How would we enforce new abortion laws?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JimG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
NM505StKate said:
No. I am fine with it if the mother’s health is at risk.
Click to expand...
Why abort after 21 weeks? Why not just give birth?

Especially, since you’ve just conceded, that it’s a person with a cerebral cortex at 21 weeks.
 
Ormond said:
It depends. Does the marching help bring people together in peace to resolve the problem? Or does the marching result in decades of pointless polarizing division which does little to solve the problem?
Click to expand...
How much marching is ok, and how much is pointless?

And who gets to decide?

If it took MLK 50 years to effect change, would that have been permissible?

And let’s say he gave up at 49 years (because he decided to listen to your opinion)…wouldn’t that have been tragic?
Pretty much everyone on all sides agrees that fewer abortions is the goal, right?
Click to expand...
Right.

Which is a curious position for the prochoicers to take. It implies a tacit “We don’t like abortion, because we understand abortion kills an innocent human being.”

Or, it asserts an impotent position of “We don’t like abortion but we can’t really articulate why we don’t like it.”
So the debate is about tactics, about how to get there, yes?
Click to expand...
Sure. But not only about tactics and how to get there.
So for example, Planned Parenthood believes artificial contraception is a useful method for reducing abortions,
Click to expand...
…meaning that it still wants to promote abortions, for the oral contraceptives function, quite often, as abortifacients.
The Church seems to prefer a finger pointing blame and shame guilt offensive as their strategy for reducing abortions. My argument is that persuasion is the only method that can deliver a significant sustainable reduction in abortions, and that it’s kind of hard to persuade people when we have our morally superior finger of condemnation shoved in their faces.
Click to expand...
And yet here you are finger pointing.

Do you see the irony?
  1. The Church embraces artificial contraception wholeheartedly, thus creating a point of agreement on all sides, a process which can help build trust and the ability to persuade. It’s simply not credible to define abortion as the ultimate evil with one hand, and then declare oneself against contraception with the other. And without credibility, there is little chance of persuasion.
Click to expand...
But you would agree, the artificial contraception that would be off the table would be oral contraceptives and the IUD, right?
  1. The Catholic community should, to the limits of it’s ability, offer to raise any children that others don’t want. This positions the Church as a friend, a helper, and not an angry enemy. Thus, again, it’s easier to persuade.
Click to expand...
There is no greater advocate for children than the Catholic community.
Passing an anti-abortion law is an attempt to force one’s will upon others at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...
Practically every law is an attempt to force one’s will upon others at the point of a gun.

If you’re going to object to anti-abortion laws, you’re also going to have to object to anti-discrimination laws, speeding regulations, ordinances against littering, environmental regulations, etc etc etc.

Are you willing to do that, Ormond?
 
Ormond. You said . . .
Passing an anti-abortion law is an attempt to force one’s will upon others at the point of a gun.
Click to expand...
What would you say? . . . To the person who suggested. . . .
NOT passing an anti-abortion law is an attempt to force one’s will upon others at the point of a human body dismemberment suction catheter?
Click to expand...
WHY is the pro-life position framed as forcing one’s will upon another,
but the pro-abortion people are assumed as exempt from this argument
in your world view?

And which argument is more true?

Do you REALLY see people running around with “guns” aimed at women in countries that have pro-life laws?

Did we REALLY see people “pointing” guns in the USA before Roe v Wade?

Or is the suction catheter question much MORE TRUE?
 
Hope_Philomena said:
Okay, what I’m saying here is this:

We are the ones who decided that abortion = murder. We are the ones who interpreted scripture. Just because you decided based upon scripture does not mean that you are inherently correct about your inference.
Click to expand...
The intentional taking of human life is murder. This is partly because humans are made in the image and likeness of God. When do that image and likeness appear? To pick a point other than at conception (when DNA is established) is purely human, worldly, arbitrary, even capricious.

Two questions to ponder: Let’s say it is just a “fetus.” 1) How do you obtain human life other than via a fetus? 2) What happens to a fetus if it is not aborted - just as you yourself were not aborted?
 
PRmerger said:
Why abort after 21 weeks? Why not just give birth?

Especially, since you’ve just conceded, that it’s a person with a cerebral cortex at 21 weeks.
Click to expand...
There may be various factors. Plus the mother has the call. Again late term abortions are very rare.
 
PRmerger said:
Interestingly, did you know that the brain is not fully developed until age 25–“certain brain functions are available” until that time.

So, using your reasoning, a 16 year old boy is not a human person.

Are you comfortable saying this, Kate?
Click to expand...
How about saying it like this. Crucial brain functions are not fully developed. Look up with the cortex does and ask yourself if a fetus at that stage could survive.
 
Cathoholic said:
WHY is the pro-life position framed as forcing one’s will upon another,
but the pro-abortion people are assumed as exempt from this argument
in your world view?

And which argument is more true?

Do you REALLY see people running around with “guns” aimed at women in countries that have pro-life laws?

Did we REALLY see people “pointing” guns in the USA before Roe v Wade?

Or is the suction catheter question much MORE TRUE?
Click to expand...
No it is more like before Roe v Wade getting an abortion was much harder and not as safe as it is after the decision. We have seen a white terrorist shoot up an abortion clinic or the bombings that have happened.
 
NM505StKate said:
So I found some stuff out. Top of the list is that a fetus doesn’t develop a cerebral cortex until the tail end of the second trimester. This is important because the cortex helps control several functions needed for survival.

dartmouth.edu/~rswenson/NeuroSci/chapter_11.html

So seeing how before this time the fetus cannot possibly survive outside of the mother.

lemauricien.com/article/abortion-fact-fiction-and-humanity
Click to expand...
It is still a unique live human being from conception with its own unique DNA. physicsforums.com/threads/is-dna-unique.288849/
 
How about saying it like this. Crucial brain functions are not fully developed. Look up with the cortex does and ask yourself if a fetus at that stage could survive.
Click to expand...
No!

Why not?

Because in so doing, I would be allowing you to re-define what a person is and what a person isn’t.

You are attempting to re-define a person based upon something that they will yet receive AFTER they are conceived!

You are attempting to re-define a person based upon something that they already didn’t inherently possess from the time of their conception.

You are attempting to re-define a person based upon something “material”.
Then you must ask. . . . WHAT material THING is it that this “fetus” received that you can now finally “declare” her as human".

(Voting power? Your income? A “declaration” from a “committee”?)

And WHO gets to be the “declaration referee”?

And if this something is . . . . “Well we just don’t know WHAT they receive that we can finally declare them as “persons”” . . . .

Then some committee can start re-defining persons as less than persons for ANY capricious “reasoning” using your principle.

And that’s exactly what people have done against our Jewish family members in the past.
And that’s exactly what people have done against our Black family members in the past.
And that’s exactly what people have done against our Christian family members in the past (because the Christians “received” the “wrong beliefs” somewhere along the way).

It is ANTI-PERSON supremacy you are putting forth.
It is ANTI-PERSON supremacy using the SAME PRINCIPLES as someone who would direct abortion or artificial birth control (abc) against any segment of society.
It is ANTI-PERSON supremacy DISGUISED as being “pro-woman” or “pro-poor” or “pro-person” or “pro-environment”.
I have a question for the people here who think these things are acceptable options for a government to entertain.

If you heard a politician get up in Parliament, or Congress and say . . .

“Well I am Pro-black”. I want “special favorative rights” for our black citizens. I want abortion and abc illegal EXCEPT for Blacks!
Let’s get the Black people ALL THE ABORTION and abc that we can serve up to the Black Community"

Join with me now if affirming my love for the Black community."

Would YOU conclude this Parliamentarian or Congresswoman was . . . . .
  1. A poorly disguised ANTI-Black racist bigot who has no place in public office?
Or would you say number 2?
  1. One of our compassionate leaders that has GREAT LOVE for the Black Community and wants special “rights” and “privileges” for their beloved Black constituents?
I see it as number 1.

What do YOU say?

(Because this is in essence, what some politicains are saying today in principle . . . . only they “FAVOR” their “RIGHTS” against all people in general (not just against Blacks.)
DEUTERONOMY 30:19 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live,
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Cathoholic:
The SCOTUS ruled on the trimesters and through the law said what a human being is.
 
NM505StKate said:
There may be various factors. Plus the mother has the call. Again late term abortions are very rare.
Click to expand...
So does the mother have the call to kill her 2 day old infant, Kate, using your logic.

Are you ok with infanticide, since “it’s the mother’s call” to determine whether she wants to continue being a mother?

Or do you believe in forced motherhood?
 
PRmerger said:
So does the mother have the call to kill her 2 day old infant, Kate, using your logic.

Are you ok with infanticide, since “it’s the mother’s call” to determine whether she wants to continue being a mother?

Or do you believe in forced motherhood?
Click to expand...
If anyone believes in “forced motherhood” it is pro life people. Before the cortex is developed the fetus cannot breath on its own. As I linked the earliest premature baby was 21 weeks and 6 days that survived. The chance of survival is very low before the cortex.

Look the choice for abortion is a tough one on the mother as well as others. It is still the mother’s right to choose. Abortion probably would be less of an issue if teens and others were taught comprehensive sex education as well as safe sex with condoms.

What I have been reading is huge appeals to emotion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top