How would we enforce new abortion laws?

[RCinMT]

Ah, yes, the guns and internet and porn sites that didn’t exist at the time. You’ve got me!!! How dare Jesus not mention how in thousands of years, internet scams to swindle the elderly are going to be a bad thing?

HAHA! Thanks for proving the point.

Embezzlement is financial fraud and theft as defined by the law. It doesn’t take a Bible to know that financial fraud is wrong.

Nor does it take one to know abortion is wrong. If it did, there wouldn’t be such anger that people oppose it or refer themselves as pro-life. Why say pro-choice and not pro-abortion if there’s nothing wrong with it?

There are no grey areas in fraud and theft, there’s no question about those being wrong.

Your family is starving, grandma needs medical treatment you cannot afford. You’re stealing or defrauding people who have more than enough money.

And you’re all trying to say that abortion is wrong, yet your cause, your pro-life movement, it’s so connected to a religion that fewer and fewer people are a part of every year.

In the west, perhaps, but not in the world. Yet the country is becoming more pro-life. Hmmm…

Your cause is connected to morals, religion, etc. All incredibly grey areas according to the majority of society. Not for Catholics, but Catholics aren’t the majority

The majority of society thinks morals are grey areas? Who elected you to speak for the majority of society? You’d probably be shocked and sad to find that in a survey most people agree on a general moral framework.

Don’t bother coming up with other things the Bible doesn’t mention. You’re using flawed logic, metaphors that are unrelated to the topic, and religious arguments. Those things don’t hold weight in this world.

They hold much weight. All the weight, in fact. I live my faith in the open and you won’t drive me into the shadows.

That being said, you want to argue that the Bible doesn’t mention abortion specifically but then argue that it’s not valid to point out what else it doesn’t mention?

 

[RCinMT]

If anyone believes in “forced motherhood” it is pro life people.

Forced motherhood?

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.

If I put another person in a room and then removed all the oxygen it wouldn’t be murder because the person cannot survive without oxygen. The person is dependent on something and to be dependent on something means that one does not have a right to exist.

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.

Where have you been? That’s exactly what has happened and the result has been more abortion.

What I have been reading is huge appeals to emotion.

While your unemotional arguments are something worse: illogical.

 

[Ormond]

And who gets to decide?

Someone other than you gets to decide how much you can march, and if you disobey the laws they have implemented to force you in to obeying their opinion, men with guns will come to your house, arrest you, and toss you in jail. See the problem here?

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?

You’re assumption here is that 50 years of highly polarized screaming back and forth across the picket lines is going to implement change in the case of abortion. I agree it may change the law, but that doesn’t automatically equal reducing abortion. It seems more likely to me that both abortion and polarizing social conflict will continue without interruption, and that the primary change will be political. That is, the pro-choice people will go on offense, and the pro-life people will go on defense, you know, they will switch positions. And then the political pendulum will continue swinging as always, and sooner or later the current conservative era will be replaced by another liberal era, the law will change again, and the circus will go on.

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.”

No offense, but I’m not that interested in joining the pro-choice vs. pro-life shootout, as I don’t feel it’s accomplishing much other than inflating some overheated egos on all sides.

And yet here you are finger pointing. Do you see the irony?

No, I don’t. I have Catholic DNA just like most everybody else here. I’m a born finger pointer. Thus I understand it’s limits, because I experience them in my own activity. As example, what will this post accomplish? Probably nothing more than causing some readers to harden their opposing opinions. So, ok, ok, yes, I do see the self contradictory irony after all. Like so many others, I find myself sucked in to what is likely a pointless activity.

But you would agree, the artificial contraception that would be off the table would be oral contraceptives and the IUD, right?

The Church’s contraception policy is too incoherent to merit discussion.

There is no greater advocate for children than the Catholic community.

And yet, many (not all) in that community are content to see millions of children born to families that don’t want them, which begins a cycle of suffering which radiates out in all directions for decades. We can’t have an intelligent conversation about abortion without including this unfortunate fact of life. Anti-abortion laws will convert one kind of suffering in to another kind of suffering, not end suffering.

Practically every law is an attempt to force one’s will upon others at the point of a gun.

Yes, and laws that don’t enjoy broad support from the public don’t work, because the government simply doesn’t have the power to force great masses of citizens to comply with policies they don’t agree with. Drug laws are an easy example.

Again, you’re attempting to have the same old moral debate. I’m addressing tactical issues. Imho, that’s what those who are serious about reducing abortions should be focused on. NOT tactics for a polarized partisan political victory dance, tactics for reducing abortions.

I hope you’ll understand it’s hard to take the Church’s stance on abortion seriously when the institutional Church (but not all Catholics) is against the most obvious, effective, and realistic method of reducing abortions, artificial contraception. That policy is a triumph of ideology over babies.

 

[NM505StKate]

Where have you been? That’s exactly what has happened and the result has been more abortion.

washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/14/abortion-rates-are-declining-is-developing-countries-worldwide-whats-causing-it/?utm_term=.30a2275628fa

theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/us-abortion-rate-lowest-roe-wade-contraception-access

 

[PRmerger]

If anyone believes in “forced motherhood” it is pro life people.

This is true. We are guilty as charged for that.

So, it turns out, are you, though.

Unless you think that a woman who decides she no longer wants to parent her 2 month old baby can just kill this baby?

You are willing to go here on record and say that you are not opposed to her autonomous decision to stop herself from being a mother?

 

[PRmerger]

And yet here you are finger pointing.

Do you see the irony?

No, I don’t. I have Catholic DNA just like most everybody else here. I’m a born finger pointer.

The smiley face notwithstanding, you do realize that you don’t get give yourself permission to finger point, while also objecting to the Catholic Church’s putative finger pointing.

Either stop pointing the finger, or stop objecting to finger pointing, Ormond.

We all recognize that it’s an obnoxious position to espouse: “I get to do it, but I don’t like it when others do it!”

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

The zygote and fetus, up to 23-24 weeks, cannot live apart from the mother. By the decision of the SCOTUS it isn’t a person.

Not just that. They are biologically dependent on the mother’s body for survival. A newborn can be kept alive by anyone who is willing to provide the necessary care. That is qualitatively different from the “parasitic” relationship of the zygote / fetus with the mother. (I know that the word “parasite” rubs some people the wrong way, but I did not call the fetus a parasite, only described its relationship with the mother as “parasitical” and NOT “symbiotic”. )

Also it is good to remember that newborns actually acquire all sorts of rights, that are not afforded to the fetus, even if the birth is only one day away. One of these rights is the right to inherit. Stillborn children cannot inherit. Newborns are considered not just human beings, but also citizens of the state.

By the way, if the mother happens to be unable/unwilling to care for a two days old child, there is the option to give it up for adoption. You cannot give up a fetus for adoption.

 

[Cathoholic]

NM505StKate. You said (emphasis mine) . . . .

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.

Are you concerned that a person may die with an abortion?

Are there any “safe” abortions with “one dead” and “one wounded”?

 

[Ormond]

The smiley face notwithstanding, you do realize that you don’t get give yourself permission to finger point, while also objecting to the Catholic Church’s putative finger pointing. Either stop pointing the finger, or stop objecting to finger pointing, Ormond. We all recognize that it’s an obnoxious position to espouse: “I get to do it, but I don’t like it when others do it!”

I’m a human being PRmerger, not a saint or an angel. So yes, I’m self contradictory, can be obnoxious and otherwise imperfect in too many ways to list. Not only that, I don’t take orders from you, the Church, or anybody else, except, well, ok, my wife.

What you’re doing now is a very amateur debate technique, just so you know. You’re unable to respond effectively to the posts, so you’re hoping to change the subject to the poster. I don’t mind, no offense taken, write whatever you want of course, but FYI this debate move is too primitive to engage me.

What’s happening across the culture is that the polarization process that’s been going on for decades on the abortion issue has many commenters on all sides focused on their own personal ideological victory, instead of reducing abortions, which can be done the most effectively by the Church, Planned Parenthood and the rest of us working together cooperatively. Here’s an example…

The abortions are happening inside places like the Planned Parenthood clinics, right? Well, the Church can’t actually get inside and exercise an influence at the scene of the action because they’ve invested all their energy in to demonizing Planned Parenthood and the women they’d have to influence.

What should be happening instead is that the Church should make peace with it’s opponents, and offer to raise any children the parents don’t want. In this case the Church would be seen as an ally, a partner, a trusted friend, and then it could exert some influence on the decision makers, those having the abortions.

Sadly, the Church prefers a strategy of confrontation and the creation of enemies, a process which is effective at firing up it’s base. It’s like when Trump yells about immigration and creates enemies to fire up his base.

And so your only hope of success is to have a war and bend your enemies to your will at the point of a gun. How very Christian! The problem here is that while you probably can change the law, the government doesn’t have the power to change behavior on a mass scale when half the population, including half of Catholics, don’t agree with the law.

So I predict you will find the victory you seek, but it will be temporary, and largely symbolic. And the price tag for that victory will be to funnel huge sums of new money in to the pro-choice activist movement.

You’ve run out of case to make, and I’ve said what I have to say, so let’s leave it here.

 

[goout]

I’m a human being PRmerger, not a saint or an angel. So yes, I’m self contradictory, can be obnoxious and otherwise imperfect in too many ways to list. Not only that, I don’t take orders from you, the Church, or anybody else, except, well, ok, my wife.

What you’re doing now is a very amateur debate technique, just so you know. You’re unable to respond effectively to the posts, so you’re hoping to change the subject to the poster. I don’t mind, no offense taken, write whatever you want of course, but FYI this debate move is too primitive to engage me.

What’s happening across the culture is that the polarization process that’s been going on for decades on the abortion issue has many commenters on all sides focused on their own personal ideological victory, instead of reducing abortions, which can be done the most effectively by the Church, Planned Parenthood and the rest of us working together cooperatively. Here’s an example…

The abortions are happening inside places like the Planned Parenthood clinics, right? Well, the Church can’t actually get inside and exercise an influence at the scene of the action because they’ve invested all their energy in to demonizing Planned Parenthood and the women they’d have to influence.

What should be happening instead is that the Church should make peace with it’s opponents, and offer to raise any children the parents don’t want. In this case the Church would be seen as an ally, a partner, a trusted friend, and then it could exert some influence on the decision makers, those having the abortions.

Sadly, the Church prefers a strategy of confrontation and the creation of enemies, a process which is effective at firing up it’s base. It’s like when Trump yells about immigration and creates enemies to fire up his base.

And so your only hope of success is to have a war and bend your enemies to your will at the point of a gun. How very Christian! The problem here is that while you probably can change the law, the government doesn’t have the power to change behavior on a mass scale when half the population, including half of Catholics, don’t agree with the law.

So I predict you will find the victory you seek, but it will be temporary, and largely symbolic. And the price tag for that victory will be to funnel huge sums of new money in to the pro-choice activist movement.

You’ve run out of case to make, and I’ve said what I have to say, so let’s leave it here.

No let’s not.
Your post is full of ignorance.
The Church and Planned Parenthood do not work together to reduce abortions. PP does abortion as a business. The Church is opposed to murder.

The Church doesn’t demonize PP. The demonic is what it is.
Maybe you know some things that are demonic.
In your belief system, do you consider murder acceptable? How about systematic genocide? Is that acceptable? Don’t demonize others now, be careful…

The Church should care for children…yes.
Do you happen to know what the largest NGO charitable organization in the world is? How about our hospital system? Adoption agencies?

You don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[NM505StKate]

No let’s not.
Your post is full of ignorance.
The Church and Planned Parenthood do not work together to reduce abortions. PP does abortion as a business. The Church is opposed to murder.

The Church doesn’t demonize PP. The demonic is what it is.
Maybe you know some things that are demonic.
In your belief system, do you consider murder acceptable? How about systematic genocide? Is that acceptable? Don’t demonize others now, be careful…

The Church should care for children…yes.
Do you happen to know what the largest NGO charitable organization in the world is? How about our hospital system? Adoption agencies?

You don’t know what you are talking about.

As I brought up in another thread: Want to reduce or stop abortions? Support solid sex education and contraceptives.

 

[RCinMT]

washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/14/abortion-rates-are-declining-is-developing-countries-worldwide-whats-causing-it/?utm_term=.30a2275628fa

theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/17/us-abortion-rate-lowest-roe-wade-contraception-access

And you know the cause isn’t higher levels of abstinence?

 

[RCinMT]

Not just that. They are biologically dependent on the mother’s body for survival. A newborn can be kept alive by anyone who is willing to provide the necessary care. That is qualitatively different from the “parasitic” relationship of the zygote / fetus with the mother. (I know that the word “parasite” rubs some people the wrong way, but I did not call the fetus a parasite, only described its relationship with the mother as “parasitical” and NOT “symbiotic”. )

You’re dependent on oxegyn, arable land, farmers, ranchers, commercial transportation, electric/gas utilities or solar panel manufacturers.

I could throw you in the middle of the desert and you’d die after some number of days. You are therefore not independent and self-sustaining.

How about a tree? If I ripped a tree out of the ground would I be said to have killed it? After all, it was reliant on soil and water to survive and therefore isn’t independent.

Also it is good to remember that newborns actually acquire all sorts of rights, that are not afforded to the fetus, even if the birth is only one day away. One of these rights is the right to inherit. Stillborn children cannot inherit. Newborns are considered not just human beings, but also citizens of the state.

Stillborns are dead, living fetuses are not. Further, why charge somebody with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman? If a baby can survive outside the womb at 20 weeks, how is not a person inside the womb at 20 weeks?

By the way, if the mother happens to be unable/unwilling to care for a two days old child, there is the option to give it up for adoption. You cannot give up a fetus for adoption.

Sure you can, people can adopt the fetus once he/she is born. People are even willing to cover all medical costs so financial hardship isn’t a factor.

 

[RCinMT]

As I brought up in another thread: Want to reduce or stop abortions? Support solid sex education and contraceptives.

Or talk to kids about why they should remain abstinent, including recent scientific findings about higher levels of depression associated with use of ABC and decreased levels of reported happiness and self-worth coupled with increased drug and alcohol abuse among sexually active teens.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

As I brought up in another thread: Want to reduce or stop abortions? Support solid sex education and contraceptives.

Want to reduce or stop homicides? Support suicide!

 

[steve_b]

Viruses have their own unique DNA but where is the outcry when the CDC says one is no longer around. The zygote and fetus, up to 23-24 weeks, cannot live apart from the mother. By the decision of the SCOTUS it isn’t a person.

from conception, that new life, a unique human being, in the womb will .NOT become / develop into a sea otter, or a spotted owl, or a monkey etc. It is a unique human being, created in the image and likeness of God…

I accept the fact that a humanist/skeptic will have problems with that ending, but they can’t argue about the fact this is a human life

 

[PRmerger]

I’m a human being PRmerger, not a saint or an angel. So yes, I’m self contradictory, can be obnoxious and otherwise imperfect in too many ways to list. Not only that, I don’t take orders from you, the Church, or anybody else, except, well, ok, my wife.

What you’re doing now is a very amateur debate technique, just so you know. You’re unable to respond effectively to the posts, so you’re hoping to change the subject to the poster. I don’t mind, no offense taken, write whatever you want of course, but FYI this debate move is too primitive to engage me.

What’s happening across the culture is that the polarization process that’s been going on for decades on the abortion issue has many commenters on all sides focused on their own personal ideological victory, instead of reducing abortions, which can be done the most effectively by the Church, Planned Parenthood and the rest of us working together cooperatively. Here’s an example…

The abortions are happening inside places like the Planned Parenthood clinics, right? Well, the Church can’t actually get inside and exercise an influence at the scene of the action because they’ve invested all their energy in to demonizing Planned Parenthood and the women they’d have to influence.

What should be happening instead is that the Church should make peace with it’s opponents, and offer to raise any children the parents don’t want. In this case the Church would be seen as an ally, a partner, a trusted friend, and then it could exert some influence on the decision makers, those having the abortions.

Sadly, the Church prefers a strategy of confrontation and the creation of enemies, a process which is effective at firing up it’s base. It’s like when Trump yells about immigration and creates enemies to fire up his base.

And so your only hope of success is to have a war and bend your enemies to your will at the point of a gun. How very Christian! The problem here is that while you probably can change the law, the government doesn’t have the power to change behavior on a mass scale when half the population, including half of Catholics, don’t agree with the law.

So I predict you will find the victory you seek, but it will be temporary, and largely symbolic. And the price tag for that victory will be to funnel huge sums of new money in to the pro-choice activist movement.

You’ve run out of case to make, and I’ve said what I have to say, so let’s leave it here.

All of the above is nothing but an excuse for why you can finger point but object to others finger pointing.

Clearly, the point has been received by you that it’s an inconsistent paradigm to permit in oneself what one objects to in others.

Nonetheless, the conversation should continue.

And it must be stated that if MLK, Rosa Parks, Fr. Ted Hesburgh had all followed your advice, the results would have been tragic.

It is our duty and our noble mission to not remain silent when injustice flourishes.

 

[PRmerger]

You’re assumption here is that 50 years of highly polarized screaming back and forth across the picket lines is going to implement change in the case of abortion. I agree it may change the law, but that doesn’t automatically equal reducing abortion.

I think a rather trenchant parallel is in order here:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=23766&d=1487210292

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=23767&d=1487210688

 

[PRmerger]

The problem here is that while you probably can change the law, the government doesn’t have the power to change behavior on a mass scale when half the population, including half of Catholics, don’t agree with the law.

I think that the problem is a rather inutile view of the law. Or rather perhaps there has been a weird canonization or deification of the power of the law?

As Mark Shea says (bold mine): The “law is the floor of human behavior, not the upper atmosphere. It is supposed to guard against the lowest aspects of human behavior so that a civil society can function. What we really mean when we say you can’t legislate morality is that the Law cannot put the things of the Spirit in the heart**. It cannot instill love of neighbor, for instance.** But it can and does punish those who can’t even bring themselves to keep from harming their neighbor. It says, if you can’t love your neighbor, at least don’t beat him to death with a baseball bat or cheat him out of money. That’s a really moral function. It’s just not the highest moral function.”

Again: that’s really a moral function. It’s just not the *highest *moral function.

 

[goout]

Viruses have their own unique DNA but where is the outcry when the CDC says one is no longer around. The zygote and fetus, up to 23-24 weeks, cannot live apart from the mother.

Neither can the hungry, the thirsty, the disabled, the mentally handicapped, generally speaking the powerless cannot live apart from others.

In fact we all depend on others to live.

You’re a skeptic now.
I’m skeptical that you have actually thought your positions through.