Gabrielle Giffords Endorses Clinton

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lily_Bernans
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Memaw said:
GOD!!, God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
And if a woman is an ATHEIST, who then is most qualified to make the decision: she and her family in consultation with their physician OR the federal government, the Catholic Church, Jewish law or the law of some other religion?

OTOH, if a woman is acting in accord with her religious faith in having or not having an abortion, do you think the government should step in and say: sorry, you and your family, doctor, clergyman, and faith cannot decide because WE must decide for you since we know better what is morally right?
 
estesbob said:
Does that extend to after the child is born? If not why not?
Click to expand...
There are too many things I do not know about the hypothetical you wish to ask to give you an answer. Again, I believe the person most likely to make a sound decision when faced with a possible late-term abortion is the woman walking that path in conjunction with her doctor.

That said, I, like most people in this country, make a distinction between a human being who is born and the potential of life that exists in so many stages in the womb.
 
Memaw said:
I think that’s called rationalism. Try telling that to God and the babies they continue to support killing. If I support my kids robbing banks but I don’t actually rob one myself, but I want them to “like” me, (or vote for me), does that make me OK in Gods eyes. I don’t really think sooo. Do you think either one will do ANYTHING to try to stop the flood of abortions in our country. Don’t count on it!!! We are culpable for the choices we make as a voter. Whatever we do for the least of our brothern we do for God.The alternative is down right frightening. God Bless, Memaw
Click to expand...
It could also be called putting your political intentions over church intentions. Like I have said before, it is fascinating to watch how those to will vote for a pro-choice candidate can marginalize the teachings of the Church.
 
Michael_Mayo said:
I have heard a religious person argue that life does not begin until a breath is taken at birth and therefore is pro-choice. I was pretty choked to hear it. So her religious freedom would be restricted by ban on abortion.🤷
Click to expand...
Many different faith traditions have taught many different things about when life and/or ensoulment officially begins. The quickening…first breath…the nanosecond sperm unites with egg…people have different thoughts on all of this and likely always will.

I do not think a ban on abortion will ever happen in this country and I do not think a ban on abortion restricts anyone’s religious freedom. Neither do I think that the beliefs that any one particular religion may hold regarding abortion (or any issue, really) should be the only beliefs we take into account when formulating out laws.
 
estesbob said:
And I recall when Jews were considered sub-human, blacks counted as on 3/5 a man and Indians were savages. The first thing we do when we what to justify killing fellow humans is deny their humanity.
Click to expand...
This!👍
 
Little_Sheep said:
There are too many things I do not know about the hypothetical you wish to ask to give you an answer. Again, I believe the person most likely to make a sound decision when faced with a possible late-term abortion is the woman walking that path in conjunction with her doctor.

That said, I, like most people in this country, make a distinction between a human being who is born and the potential of life that exists in so many stages in the womb.
Click to expand...
There is no hypothetical at all. Are there any circumstances that you believe a woman has the right to kill he newborn. if not why?. And please do not drag out the 'potential life" canard. My Daughter is 5 months pregnant and can feel that “potential life” kicking up a storm. Potential life, like sub-human, is one of those labels we hang on those we wish to justify killing.

BTW-as one who counseled in a CPC for over 5 years I can assure you the Dr rarely if ever gets involved in the decision other to make sure he is going to get paid.
 
mary_bobo said:
It could also be called putting your political intentions over church intentions. Like I have said before, it is fascinating to watch how those to will vote for a pro-choice candidate can marginalize the teachings of the Church.
Click to expand...
The sad part is how they try to convince one and all that they are not marginalizing the teachings of the Church. That’s is really the only reason I get involved in these debates anymore. To make sure lurkers and new posters are exposed to truth-not opinion-but Church teaching backed up by direct quotes from members of the Magestrium and Church documents
 
Life in the womb is a Catholic teaching without moral consequence for those who contemplate voting Democrat.
 
meltzerboy said:
OTOH, if a woman is acting in accord with her religious faith in having or not having an abortion, do you think the government should step in and say: sorry, you and your family, doctor, clergyman, and faith cannot decide because WE must decide for you since we know better what is morally right?
Click to expand...
If a person’s religion allows them to keep slaves, should the government interfere, or should it be left to the person and their taskmaster to make the decision on how many to enslave?
 
meltzerboy said:
And if a woman is an ATHEIST, who then is most qualified to make the decision: she and her family in consultation with their physician OR the federal government, the Catholic Church, Jewish law or the law of some other religion?
Click to expand...
Just replace “have an abortion” with “murdering your own child” and see how nonsensical your argument is:

If the woman is an atheist, who then is most qualified to make the decision of whether she should kill her 3-year old child? She in consultation with her family and her financial advisor? Or the federal government?

As you can see, the “reasonableness” of your argument rests heavily on the assumption that her unborn baby is not a person. I don’t think people in a society should have the right to decide for themselves who is a person and who is not, even if that potential person has sprung from her own body. That is a communal decision, and should be made by the community as a whole.
 
meltzerboy said:
So long as the discussion on abortion, which is off-topic to this thread, persists, I must jump in, knowing from experience that it will be to no avail. In my faith, the abortion issue is complex and Judaism takes a middle ground. It vehemently opposes abortion on demand for reasons other than the life and health (physical and psychological) of the pregnant woman. Paradoxically perhaps, it is Orthodox Judaism which REQUIRES abortion if the mother’s life is in danger, while less orthodox branches permit but do not require such. Yet even rape and incest, while permissible according to some Orthodox rabbis since they impose an undue health concern for the woman, are NOT uniformly agreed upon as sufficient reasons for abortion within the Orthodox Jewish community. The abortion of a severely congenitally impaired unborn infant is another thorny issue within Judaism and has not been uniformly agreed upon. One thing is certain, however, and that is EVERY stream of Judaism, from Orthodox to Conservative to Reform and Reconstructionist, opposes abortion on demand without compelling justification.

The above is a summary of the Jewish viewpoint on abortion, omitting details which would fill a tome or two. However, stepping outside of the Jewish belief regarding abortion, most Jews realize, or should realize, that other religious beliefs including those held by a Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Quaker, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and so on have their own views on abortion. This is precisely why it is so difficult to legislate anti-abortion laws for the WHOLE country. The issue of abortion is linked to the issue of religious freedom. And this is also why the decision, as you believe, is and must remain a PERSONAL one on the part of the woman, her husband, family, physician, clergy, and faith, and NOT decided by the interference of government, which most conservatives are opposed to on a host of other issues.
Click to expand...
Conversely,for the same reasons you cite re gov’t interference in legislating antiabortion laws,then it follows that the gov’t by way of ACA,has no business forcing thosewho object to abortion for religious ,moral reasons,into contributing to an act through their tax dollars.Yet,this is exactly what many Christians are up agains.If we can’t legislate morality,then we also can’t legislate immorality…Don’t you agree?
 
Little_Sheep said:
The Democratic Party’s position does not mention time limits on when abortion can be performed, so I’m a little confused by you saying this. I mean, I could link the position page, but I’m sure you can find it.

My understanding is that very few states permit late-term abortions. I think viability (generally accepted at 24 weeks) is the cut-off for most states.

My understanding is that late-term abortions are rare and usually only permitted if the mother’s life is in danger.
Click to expand...
you might want to do more research on late term abortions and the clinics in the U.S. that specialize in them. I know there is one in Albuquerque and people go there from around the world. they are not as rare as you might think.
 
meltzerboy said:
So long as the discussion on abortion, which is off-topic to this thread, persists, I must jump in, knowing from experience that it will be to no avail. In my faith, the abortion issue is complex and Judaism takes a middle ground. It vehemently opposes abortion on demand for reasons other than the life and health (physical and psychological) of the pregnant woman. Paradoxically perhaps, it is Orthodox Judaism which REQUIRES abortion if the mother’s life is in danger, while less orthodox branches permit but do not require such. Yet even rape and incest, while permissible according to some Orthodox rabbis since they impose an undue health concern for the woman, are NOT uniformly agreed upon as sufficient reasons for abortion within the Orthodox Jewish community. The abortion of a severely congenitally impaired unborn infant is another thorny issue within Judaism and has not been uniformly agreed upon. One thing is certain, however, and that is EVERY stream of Judaism, from Orthodox to Conservative to Reform and Reconstructionist, opposes abortion on demand without compelling justification.

The above is a summary of the Jewish viewpoint on abortion, omitting details which would fill a tome or two. However, stepping outside of the Jewish belief regarding abortion, most Jews realize, or should realize, that other religious beliefs including those held by a Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Episcopalian, Quaker, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and so on have their own views on abortion. This is precisely why it is so difficult to legislate anti-abortion laws for the WHOLE country. The issue of abortion is linked to the issue of religious freedom. And this is also why the decision, as you believe, is and must remain a PERSONAL one on the part of the woman, her husband, family, physician, clergy, and faith, and NOT decided by the interference of government, which most conservatives are opposed to on a host of other issues.
Click to expand...
but abortion was not legal before 1973. and that was for the WHOLE country.
 
Jeanne_S said:
Conversely,for the same reasons you cite re gov’t interference in legislating antiabortion laws,then it follows that the gov’t by way of ACA,has no business forcing thosewho object to abortion for religious ,moral reasons,into contributing to an act through their tax dollars.Yet,this is exactly what many Christians are up agains.If we can’t legislate morality,then we also can’t legislate immorality…Don’t you agree?
Click to expand...
I do agree. I believe it is an infringement of religious liberty to impose on people of faith the contribution of their tax dollars toward the funding of abortions. I am opposed to the Obama administration’s HHS mandate and am also opposed to tax contributions toward the funding of war in the case of pacifists such as Quakers who do not believe in just wars.
 
meltzerboy said:
I do agree. I believe it is an infringement of religious liberty to impose on people of faith the contribution of their tax dollars toward the funding of abortions. I am opposed to the Obama administration’s HHS mandate and am also opposed to tax contributions toward the funding of war in the case of pacifists such as Quakers who do not believe in just wars.
Click to expand...
Re the funding of just wars,I believe there is a difference in that ,really,the chief purpose of the gov’t is to protect it’s citizens and our borders.Isn’t the same argument as abortions n IMO.
 
7_Sorrows said:
but abortion was not legal before 1973. and that was for the WHOLE country.
Click to expand...
Good point. And, to finish your thought (perhaps), somehow we survived as a country when abortion was not legal. But what were the consequences for women in those days, even if unsafe, back-alley abortions were not as statistically numerous as some studies have shown? And on a different but related note, there was also a time when equal rights based on race, gender, age, disability, and sexual orientation were not legalized either and somehow we survived as a country even though many suffered in silence.

Contrary to what it may appear, I am NOT an abortion proponent or advocate: I believe the fewer abortions, the better. But I am a proponent of women’s rights, particularly when these rights intersect with their religious rights.

I can anticipate the response of some (including myself), namely, what about the human as well as legal rights of the unborn? Don’t they have any rights, especially the right to life? This is a challenging question and, in most instances, they do have this basic right. However, there are religious arguments to the contrary in rare cases, which I believe must be considered as well, such as the difference between being human and being a person and the time during which the ensoulment of the unborn infant occurs.
 
meltzerboy said:
And if a woman is an ATHEIST, who then is most qualified to make the decision: she and her family in consultation with their physician OR the federal government, the Catholic Church, Jewish law or the law of some other religion?

OTOH, if a woman is acting in accord with her religious faith in having or not having an abortion, do you think the government should step in and say: sorry, you and your family, doctor, clergyman, and faith cannot decide because WE must decide for you since we know better what is morally right?
Click to expand...
She doesn’t even have to be an atheist. What if she’s Jewish and her life is in danger from the pregnancy? What right does a Catholic have to override her religious beliefs? I don’t think any. A Catholic has a duty not to participate directly in an abortion in any way such as driving the person to a clinic, paying for the abortion, working in a facility that performs abortions, etc., but a Catholic shouldn’t shove his or her beliefs onto others or try to force them to conform to Catholicism. The US is a country founded on freedom of religion.
 
estesbob said:
And I recall when Jews were considered sub-human, blacks counted as on 3/5 a man and Indians were savages. The first thing we do when we what to justify killing fellow humans is deny their humanity.
Click to expand...
The big question though, is Why does anyone want to kill any Thing? Black, Jewish, Native American, fetus? That is where the real work needs to be done. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice for religious or social moral reasons is secondary. What are the root causes of abortion? And root causes for violence in general?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top