R
Rau
Guest
Out of interest…for whose benefit would such a change be made?
Do I Really Have to Account For Anti-Abortion Views That Don't Mean Anything?
- Status
F
Fae76
Guest
Basically it’s an alignment to the rest of Europe, 12 weeks is the common limit. They try fishing for pro-lifers by stating they’re very concerned by the high abortion numbers, and one sentence later say “we’re for free abortion until week 12”.
I guess they hope it would reduce the abortion numbers enough to get conservative votes and leave enough liberty to reach those that would normally vote left but are unhappy with immigration.
Hopefully it won’t be working, since for most conservatives it won’t be enough, and most liberals will be kicking and screaming as soon as you suggest taking the limit down with half an hour.
T
TStokes
Guest
I can see this being even bigger a debate in Europe than America with socialized medicine being comman place,
F
Fae76
Guest
Well, it isn’t really, not here. Abortions are commonplace. With that I don’t mean that women have them lightly, but a big part of the population thinks it’s absolutely no discussion that there’s free abortion.
If you think differently you tend to automatically be seen as a religious medieval nutter.
Of course you can also get an abortion up until week 22 if mother’s or baby’s health is not okay. I don’t think I’ve EVER seen a baby with Down’s here. On forums I frequent, there are sometimes questions in the line of “Ultrasound said baby will have three fingers on left hand, should I have abortion?”
It’s such that it’s as though it’s no longer a right, it’s in certain situations expected that women will get an abortion. I read a story of a girl who got pregnant after she was raped, and who was basically harrassed by the hospital staff and hospital priest (she was stabbed by the rapist and almost died) that she HAD to have an abortion and she should think about all the other women and that she had to exert her rights and whatnot. ???
So, just saying - not so much discussion.
There ARE more and more people here who wouldn’t have an abortion themselves, but at the same time I have never met anyone who would want it outlawed.
If you think differently you tend to automatically be seen as a religious medieval nutter.
Of course you can also get an abortion up until week 22 if mother’s or baby’s health is not okay. I don’t think I’ve EVER seen a baby with Down’s here. On forums I frequent, there are sometimes questions in the line of “Ultrasound said baby will have three fingers on left hand, should I have abortion?”
It’s such that it’s as though it’s no longer a right, it’s in certain situations expected that women will get an abortion. I read a story of a girl who got pregnant after she was raped, and who was basically harrassed by the hospital staff and hospital priest (she was stabbed by the rapist and almost died) that she HAD to have an abortion and she should think about all the other women and that she had to exert her rights and whatnot. ???
So, just saying - not so much discussion.
There ARE more and more people here who wouldn’t have an abortion themselves, but at the same time I have never met anyone who would want it outlawed.
S
SMGS127
Guest
Wait…the hospital PRIEST was encouraging her to get an abortion?
S
SMGS127
Guest
I want to stay out of this thread as much as possible, but I did want to give you an insight here. The Republican Party in the US is extremely dominated by conservative Protestants. Thus, on-demand divorce and contraception are complete non-issues for them (and, in fact, they will get mad at Catholic candidates who seek to bar or restrict either). As for why adultery/fornication aren’t cared about? Honestly, I think it’s because of sola fida. They believe they’re already saved from faith in Christ so they don’t believe they should restrict their own behavior.
Abortion is the protection of children, so it doesn’t really belong in the grouping that everything else (homosexuality/fornication/divorce/adultery, all other sexual immorality) belong to, even though they’re improperly grouped together all the time. There aren’t many charitable reasons I can give you as to why politically-active conservative Protestants focus so strongly on banning homosexuality but not on adultery, so I won’t make an attempt.
Needless to say though, if Catholics gave political speeches about the perils of legal divorce, fornication, and contraception at the rates we give speeches against the perils of homosexuality, we wouldn’t have the “aura” of hypocrisy we’re labelled with here, so I agree with you largely.
T
TStokes
Guest
I think you sterotype all denominations the UMC is very close in beliefs the main difference is in worship style
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
That’s a classic excuse for people to vote democrat. What exactly about the platform do you find contradictory?
It’s spelled out pretty clearly to me.
If you cut through the nonsense and excuse-making, it comes down to money. Americans will vote based on their own pocketbooks unless they are losing a major foreign war.
All this talk on social issues, helping others and foreign policy is a total secondary issue for the majority of the electorate.
S
SMGS127
Guest
I grew up Methodist (assuming you mean United Methodist?). Their church was perfectly fine with my parents being divorced a combined 3 times, and was totally fine with contraception. I’m also pretty sure they didn’t care if you were in a same-sex relationship, as long as you never attempted to get “married.” So I take issue with the idea that the UMC is close to the Catholic Church at all. I also would not consider them to be a “conservative Protestant” (my words) religion. They are less conservative than the Catholic Church. The conservative Protestant religions are mainly the Southern Baptists (which alone make up at least 40% of the Republican Party) and the Pentecostals, but they have an extremely outsized role in the GOP.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
If the current immigration/foreign visitation situation keeps in Sweden, people will be flocking to the far-right no matter what they think of abortion.
T
TStokes
Guest
Fair points, I just am a fan of combining Christianity and stopping our interfaith bickering so we can focus on bring people to Christ
S
SMGS127
Guest
I understand your opinion to an extent, but when Christian religions are either:
a) leading people into sin by downplaying any negative spiritual effects of their actions or insisting these effects don’t exist at all, or:
b) treat certain classes of concupiscence as sinful in and of themselves, act harshly towards said people, encourage abuse against said people, or worse, driving people in droves away from Christianity, or:
c) both,
I think we should not be holding their hands and making peace. Anyone who leads anyone into sin is at spiritual warfare with the Church, period. Just because they believe in Christ should not excuse their completely lax attitude towards mortal sin.
Matthew 18:6:
C
Cojuanco
Guest
In my case, because in the primary I went against my conscience, and in the general, because both candidates were pro-abortion. Looking back, the Democrat, disregarding his stance on abortion and so-called SS’M’ which he shared with the Republican, agreed more with the Church’s teachings; but I voted for the Republican because all my friends were doing so, again, against my better judgment.
C
Cojuanco
Guest
I’m assuming the priest was Lutheran, like most Swedes notionally. Catholics are a very small minority in Sweden, mostly immigrants (hence why it would be unlikely for a Catholic Swede to vote for the single marginally more pro-life party - on the off hand they got into power, they would likely kick her out of the country.)
N
Nacho45
Guest
For some reason, not voting is frowned upon. In the case of someone uninformed, it’s better they not vote. It’s like having your care repaired by a plumber. He isn’t exactly knowledgable on the subject. In the case of someone who is informed, vote for candidate you agree with. If there isn’t one, don’t vote, especially against someone. I have heard a voter not voting has no room to say anything. By not voting, you already made a clear statement. Neither are acceptable. Look to third parties. If enough voters shift, politicians will get the picture and people with a moral compass may even step up to run for office. At one point in American history, if you asked to run for office no one would put you there. The people put an individual up for office, not the other way around.
If you disagree, don’t vote for he person. I voted against someone two elections ago (i was caught up in the politics of politics) and didn’t like the feeling. This last time I didn’t vote and my conscience is clean. I have my eyes on a third party and am watching closely.
If you disagree, don’t vote for he person. I voted against someone two elections ago (i was caught up in the politics of politics) and didn’t like the feeling. This last time I didn’t vote and my conscience is clean. I have my eyes on a third party and am watching closely.
These things all concern me a great deal.As an outsider (Canadian) looking at your politics, I’m just completely baffled.
Abortion is not the only moral issue to consider. I agree it’s a serious one (and that battle has been lost in Canada).
But what to make of a Republican party that went to war on entirely false grounds (and which also presumably resulted in the death of innocent people including women and children), that supports a system of capital punishment where it’s been proven that wrongfully convicted persons were put to death, and that supports a health care system where millions can’t afford proper health insurance?
Where is the respect for the dignity of human life in that?
However, the right to life is the basic right. Without that, none of these concerns you bring to light make any sense.
Let’s first make sure everyone does in fact have a right to life. Then let’s work on these other issues.
After all, abortion is an intrinsically evil act.
There is no way it can be made anything but an evil act.
All of these other issues, while serious issues, are not intrinsic evils.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
The reason why EVERYONE should vote is that people are notoriously incapable of judging how knowledgeable they are. The only one more incapable of judging a person’s ability to vote than oneself is someone else. Further, the fewer the percentage of people that vote the easier it is for outside groups to buy votes. It is far easier to intimidate people to not vote or to motivate people that agree with you to vote than it is to change someone’s mind.
Churchill said “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” I would venture to say the same is true about mandatory voting.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
How sure do you need to be that everyone has a right to life before you would consider working on the other issues? What if things returned to exactly the way they were in the 1950’s, with most abortions illegal but some illegal abortions still going on. Would you call that “close enough”? Or what if we achieved the situation where abortions were against the law, but the penalties were very small? Or what if the law punished doctors who performed abortions but not women who attempted the same on themselves with more primitive means? My point is, waiting for success on the abortion front before doing anything else when you don’t know what success looks like means you might be waiting for ever. And then those other good things would never get done at all.
T
Tony_the_mad
Guest
Personally, I think the distinction of ‘intrinsic evil’ is a distraction. Picking your nose in public may be an intrinsic evil since there is always a way to do so in private. That does not make it any less evil than killing someone which is not an intrinsic evil because it can be justified in certain situations. The magnitude of the sin is much more important than whether or not it is intrinsic.
I agree with you, though, that abortion is by far the greatest evil in our society. Unnecessary wars, and a lot of other lesser evils can add up, though. Further, let us not forget the original poster’s point, that if we can save 50,000 lives through incremental actions against abortion but at the price of 100,000 lives through unnecessary wars, not helping the poor, etc, what choice should we make. (I made up those number obviously, but anyone who thinks they know what the correct numbers are is deluding themselves.)
I often wonder who I would have voted for when the US was divided between those who were for the choice of slavery and those who were opposed to it in all cases. Abortion is the new slavery. Those who truly wish to end abortion need to study how slavery was ended. Slavery was only partially alleviated with the civil war. It took grass roots action by Martin Luther King, the freedom riders and many other people of all races and both parties working together. (Not that it is truly dead even now, but that is another story.)
I do not believe that it is possible to win the abortion issue politically. If we could not solve the more easily visible evils of slavery through the two party system, why do we think we can solve abortion that way?
That is not an excuse to do nothing. Rather it is a reason to double down on our arguments, but to do so from both sides.
- Status