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.
Cathoholic said:
I will still show WHY you would be wrong to de-personalize those first and second trimester babies too.
Click to expand...
An embryo is not a baby.
A second trimester fetus is not a baby.
I’m not de-personalizing. I’m not attacking.

As far as third trimester, the fetus is getting delivered either vaginally or c-section.

I get that you’re angry, but trust me when I say that the pro-life movement will change more minds with facts than with calling an embryo or pre-viable fetus a baby. Third trimester pregnancy, most people will empathize with calling the fetus a baby, but they will still think the procedure should be allowed (not forced) if the doctors deem it medical necessity.
 
MamaJewel said:
I do not believe law should compel one person to provide the direct use of his or her body for the benefit of another.
Click to expand...
The woman opted for pregnancy when they decided to have sex.

Participation in risky behavior is an acceptance of the risk.
 
The law should be up to the discretion of individual states at the least.

Also, when does life actually begin? If one wishes to stand for the snuffing out of that life, then that is there position.
 
Do you deny the fetus has life? So, then, you place importance only in the life of the woman?
 
MamaJewel said:
Nope.
She consented to sex when she had sex.
Click to expand...
You are not being logical.
Any behavior is an acceptance of the risks of that behavior.

If I ride a bike down the highway, I assume risk that may be in an accident.
If I gamble, I assume risk that I will lose my money.
If I have surgery, I assume risk that I may die.

Everything we do is an acceptance of the risk. However small that riak may be, it is still an acceptance of it.

This is why a doctor tells you all the risks of surgery. This is why you are told the possible side effects of medicine.
 
vz71 said:
You are not being logical.
Any behavior is an acceptance of the risks of that behavior.

If I ride a bike down the highway, I assume risk that may be in an accident.
If I gamble, I assume risk that I will lose my money.
If I have surgery, I assume risk that I may die.

Everything we do is an acceptance of the risk. However small that riak may be, it is still an acceptance of it.

This is why a doctor tells you all the risks of surgery. This is why you are told the possible side effects of medicine.
Click to expand...
Exactly, this is exactly an abortion for convenience’s sake. This is the new platform of the Democratic Party, forget “abortion should be legal, safe and rare”.

This too, is why I perceive there is a widely held pro-life view in America. Because of the radicalism that now engulfs the pro-choice side. Now, even pushing for infanticide in the view of many.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure that I’m not being logical?
I disagree that any behavior is an acceptance of the risks of that behavior within the context that you are making.

Let’s take sex for example.
I used to be a pro-life, NFP practicing, open-to-life Catholic who had sex with her Catholic, pro-life husband that resulted in pregnancies.
My husband also cheated on me (unbeknownst to me at that time).
Are you implying that I “accepted” the risks of possibly getting an STD because I engaged in the risky behavior of having what is considered unprotected/unsafe (no contraception/no condoms) with my husband back then?

And about those pregnancies, which I was open to having.
It’s been almost 9 years since I last gave birth.
Back when I had sex and got pregnant, I accepted the risks that came with pregnancy and birth at that time.
I understood the complications and risks as they were presented to me then.
But now, 9 years later, I’m facing surgery to repair some issues that arise in women my age who have given birth.
Last time I had female surgery, I did not do well and I spent an extended amount of time in recovery. My doctors told me that I’ll want to avoid future surgeries, if possible, because of how my body reacted.
When I had sex and gave birth all those years ago, I did not consent to the future damage my body is experiencing now and the additional risks to my health/life for the surgery I now face. I wasn’t even aware of any possible future issues. I was a woman who loved God, her husband, her family and her faith. Pregnancy and birth were natural processes to be naturally embraced.

So please, how long is a woman supposed to pay with her body for having sex? For giving birth?
 
MamaJewel said:
Are you implying that I “accepted” the risks of possibly getting an STD because I engaged in the risky behavior of having what is considered unprotected/unsafe (no contraception/no condoms) with my husband back then?
Click to expand...
One cannot assume a risk they do not know of.
That is why a doctor tells you the risks of surgery. The average layman may not know them.

If you were aware of the husband’s risky behavior, then yes, you took upon yourself the risks.
If you did not know, then no, you did not assume the risks… rather your husband put you at risk.

Do you propose that people are unaware of how pregnancy occurs?
 
MamaJewel said:
Nope.
She is a full on person.
With rights and liberties and agency.
Woman with fetus does not equal uterus. And that is why I am pro-choice from a legal stand-point.
Click to expand...
Are you just being intentionally obtuse? I am not the one dividing women up into body parts, you are. No pun intended. You are the one going on about how uteruses are separate from women and women have nothing to do with their children.

You aren’t pro-choice from a legal standpoint. You are pro-choice legally and morally, or you wouldn’t hold that position. Admit it to yourself.

Tell me, when you switched from actually being pro-life to pro-choice, did you stop believing that unborn children are actually living children? Or are you just now ok with killing children when it’s convenient?
 
Last edited:
And which of your children would you rather not have because of health complications today?
 
MamaJewel (here) . . . .
And that is why I am pro-choice . . .
Click to expand...
Thanks for just finally openly, honestly, admitting it.

(It is irrelevant to me that you went on to say “from a legal standpoint”.

Why?

Because on this thread we are not talking about what you may or may not think personally when you are pregnant.

We are talking about a civic standpoint.

And in that respect you are just another pro-abortion advocate who now at least has the honesty to publicly admit it.)
 
Last edited:
MamaJewel . . .
An embryo is not a baby.
A second trimester fetus is not a baby.
I’m not de-personalizing. I’m not attacking.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what MamaJewel is doing here.
Depersonalizing the baby.

That is WHY MamaJewel refers to these people merely in DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES, but avoids talking about their person-ness and humanity.

Being pro-abortion (even “civically pro abortion”) takes an enormous amount of euphemisms, self-kidding, and conscience salve.

I urge the readers here not to fall into this way of thinking for themselves. Be on guard against it.

This de-personalization way of thinking about humans is pervasive out there.

Dr. Peter Singer of Princeton University talks about six month old babies in the same depersonalized way.

Naturally he concludes it is reasonable to murder these children.

He is merely using an extension of the MamaJewel way of thinking on this.

MamaJewel . . . .
As far as third trimester, the fetus is getting delivered either vaginally or c-section.
Click to expand...
So what? What is your point?

That’s the way it is with murdering pre-born humans too.

The baby humans either get killed and delivered vaginally, or if there is retained placenta with bleeding that does not cease, and the moms get not only a “c-section”, but a hysterectomy too.

Or an abortion-associated uterine perforation resulting in more surgery and sometimes a hysterectomy or sterility. Or infection that results in sterility.

MamaJewel . . .
I get that you’re angry . . .
Click to expand...
“Disappointed” is the word.

“Angry” was the word that came to my mind listening to you.

Your multiple personal problems that you described here have been very painful I am sure.

But don’t take your emotions out on innocent human babies. No matter what stage of life they are in.
 
Last edited:
NEWS ABORTION, CATHOLIC CHURCH Tue Apr 2, 2019 - 12:37 pm EST

Pope Francis rejects abortion in cases of rape: It’s never okay to hire ‘assassin’ to solve ‘problem’​

Martin M. Barillas Follow Martin

Abortion, Catholic, Homosexuality, Pope Francis, Rape, Rape Exception, Rape Exceptions

ROME, April 2, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – In an interview that aired on Sunday, Pope Francis told left-wing journalist Jordi Évole that it is not “licit” to kill an unborn child or hire an “assassin” in order to solve the “problem” of an unexpected pregnancy, even as a result of rape. . . .

. . . the Pope said, “I won’t argue about the civil law of each country. My question comes before civil law, before Church law, to the human: Is it just to eliminate a human being to solve a problem? Is it just to hire an assassin to solve a problem? Everything else stems from that. That is the basic question.” . . .
Click to expand...
www.lifesitenews.com

Pope Francis rejects abortion in cases of rape: It’s never okay to hire ‘assassin’ to solve ‘problem’ - LifeSite

'I would understand her desperation, but I also know that it is not licit to eliminate a human life in order to solve a problem.'
www.lifesitenews.com www.lifesitenews.com
 
She is right that it isn’t a baby at those stages, but it isn’t necessary for it to be called a baby in order to have value for it,
 
VanitasVanitatum. . . .
She is right that it isn’t a baby at those stages, but it isn’t necessary for it to be called a baby in order to have value for it . . .
Click to expand...
The problem isn’t calling a human person by their developmental stages.

The problem is calling a human person merely by their developmental stages.

When discussing “abortion” you mustn’t allow the abortion evangelists to get away with de-personalizing this person.

Acknowledging murder of an innocent human being who is a person puts the discussion into the realm of reality.

Dancing around this issue of personhood, makes it easier for euphemisms, rationalization, and rhetorical obfuscation to premeditatively murder this innocent human person.

Catholic Answers own Trent Horn does a masterful job at getting the abortion evangelist to admit this “human-ness” and personhood by questioning her (or him).
(I am not nearly as good of a questioner as Trent Horn who is one of the best, so I cannot illustrate the importance of this like Horn can.)

But the need to get this truth out is necessary to have the open honest discussion about what is really taking place.

Catholic Answers (and Trent Horn) does (do) a great job in getting this point across.
 
Last edited:
I had an operation many years ago. The doctor told me I might have uncomfortable symptoms down the road which might become detracting to life.

Despite knowing that was a possibility, I had the op.

It is rather commonly known that sex is the source of babies. Precise problems down the road might not be known, but the baby part is well- known.

So yes, if a woman consents to sex, she is consenting to becoming pregnant, and any side effects thereof. It is a twisting of logic to think otherwise.

Very different from one’s husband fraudulently omitting to mention a vital aspect of having sex with him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top