How to re-educate so that people will understand about abortion?

[JRKH]

Another point to remember in the re-education of the population is that it is crucial to get the active and visible support of as many young people as possible. By this I refer to people in their teens and twenties.
In my opinion, these people will have the greater effect in that they cannot be seen as “old fashoned” or “out of touch”. In addition, these people will be members of the voting public for a much longer time.
We need to see as many young people as possible supporting pro-life events and also speaking for pro-life wherever they are.

Peace
James

 

[WillieWonka]

You chose the Asian over the person of the other race. Therefore you must be a racist who wishes death on that other race.

NOTE: for those joining this discussion late: I’m really not calling him racist, I am demonstrating the result of the logic trap that was started several posts back.

OK.

 

[WillieWonka]

Letting the other one die is what is wrong.

That’s interesting. If I can rescue only one, and I rescue that one, does Catholic doctrine claim I have done wrong?

The fireman who carries out one person, while the other person dies has done wrong?

Perhaps someone here knows enough about Catholic doctrine to comment?

 

[WillieWonka]

So your pro life or did you just not say?

I didn’t take a side.

 

[WillieWonka]

False assumption: what you have proven is that pro life people are smart enough to realize the logic trap. While the true heart of the question is which is the lesser of two evils, most people who are pro abortion (its an adjective not a title Drawmack, layoff) will twist the response to say the person thinks less of the prebirth babies than they think of the post birth baby or will accuse the person of being wrong for allowing the single baby to die. Being that either answer will typically generate an irrational and hatefull response from the opposition.

Not at all. The true heart of the question is to force people to recognize that they really do see a difference between the value of the life of the one-year-old and the 100 embryos. The value of the exercise isn’t in what people choose to admit and write here, it’s in what it forces them to acknowledge to themselves in the privacy of their own chambers. The value lies in the introspection, not the exposition.

They know they would take the one-year-old and run. And they know that is contrary to the notion that there are 101 human beings in that burning room.

Nobody is avoiding a logic trap by refrainng from answering, They are already trapped by the contradiction between what they say and what they really believe.

 

[WillieWonka]

OK as long as it is an illegal choice along with all other murders.

The choice is quite legal today in the US.

 

[royal_archer]

That’s interesting. If I can rescue only one, and I rescue that one, does Catholic doctrine claim I have done wrong?

The fireman who carries out one person, while the other person dies has done wrong?

Perhaps someone here knows enough about Catholic doctrine to comment?

Don’t consider wrong to be the same as sin. It is not a sin to choose what is perceived as the lesser of two wrongs.

 

[WillieWonka]

I do not need any. You have already conceded the point.
Remember this quote?

No it does not. The skin cell is merely part of the human.
It is the human that has the right to life, not merely a part of it.

1. There’s nothing to concede because I’m not arguing anything. I am asking for help in pinning down a claim made by anti-abortion folks. Lacking knowledge of any citation, I ask anyone with such knowledge to share it.
2. OK. Then since all those parts have the same DNA, and thos parts lack rights, it doesn’t make much sense to claim something has a right because it has DNA.

 

[WillieWonka]

The question is not a valid one and does not deserve an answer

Sure it’s valid. The problem is people don’t like what they see when they answer it for themselves. So, they run from it.

Think telling folks it’s not valid will help that reeducation campaign along? Remember, the reeducation campaign isn’t aimed at the anti-abortion people.

 

[WillieWonka]

He is not my authority.

I have a question for you. Why are you so prejudiced?
You claim that people have rights over their own bodies, yet you deny the most basic of this right to a huge segment of humans.

Interesting. I have made no claims of a person’s rights over their own bodies, and I haven’t denied anything to anybody. Where have I done that.

 

[WillieWonka]

Don’t consider wrong to be the same as sin. It is not a sin to choose what is perceived as the lesser of two wrongs.

OK. So what is wrong? What does the Catholic Church say about wrong? Would the Church say a rescuer who can take only one, takes one, and left another did wrong? Anyone know enough about Church doctrine to shed some light on this?

 

[tbcrawford]

To the OP with reference to the original thread…

We do need to educate and re-educate others on abortion.

First we need to remember not all people are catholic/christian/have moral values which view abortion in the same way we do.
At present many countries have legal abortions.If we want to change that,yes we need to work with politicians fervently and vote accordingly.

We also need to start at the grass roots.Many families catholic included do not discuss sex in general because of embarrassment possibly or lack of skill as a parent to know how to go about this.
Parenting classes run by the church on how to talk openly about sex,hormones changing,infatuation temptation in general should be started.The classes should encompass human nature and natural bodily changes and emotions aswell as catholic doctrine hand in hand in a loving warm open way.A parent should attend with specially trained advisors from the diocese and priests/lay teachers.
By doing this our children would feel more able to approach if an accident did happen instead of making a rash decision they would regret for the rest of their lives.

Next to tackle non catholics/non christians/immoral people…

We should bring women (who would like to do this) who have had abortions and been adversely affected by this to talk publicly about why they did it how they regret it and feel bad etc…Of course not everyone feels bad!

Lobby our politicians make them work for you for their vote!!! Work in schools as counsellors(christian ones) who can educate girls if they have an unplanned pregnancy.

I feel really strongly we need to be talking openly to our kids at home so they feel they can come to us and not have a secret abortion because they felt their parents unapproachable or didnt want to let them down.
Anyway just some of my ideas

God bless

 

[vz71]

1. There’s nothing to concede because I’m not arguing anything. I am asking for help in pinning down a claim made by anti-abortion folks. Lacking knowledge of any citation, I ask anyone with such knowledge to share it.

OK, if you want to deny your own words, fine.
Of course, credibility of your argument does take a hit.
But that is your business, not mine.

1. OK. Then since all those parts have the same DNA, and thos parts lack rights, it doesn’t make much sense to claim something has a right because it has DNA.

No it doesn’t.
It makes sense to realize the rights inherit in a human being.
Since many do not recognize the earliest stages of a human being physically, it is necessary to utilize DNA to prove the point.

 

[vz71]

Sure it’s valid. The problem is people don’t like what they see when they answer it for themselves. So, they run from it.

Your interpretation of the answers given to this question is not supported by the facts.

Think telling folks it’s not valid will help that reeducation campaign along? Remember, the reeducation campaign isn’t aimed at the anti-abortion people.

Yes. The pro-life side needs to be able to recognize logic traps when they are given.

 

[vz71]

Interesting. I have made no claims of a person’s rights over their own bodies, and I haven’t denied anything to anybody. Where have I done that.

The denial of the right to life to human beings in the earliest stages of development is inherent to the pro-abortion position.

 

[limerick]

**I’ve noticed that when WillieWonka asks this very vast membership on CAF, who are practicing Catholics for the most part, whether they can shed a little light on a thorny subject, the posting public either left the bath water running or come back at him/her with a slam.

Why not just share your wisdom of the ins and outs of doctrine so we can examine the questions and possible answers closely, without all the huffy accusations and name-calling? This goes right back to what I have been saying ever since I came onto this forum: if you people are entrusted to carry the message of Christ, how does nastiness further the cause? Some folks want to know the answers, or at least what Catholics think the answers are. I’ve had a good number of posters tell me they’re praying for me to convert, and yet when I offer my views they are horrified, threatened, disgusted, aghast. What’s that about? Isn’t it the wayward who need evangelizing?

I think I’ve had an early childhood suspicion confirmed: it’s just not safe to ask questions, even as a little experiment. Don’t rock the boat. Just stay within the lines and you’ll be all right.

Limerick **

 

[WillieWonka]

OK, if you want to deny your own words, fine.
Of course, credibility of your argument does take a hit.
But that is your business, not mine.

No it doesn’t.
It makes sense to realize the rights inherit in a human being.
Since many do not recognize the earliest stages of a human being physically, it is necessary to utilize DNA to prove the point.

1. Does anybody know of a cite where a pro-abortion advoate says an abortion is like removing a hangnail or having an appendix removed? Lacking such knowledge, do you feel comfortable assigning this view to people?
2. Who does not recognize the earliest stages of a human embryo physically? Can someone tell us anyone who does not recognize the egg is fertilized by a sperm? Planned Parenthood? NARAL? Who?

 

[WillieWonka]

Your interpretation of the answers given to this question is not supported by the facts.
.

Well, just answer the question and demonstrate my interpretation is wrong. Until then you just strengthen my interpretation.

 

[WillieWonka]

The denial of the right to life to human beings in the earliest stages of development is inherent to the pro-abortion position.

1. I haven’t denied anyone’s right to life.
2. I haven’t embraced the pro-abortion position.

 

[vz71]

I’ve noticed that when WillieWonka asks this very vast membership on CAF, who are practicing Catholics for the most part, whether they can shed a little light on a thorny subject, the posting public either left the bath water running or come back at him/her with a slam.

Perhaps you could provide specific examples.