Democratic politician angry that letters on his pro-abortion voting record distributed by private group at local Catholic parishes

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdgspencer
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
HarryStotle:
40.png
Freddy:
If y’all insist on calling people who are pro choice ‘pro abortion’ then you are closing the door to any sensible discussions on how to reduce the number of abortions. As long as you know that.
That argument also applies in reverse. Anyone who claims that support for abortion amounts to a mere right to choose is likewise being disingenuous with language.

Abortion is the termination of the life of a human being. A proper or sensible discussion of that begins with the admission of what it is exactly.

It isn’t merely a “right to choose.” It is a right to choose to do something very specific - ending the life of a human being.

As long as we all know that then everyone is on the same page.

Why should “right to choose” be the agreed upon start of a discussion? Home field advantage? Right to choose gets to determine the rules? Why exactly?
I agree with you. Except when you use the term ‘human being’. Most people, myself included, would correlate human being with ‘person’. What a woman is carrying immediately after conception (and even before the pregnancy begins) is not a person.
That would be because those of you who do want to use the word “person” do so as the criteria for deciding who should be allowed to live or not.

It misses the fundamental reality that a human being is a human life that changes through time and that that life should be seen wholistically and not sliced up in time. The you that is now conscious and capable of “person” things was the same human being in the womb of your mother. It is that human being that had the innate capacity to develop consciousness and the other traits you want to characterize as personhood, and only now have because your mother had the foresight to know that abortion would have ended YOUR existence as a human being cum person.
 
If there were only more pastors like you.

When we lived in the Seattle area, every single week in the month leading up to every single election had our windshields flooded with flyers for pro-“choice,” pro-LGBT, etc. And back when WA has it’s “Death with Dignity” ( :roll_eyes: ), I-1000, we got flooded weekly with flyers for that.

The perpetrators were caught one weekend. They were all 20 somethings who said they were paid to go to churches and distribute flyers. When the next group was caught, it was a different group of 20 somethings. Our priest did nothing (we didn’t have a deacon). Finally, the Knights tracked down who was responsible and reported them to the state AG. No response from the AG, but the flyers stopped coming that year. But they next year they were back.

Thank God rural life here in Eastern WA is far more subdued.
 
Last edited:
How convenient these rules are for him. How unconvenient for the unborn.
 
it is generally easy enough to find out a pol’s voting record on abortion, since NARAL keeps track.
 
Yep! I checked Planned Parenthood votes to help me decide between a couple of politicians and judges over the years. If PP endorses them, I vote the other way.
Getting judges who get the Life part of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is important.
 
Do pro-abortion politicians not want their pro-abortion views to be known?
 
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
HarryStotle:
40.png
Freddy:
If y’all insist on calling people who are pro choice ‘pro abortion’ then you are closing the door to any sensible discussions on how to reduce the number of abortions. As long as you know that.
That argument also applies in reverse. Anyone who claims that support for abortion amounts to a mere right to choose is likewise being disingenuous with language.

Abortion is the termination of the life of a human being. A proper or sensible discussion of that begins with the admission of what it is exactly.

It isn’t merely a “right to choose.” It is a right to choose to do something very specific - ending the life of a human being.

As long as we all know that then everyone is on the same page.

Why should “right to choose” be the agreed upon start of a discussion? Home field advantage? Right to choose gets to determine the rules? Why exactly?
I agree with you. Except when you use the term ‘human being’. Most people, myself included, would correlate human being with ‘person’. What a woman is carrying immediately after conception (and even before the pregnancy begins) is not a person.
That would be because those of you who do want to use the word “person” do so as the criteria for deciding who should be allowed to live or not.
You have it the wrong way around. It’s not that somebody decides to have an abortion and therefore makes a decsion on personhood. The decision on personhood is made in isolation of any requirement for an abortion.
 
40.png
HarryStotle:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
HarryStotle:
40.png
Freddy:
If y’all insist on calling people who are pro choice ‘pro abortion’ then you are closing the door to any sensible discussions on how to reduce the number of abortions. As long as you know that.
That argument also applies in reverse. Anyone who claims that support for abortion amounts to a mere right to choose is likewise being disingenuous with language.

Abortion is the termination of the life of a human being. A proper or sensible discussion of that begins with the admission of what it is exactly.

It isn’t merely a “right to choose.” It is a right to choose to do something very specific - ending the life of a human being.

As long as we all know that then everyone is on the same page.

Why should “right to choose” be the agreed upon start of a discussion? Home field advantage? Right to choose gets to determine the rules? Why exactly?
I agree with you. Except when you use the term ‘human being’. Most people, myself included, would correlate human being with ‘person’. What a woman is carrying immediately after conception (and even before the pregnancy begins) is not a person.
That would be because those of you who do want to use the word “person” do so as the criteria for deciding who should be allowed to live or not.
You have it the wrong way around. It’s not that somebody decides to have an abortion and therefore makes a decsion on personhood. The decision on personhood is made in isolation of any requirement for an abortion.
Nah. The question of personhood of the unborn only came up as a defence of abortion. Prior to that no one talked about personhood as a means to deny life to the unborn.
 
40.png
HarryStotle:
Your “no problem” comment demonstrates clearly that your argument vis a vis the value of embryos is based entirely on your personal schema of values…
Quite right. My argument is exactly based on perceived value. Which is subjective by definition.
Remember that when the totalitarian elites (or democratic socialists in majority) decide your life only has “perceived value” and therefore need not be defended but can be terminated as they choose. Your argument will be the same one that they will use, so you can congratulate yourself for having gained their support for your line of reasoning. 🥴

As for me, I am certain that moral value is embedded in ultimate reality so despite what the relativists do with their choices I know there will be a reckoning in due time.

I don’t find your “subjectivity” of values persuasive.
 
Last edited:
Nah. The question of personhood of the unborn only came up as a defence of abortion. Prior to that no one talked about personhood as a means to deny life to the unborn.
Well, no-one is likely too until abortion is mentioned. But it’s not something made up as an excuse. It’s one of the reasons women can feel justified in having abortions.

If you had asked me outside of this discussion if I thought that a zygote was a person then I would have said emphatically no. It’s obviously not.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Freddy:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Your “no problem” comment demonstrates clearly that your argument vis a vis the value of embryos is based entirely on your personal schema of values…
Quite right. My argument is exactly based on perceived value. Which is subjective by definition.
Remember that when the totalitarian elites (or democratic socialists in majority) decide your life only has “perceived value” and therefore need not be defended but can be terminated as they choose. Your argument will be the same one that they will use, so you can congratulate yourself for having gained their support for your line of reasoning. 🥴

As for me, I am certain that moral value is embedded in ultimate reality so despite what the relativists do with their choices I know there will be a reckoning in due time.

I don’t find your “subjectivity” of values persuasive.
Sure. Like I’m the only person who determines value. Like I’m the only one who tosses and turns at night trying to decide whether we buy the new car or save a few lives with the money.

Maybe I should link to a specific example of someone who needs a sizeable charitable donation to live and we can all decide whether we have dinner out on on Saturday night or pass on that and chip in. How do you think most would determine value in that case?

What if the person to be saved is a ninety year old man or a five year old child. C’mon, you’ve made the decision to donate, Harry. How do you determine who gets the cash?
 
You have it the wrong way around. It’s not that somebody decides to have an abortion and therefore makes a decsion on personhood. The decision on personhood is made in isolation of any requirement for an abortion.
Most people seem to see wanted babies as persons before they are born.
 
Last edited:
40.png
Freddy:
You have it the wrong way around. It’s not that somebody decides to have an abortion and therefore makes a decsion on personhood. The decision on personhood is made in isolation of any requirement for an abortion.
Most people seem to see wanted babies as persons before they are born.
If you want the pregnancy to continue then there is a tendency to project. You think about how life will change, you think of names, you think of what gender it might be. You wonder if it will be more like you or your partner. You imbue it with personhood.

If you don’t then you don’t.
 
What is the reason why a pregnant woman needs to be protected? How is she carrying a “projection”, Freddie?
It isn’t about what one thinks but about what it is.
 
Last edited:
What is the reason why a pregnant woman needs to be protected? How is she carrying a “projection”, Freddie?
It isn’t about what one thinks but about what it is.
Project as in think about the future.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top