Donald Trump Becomes First U.S. President to Speak at March for Life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.

Arizona woman must donate embryos frozen before cancer, needs ex-husband’s consent to become pregnant​

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a woman – who has since become infertile after surviving an aggressive form of cancer – may not use the embryos she had frozen before treatment to have a baby without her ex-husband’s consent and must donate them instead.

Ruby Torres, 39, decided to have her eggs fertilized in 2014 after she was diagnosed with bilateral breast cancer and was told by an oncologist that chemotherapy would likely make her infertile. John Terrell, her boyfriend at the time, initially declined to serve as a sperm donor but eventually agreed, AZ Central reported, citing court documents.

The couple signed an agreement at a fertility clinic that stated, should they split up, the embryos would not “be used to create a pregnancy without the express, written consent of both parties.” The couple married days after signing the contract, but divorced three years later in 2017.

During their divorce proceedings, Terrell asked the Maricopa County Superior Court to prevent Torres from having the embryos implanted. He said he no longer desired to become a father to children he’d be financially responsible for. The court sided with him and ordered the embryos to be donated.

The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned that decision in March, ruling that Torres’ rights to have children prevailed over her ex-husband’s objections to becoming a parent.

The back-and-forth court battle inspired a bill in the Arizona State Legislature allowing a former spouse to use the embryos against their former partner’s wishes, but relieves the ex-spouse of parental responsibilities like child support. It became law in 2018, but was not retroactive to include past cases. The Center for Arizona Policy, a social conservative group that lobbies for religious freedom and anti-abortion policies, had lobbied the state legislature on Torres’ behalf.
 
ThinkingSapien. What in the world does this have to do with . . . .

. . . “Donald Trump Becomes First U.S. President to Speak at March for Life”?
 
ThinkingSapien. If it has “Nothing. Nothing at all” to do with this thread, please move it to where it is relevant or please just begin your own thread on it.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
You guys say he’s the greatest prolife President but you overlook all of these other actions make him a poor choice as the speaker at a religious rally.
Click to expand...
And if he’s undergoing a conversion like Reagan did?

But okay, I guess you wouldn’t let Buttigieg attend a prayer rally either. At least Trump’s sins were in the past and he might have repented for all we know. Buttigieg is unrepentant in living in a homosexual relationship.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1145765261301043200
 
Jeanne_S. You’ve got it right again.

And for anyone else.

No conservatives here are wanting to “allow for abortion”. That is not an accurate portrayal at all.

From Pope John Paul II the Great (regarding the paradigm of a “legislative vote” which can likewise be extended regarding a vote for candidates who cast [or veto] such “legislative votes”) . . . .
ST. JOHN PAUL II THE GREAT A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. (Evangelium Vitae Section 73)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
DaddyGirl2 . . .
But…SURELY YOU SEE…that he does not care about this issue and is only using you for your votes, yes?
Click to expand...
No. I don’t see it.

Planned Parenthood doesn’t even see that.
He is shilling for votes.
Click to expand...
No he’s not.

If he were merely “shilling for votes” he could be a pro-abort and get more votes.

Why should I think you are not impugning his motives? What evidence do you have that even Planned Parenthood overlooked?
 
Last edited:
DaddyGirl2 said:
But…SURELY YOU SEE…that he does not care about this issue and is only using you for your votes, yes?
Click to expand...
You cannot know this as you cannot read his mind.

How uncharitable to assume the worst of the man given no knowledge of his heart.
 
gracepoole said:
I felt sick about this march. On the one hand, it’s always a blessing to see so many publicly opposing abortion. May God be with them. On the other, I believe Trump’s presence was 1) politically motivated, and 2) will taint the message of the march making it unlikely that it will be separated from MAGA. That’s incredibly harmful, in my mind. The words he spoke were good, though obviously not written by him. But long term? I think linking the march with Trump only further desecrates the pro-life movement and message.
Click to expand...
What a sad commentary.
On the rare occasion that a progressive Democrat comes out in favor of protecting the lives of soon to be born human beings, I don’t fret about the fact that they may support other things that I am opposed to.
 
DaddyGirl2 said:
I haven’t gone thru the hundreds of posts here yet, and will…but will say this first:
I understand why many Catholics may be very glad that Trump is the first president speaking at this march.
But…SURELY YOU SEE…that he does not care about this issue and is only using you for your votes, yes?
That may not bother many–as long as he still attempts to change abortion laws/funding.
But I do think it’s important for Catholic/Christian voters to understand and be aware that his dramatic “prayer sessions” in the Oval office and his attending this march and his elaborate use of “god” in his speeches…are not authentic.
He is shilling for votes.
Everybody who really knows him will affirm this.
If the hypocrisy and deviousness doesn’t bother you, then so be it.
Click to expand...
This is a legitimate question.

In post 115 I posted my view on this:
In the case of “candidate Trump,” not yet President Trump, I wasn’t totally sold on his commitment to the pro-life cause. Politicians might say anything to be elected.

But when somebody has actually been in office and delivered on the issue, I’m convinced of that person’s sincerity. In the text of his speech (posted by another poster) he outlined all he’s done for the cause.

Once somebody’s been in office and “put his money where his mouth is,” even to his own possible political disadvantage, I stop questioning his motive.
Click to expand...
 
TheLittleLady said:
By their fruits you shall know them. Scripture does not lie.
Click to expand...
He appointed Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and a lot of other prolife judges.
He resinstated the Mexico City policy.
He let the Little Sisters off the Obama Mandate that forced them to provide abortifacients.
He allowed states to refuse to fund Planned Parenthood.

As fruits go, those are pretty good ones. Obama’s were the exact opposite.
 
Don’t you know Trump has an imperfect past hasn’t completely obliterated abortion so anything positive he’s done up to now counts for nothing. Perfection is what’s required🙄
 
This is true.The all or nothing response to ridding this Nation of abortion is in reference to posts here on the forum. Yet I suspect that too is just an excuse to dismiss anything’s positive this president accomplishes
 
Last edited:
You know, I am really sick and tired of the not subtle accusations that I and others am somehow not pro life because we are not fans of Mr Trump.

@ridgerunner
@jeanne_s

You are fans of Mr Trump, that is clear.

Christians are not required to be fans of Mr Trump. That is not a litmus test for faith.

We are called by our Bishops to #civilize-it
 
No,that’s not what I said .I never said you weren’t pro life.In fact I was addressing your comment that stated it’s all or nothing for you re thebpro life movement so you are unable to support Trump’s pro life efforts because he hasn’t gone far enough for you.
Additionally the comments from many on here that those positive steps are disingenuous on Trump’s part because he is an imperfect man with an imperfect past.So maybe reflect on that and how unChristain that attitude is.🤨
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
You know, I am really sick and tired of the not subtle accusations that I and others am somehow not pro life because we are not fans of Mr Trump.
Click to expand...
I think you misunderstand. I don’t care what you think of him as an individual. Clearly you don’t like him. But he’s not running to be your best friend. He’s running for president. The question is whether his policies and accomplishments are consistent with the prolife position or not. Clearly they are, and much more so than any Dem rival he’s going to have.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top