F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
John 3:6
Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
Last edited:
Is There any Difference between Supporting Woman Privacy Right & Supporting Abortion?
- Status
Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.
O
otjm
Guest
No one, by opposing abortion, is enslaving any woman. Anyone who supports abortion is at least in some way responsible for the death of the children killed - even if the connection is tenuous.
R
Rau
Guest
This sounds like an attempt to absolve the person who decides that their convenience is paramount and this an abortion is the preferred course. In a proportion of cases, that is what happens.
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
I oppose abortion too.
I oppose adultery, and the systematc promotion of adultery by porn.
I am worry that our church become lukewarm, and settle for less by illegalizing abortion without ever opposing porn systematcally. Our church teaching to live chastely is no longer enogh in opposing porn. Porn is a system that snatches the sheeps not one by one, rather, herds by herds, generation by generation.
Like running tap water, illegalizing abortion only closing one end of the hose without stopping the tap.
And the worse part of illegalizing abortion in the middle of rampant porn business is like my situation: my house is being intruded by people terrorizing me covertly. But the law forbid me to have even a tazer gun. It becomes more dangerous if I ever caught these people what can I do anyway. So you see, my right as the owner of the land, I have no right to defend it. I have no control in my situation. I need empowerment in order to stand my ground and oppose these people who intrude my land.
Porn is like these people who terrorize me in my own house. It terrorize humanity right in their own sexuality.
Let me give you another example. This one is not my own experience. But lets say, a teacher create a youtube where in that youtube, I am being bullied. She shows the video in class and make a joke. My friends laugh, not knowing that such behavior is immoral. Being awkward, I try to survive by upholding my dignity and refuse to cry. Instead, I play along with the game. But then my friends begin to bully me, because they thought it is okay to behave this way. The teacher as authorithy allow this to continue to happen. So, one day, I decide to kill myself. So then my teacher decides, it is illegal to kill oneself. She said, the guilt of commiting suicide is all mine.
Porn showing pictures of women being bullied. It is permissible. I am comparing abortion with the bullied victims who commit suicide; and Porn as the teacher. Is commiting suicide (abortion) is the victims convenience?. I should have been stronger to oppose the class culture (porn culture) and respect my own life (fetus life). Alas, I am not stong enough. So people remember me as the murderer of myself (my fetus) for my own convenience.
I oppose adultery, and the systematc promotion of adultery by porn.
I am worry that our church become lukewarm, and settle for less by illegalizing abortion without ever opposing porn systematcally. Our church teaching to live chastely is no longer enogh in opposing porn. Porn is a system that snatches the sheeps not one by one, rather, herds by herds, generation by generation.
Like running tap water, illegalizing abortion only closing one end of the hose without stopping the tap.
And the worse part of illegalizing abortion in the middle of rampant porn business is like my situation: my house is being intruded by people terrorizing me covertly. But the law forbid me to have even a tazer gun. It becomes more dangerous if I ever caught these people what can I do anyway. So you see, my right as the owner of the land, I have no right to defend it. I have no control in my situation. I need empowerment in order to stand my ground and oppose these people who intrude my land.
Porn is like these people who terrorize me in my own house. It terrorize humanity right in their own sexuality.
Let me give you another example. This one is not my own experience. But lets say, a teacher create a youtube where in that youtube, I am being bullied. She shows the video in class and make a joke. My friends laugh, not knowing that such behavior is immoral. Being awkward, I try to survive by upholding my dignity and refuse to cry. Instead, I play along with the game. But then my friends begin to bully me, because they thought it is okay to behave this way. The teacher as authorithy allow this to continue to happen. So, one day, I decide to kill myself. So then my teacher decides, it is illegal to kill oneself. She said, the guilt of commiting suicide is all mine.
Porn showing pictures of women being bullied. It is permissible. I am comparing abortion with the bullied victims who commit suicide; and Porn as the teacher. Is commiting suicide (abortion) is the victims convenience?. I should have been stronger to oppose the class culture (porn culture) and respect my own life (fetus life). Alas, I am not stong enough. So people remember me as the murderer of myself (my fetus) for my own convenience.
Last edited:
E
Elf01
Guest
I doubt it. At least I doubt you support it being completely illegal.
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
We all are liable for our sins.
I pray for others, but I leave punishment to God.
I pray for others, but I leave punishment to God.
T
Taras_Bulba
Guest
170+ comments over a euphemism.
R
Rau
Guest
While you make a good case for opposing porn, your analogy in this post is not sound. It is not the case that every woman choosing abortion was influenced by porn. Nor is it the case that every woman choosing an abortion was driven to it by desperate circumstances akin to a person driven to suicide.
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
Well, actually my analogy of a teacher bullying me in a class room will represent our porn-abortion culture better in this way:
The same classroom set up, except now there are two teachers. One teacher (teacher A) showing the classroom the video in which I was bullied and joke about it, while the other teacher (teacher B) was present, but say nothing in class whenever teacher A is around. Only whenever teacher A is not around, then this teacher B begin to say to the class some “general comments” about “it is not moral to bully others”. TeacherB has never confront teacher A directly, because teacher A is very powerful and has many followers.
So, when finally bullied francisca commited suicide (this is only example, I am not in anyway suicidal), teacher B (who teaches moral theology subject) said to the class that suicide is an immoral conduct, and it was wrong for francisca to commit suicide. As the child if God, francisca should have been facing the bullying, place her hope in God, and not to commit suicide, no matter how bad the bullying.
So, now, because of teacher A, the whole school begin to think that bullying a girl is okay, but to commit suicide is immoral. Many immoral girls commit suicide. So, the moral theology teacher B, begin to worry how to answer God in heaven later. So he has a good idea: teacher B uphold moral theology by reciting theories, "all live is precious. It is illegal for anyone to commit suicide. Girls, no matter how hard the bullying, face life bravely! Do not commit suicide for convonvenience. It is a crime!"
My Question again:
The same classroom set up, except now there are two teachers. One teacher (teacher A) showing the classroom the video in which I was bullied and joke about it, while the other teacher (teacher B) was present, but say nothing in class whenever teacher A is around. Only whenever teacher A is not around, then this teacher B begin to say to the class some “general comments” about “it is not moral to bully others”. TeacherB has never confront teacher A directly, because teacher A is very powerful and has many followers.
So, when finally bullied francisca commited suicide (this is only example, I am not in anyway suicidal), teacher B (who teaches moral theology subject) said to the class that suicide is an immoral conduct, and it was wrong for francisca to commit suicide. As the child if God, francisca should have been facing the bullying, place her hope in God, and not to commit suicide, no matter how bad the bullying.
So, now, because of teacher A, the whole school begin to think that bullying a girl is okay, but to commit suicide is immoral. Many immoral girls commit suicide. So, the moral theology teacher B, begin to worry how to answer God in heaven later. So he has a good idea: teacher B uphold moral theology by reciting theories, "all live is precious. It is illegal for anyone to commit suicide. Girls, no matter how hard the bullying, face life bravely! Do not commit suicide for convonvenience. It is a crime!"
My Question again:
- Are the fruits (commit suicide, abortion) bigger in propotion than the tree (bullying, porn culture)?
- Is it accurate a moral teaching to say, watching porn and sleep around is sinful, but not as sinful as abortion? That only abortion is preeminently sinful?
- Does teacher B teach any better moral conduct than teacher A? The fact that teacher B only focus on one side of the problem, is it misleading a teaching?
Last edited:
F
francisca.chapter3
Guest
I believe in the separation between church & state in this case.francisca.chapter3:
I doubt it. At least I doubt you support it being completely illegal.
When victims commit crime as continuation of their victimization, they hold lesser culpability compared to a free person who by choice commit crime.
It becomes a dilemma to force the victims to turn the other cheek by law, without bringing the root of problem into the picture.
We have got to bring the husband into the picture. No woman commit abortion without any man involved. She wouldn’t be pregnant to begin with.
Whether she is down and out psychologically depressed, discouraged, or whatever, the question is whether the husband agree to that abortion? He should be given chance to help the woman to decide otherwise, after all she is his woman. If she slept with other man, then it is still the same thing: its up to the woman and her husband to decide what to do.
No strangers should be allowed into the privacy of husband & wife what to do in their house. This is based on the assumption that love is the basis of all marriage (whether christian or not). Therefore marriage is more trustable an institution than any other institutions to decide what to do with the children conceived during this marriage.
This is also under the assumption that the church has not stopped her evangelization, tirelessly teach abortion should not be done within christian marriage. I am sure other religions would also teach this too.
Evangelization to each woman, one woman at a time. Not by illegalizing abortion then suddenly the bulk work of church has completed the pro-life work, no need evangelization to each person anymore. With porn so prevalent, it’s an illusion of the church final victory.
Women who seek abortion is trying to choose between her own life & the life of her other children, or whether she has enough strength to carry another new life within her situation. It is no convenience.
The more important is to get men realize porn is the work of the devil who want to kill humans by making our love turn cold and even systematically bully women, teen & children
Last edited:
G
goout
Guest
Didn;t have time to read it all, but these kinds of discussions seem to miss the both/and of Catholic philosophy and thought.
The life of a human being and the issues surrounding the protection and flourishing of that life are a seamless garment encompassing many issues and needs (like porn),
and at the same time
There is a hierarchy of moral issues based on prudential judgment.
The protection of innocent life from direct and intentional harm is at the top of that list of needs.
If you don’t a priori protect human beings from being killed, your concern about pornography is meaningless.
Because human rights are not for cats
or trees
or my dead gramma
Human rights are for living human beings.
The life of a human being and the issues surrounding the protection and flourishing of that life are a seamless garment encompassing many issues and needs (like porn),
and at the same time
There is a hierarchy of moral issues based on prudential judgment.
The protection of innocent life from direct and intentional harm is at the top of that list of needs.
If you don’t a priori protect human beings from being killed, your concern about pornography is meaningless.
Because human rights are not for cats
or trees
or my dead gramma
Human rights are for living human beings.
Last edited:
E
EndTimes
Guest
Yes of Course
And God’s Law supersedes Roe V Wade.
The woman (aka Jane Roe)
behind the infamous Supreme Court Roe v Wade case, Norma McCorvey,
pledged her life to overturning it.
ABORTION is MURDER - over 1.5 Billion babes in the womb have been Murdered.
Last edited:
- Status