How Quickly Should We Overturn Roe?

[joeybaggz]

That is the heart of the matter, and so far, Catholics have been unwilling to help an over-burdened, economically disadvantaged mother or mother-to-be. Pro-life means ALL life

Where did that idea come from. There are any number of organizations funded by Catholics that will help a disadvantaged mother to be to preserve the life of her child. (i.e. Project Rachel et al.) What is your source for that claim.

 

[Augustinian]

That is the heart of the matter, and so far, Catholics have been unwilling to help an over-burdened, economically disadvantaged mother or mother-to-be. Pro-life means ALL life

Actually, that isn’t true. Here in Pittsburgh, before Medicaid was established, the Catholic Church set up the Rosalia Maternity home in the Hill District to help young pregnant women. There are other programs now, as the landscape changes so do programs.

To say the CC is “uncaring” really isn’t true.

The KofC, the St Vincent DePaul and many other groups and orders have done a lot and continue to do so.

 

[benjamin1973]

I never said it was Catholic only. I said I think it’s religious-only.

However, I’ve googled it, and found some secular groups which are pro-life, so I was wrong about that.

That being said, there’s a difference between being pro-life, and believing that we should have pro-life legislation. To what degree should the government be seen as a tool for the majority (if pro-life even IS the minority) to dictate the moral positions of the minority?

That’s the thing about Roe vs. Wade opponents that bothers me. Nobody is making you abort YOUR baby. Why is it that we need to force others to act according to our own mores, rather than just counseling them and letting God sort them out in the end?

We could theoretically legislate against ALL sin, and force everyone to live in a padded room. But I don’t think this is what God wants.

If you believe in life, then support single or young mothers. Legislate governmental programs to help mothers properly take care of their young-- day cares at universities, for example.

Saying, “We’re not going to help you, because you did this to yourself. . . but we’re going to force you to have this baby you never wanted” places far too much of the real-life burden on a young woman.

 

[joeybaggz]

It may be that some religious institutions are okay with abortion. However, it seems to me that it is exclusively religious institutions (like the Catholic Church) which stand against it.

Okay, then suggest when you make a broad generalization, you leave out the RCC reference.

 

[benjamin1973]

Unlikely. I’m pretty confident that if you looked at the numbers of pro-lifers, you’d find that it is a very small percentage indeed which take that position for secular reasons.

Just because a generalization doesn’t cover 100% of cases doesn’t mean it isn’t apt.

 

[joeybaggz]

Well, if that works for you………….

 

[benjamin1973]

What works for me is only making legislation which dictates our ability to live alongside each other. Whether a woman does or does not have an abortion does not affect you, and so you shouldn’t make it your business to determine whether she has the capacity to carry out her decision.

I’m not a fan of abortion, ESPECIALLY as a back-up contraceptive method. But I’m even less a fan of institutions fighting for the privilege of interfering in the free decisions of citizens.

 

[yankeesouth]

If one really believes that innocent human life is at stake then I would think overturning Roe asap would be priority.

 

[benjamin1973]

It bothers me that “pro-life” ends at birth. Are we to force a teen in a high-crime, drug-infested area to bring a baby into the world, and then not provide her a means to get to a safer environment? Are we going to provide her with daycare services so she can carry on her education and build a quality life both for her and the baby she’s been forced to have?

No. We know what happens. Some poor young single mother will be made to have the baby, and then morally blamed for her circumstances: “You shouldn’t have been having sex. This is YOUR fault.”

Fine. But laying blame and providing for the life of a developing human being are not the same thing. If we are going to dictate the moral positions of others, we’d better provide them a framework in which they still have opportunity and the expression of free will.

 

[joeybaggz]

What works for me is only making legislation which dictates our ability to live alongside each other. Whether a woman does or does not have an abortion does not affect you, and so you shouldn’t make it your business to determine whether she has the capacity to carry out her decision.
I’m not a fan of abortion, ESPECIALLY as a back-up contraceptive method. But I’m even less a fan of institutions fighting for the privilege of interfering in the free decisions of citizens.

People are killing other people like crazy, say on the south side of Chicago. It doesn’t affect me so I should not make it my business to press for laws against the killing?
Abortion destroys an innocent life. Abortion is based on the same rationale Hitler used in trying to destroy the Jews; that one person has the right to determine whether another person can live or die. I do think it is my business to weigh in on whether her decision is a moral or even legal one. As to institutions, are you a fan of laws of the United States (or other countries) to interfere in the decision of the criminal to abrogate the right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. Because the end game of your statement is absolute and total moral and societal chaos.

 

[benjamin1973]

Only 18% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases. I would suspect that a much higher percent would be against the kind of murders you are talking about.

 

[joeybaggz]

Only 18% of Americans think abortion should be illegal in all cases. I would suspect that a much higher percent would be against the kind of murders you are talking about.

I’m not a fan of abortion, ESPECIALLY as a back-up contraceptive method. But I’m even less a fan of institutions fighting for the privilege of interfering in the free decisions of citizens.

My last post simply asked (or inferred) do you really believe the above statement. Because if you do you are both an agnostic and an anarchist.

It bothers me that “pro-life” ends at birth.

You obviously know nothing about religiously based programs/volunteers, etc that offer counseling and physical assistance post partum. You show your ignorance on this point by that statement.

 

[joeybaggz]

And in fairness to you Benjamin, I do have to admit that opposition to abortion is far more prominent in the religious community than in the atheist/agnostic one.

 

[benjamin1973]

If you’re going to legislate a behavior, you should legislate the support.

If you think the Catholic or other volunteer programs are sufficiently supporting young single moms, especially in poor areas, then I would argue that that is not the case. And banning abortions would obviously place even more pressure.

I think the Catholic Church has a great chance here. If it could add much more support for young single mothers, then it could make new converts, do the community a service, and make the Church much more relevant to American society than it currently is.

If babies are seen as future soldiers, future workers, the future strength of the US, then I’d say every possible resource should be put into encouraging US citizens to have more babies.

 

[joeybaggz]

If you’re going to legislate a behavior, you should legislate the support.

If you think the Catholic or other volunteer programs are sufficiently supporting young single moms, especially in poor areas, then I would argue that that is not the case. And banning abortions would obviously place even more pressure.

I think the Catholic Church has a great chance here. If it could add much more support for young single mothers, then it could make new converts, do the community a service, and make the Church much more relevant to American society than it currently is.

Okay, how far, post partum do you suggest the RCC support the young single mom. For 6 months, 1 year, till the child is 18? I mean, you are very generous spending the money of the people in the pews on Sunday to assuage your dissatisfaction with the efforts of the CC in this situation. I know programs that offer support for pretty much the infancy of the child till about 2 or 3. Beyond that, isn’t it the responsibility of the mother AND FATHER of the child to support it?

As to making the CC more relevant. Might society become more in line with the CC? Maybe stop having kids out of wedlock, putting a halt to the “hook up” mentality that is spewed forth continually in the press and the media. I do have a problem with those who think the moral structure of the CC should be broken down thus condoning the glorified societal and personal actions and choices that are clearly disordered.

 

[benjamin1973]

. . . and there’s the moral judgment I was talking about. But I’m more interested in results than in riding a high horse.

It’s very simple to me. If you’re going to force a woman to raise a child she doesn’t want to raise, then you have to give her the facilities with which to raise it. To do otherwise is a serious infringement on her liberty, and therefore on her ability to exercise her free will-- free will being, of course, one of the central tenets of God’s moral system.

It’s also unwise. Do you really want to force young black or Latina women, probably poor and very possibly on drugs or involved in criminal activity, to raise more of the same? You might as well just reserve the kid’s jail cell now, and her grandkid’s as well-- for which we will likely have to wait only about 14 or 15 years.

The conservative Catholic is pretty big on community when trying to tell people what to do, and pretty big on the rights of citizens when they are a tiny bundle of cells. But what about a young woman’s right to self-determination? What about the rights of those new little citizens to grow up in an environment that will offer REAL opportunity, rather than moral judgment and blame for its inevitable failure?

 

[Augustinian]

If you’re going to legislate a behavior, you should legislate the support.

The entire theorem that if you have a massive welfare state for women and children, you can “safely” outlaw abortion just doesn’t pan out with the statistics.

States in western Europe and elsewhere with humongous government paid for social services have abortion rates as high as, if not higher than those of the United States.

 

[Frankenfurter]

Suppose you saw a man beating a woman with a baseball bat. You intervene to save her. The man with the bat says “Are you going to take care of her? Are you going to feed her?”

So you walk on and let him beat her to death.

This is an amoral position to take. Stopping the man from killing the woman is the moral thing to do.

The arguments along this line with regards to abortion strike me more as playing politics. Sort of: give me resources or else I will kill my babies.

We see the blame for the lack of resources being shifted to the person attempting to save the baby. That is pure politics. Very dark politics indeed.

 

[benjamin1973]

There’s a pretty big difference between an adult woman, with her fully developed nervous system, her lifetime of efforts and memories, and her social relationships, and a bundle of cells. The woman is already an active participant in the social contract-- she makes her contribution to society, and she has an expectation of her rights to be preserved.

As for “baby,” this is the issue, isn’t it? I’ve seen babies. They have 10 little fingers and toes, fuzzy little heads, and they say “wahhh wahhh” a lot. An early-stage fetus clearly isn’t that. Yes, it has the potential to BECOME that, if fostered. But many thousands or possibly even millions of fertilized eggs are lost each year without the woman’s knowledge-- should we not establish constant checkups to make sure that not a single fertilized egg is lost, ever? Or perhaps, we should sterilize every person, and allow only in-vitro fertilizations, so that we can ensure that every single fertilization is brought to term?

 

[benjamin1973]

I think you’re shooting yourself in the foot, here.

Those states provide a young woman with a real option. If a woman does not want to raise a baby, she is not forced to. If she DOES want to raise it, then there is a robust social care system which will give her the best chance of raising it to the point of productive citizenry.