Do animals have consciousness?

[Gorgias]

Show me where I said “we can reason to killing them”. I never said any such thing.

You said you’re pro-choice.

 

[HarryStotle]

I want to solve it - and that may mean compromising and community sacrifices - if that means we all pay more money, so be it. That’s a small price to pay in my mind to fix this. Thanks for listening.

Moral issues are never “fixed” by throwing money at them. Moral issues are fixed by every individual acting morally in a non-compromising manner.

Your “fix” involves solving the immoral choices of some by taking “a small price” from others in order to mitigate consequences, as if fixing consequences will result in forming good moral agency long term.

 

[AlNg]

I am against all late-term (and similar) procedures. There should be significant limits on abortion.

At least you are for limits on abortion and against all late-term abortions. AFAIK, (except for Tulsi) all the Democratic presidential candidates and Nancy Pelosi favor legalizing abortion including late term partial birth abortions. Considering the number of Catholics who vote for pro-choice candidates, I wonder how many Catholics are actually concerned about the issues of contraception and abortion.

 

[o_mlly]

I am saying we can only make abortion illegal IF we provides funds and resources for each child

I suspect reading your posts that you are likely early in your progress on the path to full conversion to Christ. That you are engaged is to be commended; that you reject valid criticism of your positions is not.

For instance, the above citation from your previous post is both irrational (at best) and certainly immoral. No one may conditionally commit murder – of an infant or an elder. Only a disordered mind could simultaneously contemplate permitting murder and prohibiting necessary animal pain.

 

[HarryStotle]

Further, pro-life policies are not effective in the long-term. Consider that Roe v Wade was decided by a conservative majority court. All making abortion illegal will do is incite a whiplash response that will reinstate Roe v Wade and revert all reasonable restrictions. Look at the history of the issue. The greatest number of abortions in American history, by far, was under Reagan. The least amount, by far, was under Obama. You can argue why, but nearly everyone points to health care. Perhaps you can now see my reasoning.

Your “reasoning” is quite clear, but also clearly deluded.

First of all, states and areas of medical jurisdiction are under no compulsion to report abortion data to the CDC (or any other body) for inclusion in its annual Abortion Surveillance Report. There is no national requirement for data submission or reporting on abortion.

Essentially, that means states could be completely burying data to hide abortion numbers, especially to maintain a false front regarding the actual numbers of abortions.

Second, in the past decade abortifacient drugs have pretty much eliminated the need for therapeutic abortions prior to the end of the first trimester. So what would have been an abortion in the Reagan era, under Obama would not be counted as such. Given that Obama made abortifacient drugs widely available and often at no cost to the pregnant woman means that what were abortions during Reagan-Bush times are completely disregarded during Obama’s reign.

I remain unconvinced that you are “NOT pro-abortion” precisely because your view of a human being in the womb does not exactly measure up to ethical standards of what constitutes a human being in the womb.

Basically, you apply your own standards to the human life in the womb and determine for yourself how that life ought to be counted or dismissed in your assessment.

 

[o_mlly]

Quite the opposite. My education and research has left me away from Catholicism, not towards it.

OK. It seems that your education and research have led you to the abyss of your own truth and …

Once again, you create a strawman. I am NOT pro-abortion. If there was a viable way to eliminate abortion I would be all for it. But it is not the goal of the Republican pro-life position to eliminate abortion - it is simply to appease Christians enough so that they vote Republicans.

… the ability to read others minds!

If “I am NOT pro-abortion” then I would not make make my pro-life position conditional as you have:

I am saying we can only make abortion illegal IF we provides funds and resources for each child.

Your positions are irrational.

 

[o_mlly]

It is a sad state of affairs when someone says we should make abortion illegal but only if we also provide the resources for the children, and is told his position is irrational.

Really - so making abortion illegal and NOT providing resources for children is rational?

Yes, irrational. in hopes of demonstrating the error, substitute “murder” for “abortion” and “survivors” for children".

“… we should make murder illegal but only if we also provide the resources for the survivors.”

Both acts, abortion and murder, are intrinsically evil. No “ifs” about it.

If Catholics refuse to compromise … nothing will change. … The blind, uncompromising conservative attack backfired. …

No, there is no “backfire” but we will endure the effects of our sins. One never compromises the truth. Stay tuned. God often gives His disobedient children over to their enemies, disease and death, in order to bring them back to the Truth.

 

[HarryStotle]

I cannot convince you of my sincerity other than my actions in real life parallel my position here. I am not defending abortion. I would like nothing better than to eliminate it. But I think Catholics who blindly vote Republican for this single issue are being taken for fools. See here:

The Real Origins of the Religious Right - POLITICO Magazine

Uh huh. Some opinion piece that asserts a certain perspective without supporting evidence ought, according to you, serve as the definitive “proof” that Catholics are being taken for fools.

From your piece:

In fact, it wasn’t until 1979—a full six years after Roe —that evangelical leaders, at the behest of conservative activist Paul Weyrich, seized on abortion not for moral reasons, but as a rallying-cry to deny President Jimmy Carter a second term. Why? Because the anti-abortion crusade was more palatable than the religious right’s real motive: protecting segregated schools. So much for the new abolitionism.

So, the author’s opinion is that the entire religious right had as its real motive “protecting segregated schools” based upon one possible example.

That is how you decide the complete story of history, by one dubious example? And we are presumed to be the fools for taking the broader view based upon current events and current political aspirations?

Perhaps, as Democrats are so fond of pointing out — given their connections to the KKK, slavery and westward expansion policies, for example — that political parties change through time. But no, we are to assume that whatever motivated SOME Republicans back in the 1970s must be precisely what motivates all Republicans today.

That hardly makes your case for you.

 

[o_mlly]

The best we can hope for is that you are still in the early chapters of your book of life. We’ll put you on the prayer list.

 

[EndTimes]

I am NOT pro-abortion. If there was a viable way to eliminate abortion I would be all for it.

OK… Make the Democratic Party’s Pro-Abortion stance - Illegal

Pro-Choice? Actually? Via our FreeWill we already have been given Choice by God

Making Abortion/Murder Illegal = Force?

Ergo all Law = Force?