Beto O’Rourke on Third-Trimester Abortions: Should be Decision the Woman Makes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeanne_S. . .
Who said anything about harsh words,certainly not I.
Click to expand...
I agree with you Jeanne_S.

Nobody in the Catholic ecosystem that I know is being “harsh” and certainly not forcing anything.

The main religious “dictators” in the world today are the followers of the religions of secular humanism.

They have no qualms about dictatorial support if a woman chooses to kill another person (concerning her own unborn baby).

They are amongst what Pope John Paul II the Great called . . . The Culture of Death.

Their secular humanism religion is so bad, that the only way it can be imposed is via force.

And as I have said, “Beto” evangelizes that message regarding the babies.
( For those who may not know, “Beto” is the person on the left below.
Not one of the two persons on the right.
Picture from my OP.)
Click to expand...
A dictatorial decision to be sure (from the baby’s perspective anyway, who has this “abortion” FORCED upon them).
 
Last edited:
Look at the sad state of your country,Ireland re abortion.How did you get to this point a once Catholic country now a pro death country
 
No one has been trying to drag women down or subjugate more that pro abortionist,which sadly include many of these women’s doctors.
 
Speaking of imposing beliefs, I recall that every state comprising the United States had its own laws regulating abortion until 1973. Then the Supreme Court invalidated all those state laws by judicial fiat and imposed its own law, which was not particularly well thought out, on every state. U.S. abortion laws are generally less restrictive of abortion than in any European country.
 
dvdjs said:
40.png
Cathoholic:
No indication to kill off the baby.
Click to expand...
Good for you to say. And I agree.
Others don’t agree. The question is what should the government compel them to do and by why should it do that.
Click to expand...
And some think killing a spouse in honor killing is warranted. We live in a pluralistic society where diversity makes us stronger and better.
 
Just for the record, our best numbers on third trimester abortions place them above the number of homicides by firearms, nationally. And that’s using the lowball percentages. Remember that when you hear people say they are “rare” or “too few to focus on” and then say firearm ownership constitutes a national emergency.
 
vz71 said:
What precisely is this other perspective?
Click to expand...
One perspective is Jewish law.
qui_est_ce said:
And some think killing a spouse in honor killing is warranted.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of people in this nation would oppose honors killings.
The cast majority of people in this nation support legal abortion in the first trimester.
What is your plan to deal with reality? If it is to suppress minority opinions, please consider what that would mean against Catholics.
 
Last edited:
You have asked this, and i have answered it.
I will answer once again. There are other perspectives on avoirtion among deeply religious people of other faiths. My point is that that has to be dealt with in a productive way. inflamed rhetoric that presupposes that those who disagree are evil people misses the mark and is counter productive to anything other than virtue signalling.
 
dvdjs (on the subject of killing babies with medical imperfections) . . .
When are these deformities are recognized?
Click to expand...
It is irrelevant.

Just because a baby has a “deformity” . . . . Does not yield some magic indication for abortion.

There is no indication for late-term abortions.
Nor infanticide.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
It is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
It is relevant ot the point that you had e been making, that the discussion of these situations was a deflection from third-trimester abortions. If you answered my questions rather than deflected to something else, you would find that my remark was about third trimester abortions not a deflection from it.
 
I answered your question.

It doesn’t matter.

And it doesn’t matter.

It is not medically indicated to kill a baby.

And as far as the third trimester, look at the thread title.

You are the one deflecting here.

There is no indication for late-term abortions.

And there is no indication for infanticide.
 
VanitasVanitatum. What kind of “evidence” do you want?

What reason can you come up with to murder a baby that you can just as well deliver?

Do you think a human studies committee is going to approve a randomized prospective double-blinded study of telling moms their baby just got randomized to be in the murdered group instead of delivered??

And then peer-review the results for publication?

This is common sense.

You don’t murder babies.

There is no indication for late-term abortions.

And there is no indication for infanticide.

Edit: Sorry VanitasVanitatum. I thought you were asking me for evidence. My mistake.
 
Last edited:
Sorry VanitasVanitatum. I thought you were asking me for evidence. My mistake.
 
Religious beliefs inform many laws, and always have. Prior to Roe vs Wade, most Americans opposed elective abortion and had a religious basis for it. Most opposed homosexual “marriage” at one time, and had a religious basis for it.

All kinds of laws have a religious foundation. At one time in America, the courts even said it, and not so very long ago. Now, of course, it’s politically incorrect to say it, but they still do it.
 
I don;t have so much of a problem with that as I do rhetoric that implies that those other viewpoints are not just misinformed or wrong, but evil. And sometimes even that the people who hold them are evil.
 
Last edited:
It has been awhile, but I once read that Jewish law has profoundly influenced Anglo-Saxon law, even down to the endless concatenations of principles derived from a central principle in case law that’s almost Talmudic in its complexity and analytic nature. I will, of course, grant that William’s promise to the Saxon lords that they would be governed by the laws in existence when King Edward was “both alive and dead”, is the formal establishment of the precedent system in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. But in the endless development from there, it’s not hard to believe in a Jewish influence.

Couldn’t prove it one way or the other by me, but that’s an intriguing thought. I personally have some occasion to do things involving the Uniform Commercial Code, and there’s a lot of Jewish principles in that.
 
Some principles are forever. However it may be in Ireland, the whole American system is based on the principle that certain rights are inherent and immutable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top