realize laws are needed to protect the innocent. If laws are not made for protection of these little ones, can we really hold up our heads in honor and dignity because they are unseen and have no voice?First and foremost, there are too many laws in this country… living overseas for several years, you don’t see signs stating common stuff. For example, I was having a surgery in Lubbock, TX at Tech, and was asked by a Brit “why are there signs all over the roads saying do not drink and drive, don’t Americans know not to drink and drive?” I answered, because we as Americans will argue and sue if we have to in order to get the point across that the facts were not in our faces… that is our society. Meaning, that we will say I did not know, or there was not sign, so drinking and driving must be legal.
You may ask, what does this have to do with pro-choice/pro-life…well laws!! Most conservatives believe in less regulation, less legal and national control. Why must THIS issue be forced in law. Jesus, as far as I know, did not pushed for laws! Yes, he spoke of the moral code of God, but he did not say to get legislation out for prohibitions. Jesus said to love, not to hate. What kind of Catholics are we pushing this kind of hate, and it is hate.
I know abortions are wrong, and I hope all of you reading this feel the same. My questions are, why do we know it is wrong, but others think that it is not wrong. I don’t think anyone, regardless of political or religious preference, think abortions are ok, many just do not want it to be illegal by legal means. I believe, as stated on previous posts, that we need to SHOW, not TELL these women the affects of their decisions.
I am all for pushing for legislation of showing sonograms, telling the father, and in underage situations, telling the parents. I will vote on all these right now. But overturning Rowe v. Wade is not feasible… it is like telling my son to hit a home run out of Yankee stadium off a 100MPH pitch and he is almost 5, not going to happen Be realist in your/our goals and take small steps, not go straight for the the end result. It is what happened in all revolutions, look at the civil rights movements in the US. It took small, all-be-it, loud steps.
I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion as some like to title it. I am open minded, and I have not yet seen an argument that states we should make decisions for others to change my mind to pro-life. Most of the pro-lifers I have spoken to are too close minded and condescending that I shut down after less that a min. I hope the responses trying to sway me are not condescending and have an open minded nature to them so as to be not augmentative in nature.
Revert TSIEG