Issues other than abortion

[Gingersnaps4]

It’s hardly sensationalism to accidentally overestimate by 17%. It shouldn’t be legal, period. What if “only” 8300 unwanted toddlers were legally killed per year? Again, this whole issue is an abomination to God. Any Christian supporting it is going against His plan for us.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

People have truly let a sick, secular society have precedence over God’s Law on this issue. Creating God in your own image.

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s hardly sensationalism to accidentally overestimate by 17%. It shouldn’t be legal, period. What if “only” 8300 unwanted toddlers were legally killed per year?

The death of 8300 toddlers would be terrible - even MORE terrible than the death of 8300 fetuses.

Because those toddlers are obviously people in a way the fetus is not.

 

[Vonsalza]

People have truly let a sick, secular society have precedence over God’s Law on this issue. Creating God in your own image.

Indeed. Animals we are, we think a woman should have control over her body and what goes on in it.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Not really, the only difference is that you know the toddler and not the baby. What you are saying is it wouldn’t be as sad if a mentally disabled person died, as opposed to a healthy one. I love how people say “fetus” in a way that implies that it’s a completely different lifeform than a baby. A fetus gets its oxygen and nutrients through an umbilical cord, and a baby gets theirs from the air, and relying on an adult to provide nourishment. But it’s the same organism whether inside or outside of the uterus. No less sad.

 

[Vonsalza]

I agree abortion is sad.

 

[blackforest]

I’m slowly backing out of this thread because it’s getting repetitive and my points aren’t really getting addressed. But I just had to call out the awesomeness of this post. You’re either female or a very empathetic husband!

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Because those toddlers are obviously people in a way the fetus is not.

How is that so?

 

[Brendan_64]

The culture you live in.

In turn, they codify it

You really mean the state? So whether or not a human being is a person, or sufficient enough of a person do be granted the right to live, is determined by the laws of that country? And that’s fine? National law should be the supreme moral determiner?

A human being could be a person with sufficient ‘personhood’ to have the right to live, in one nation, but not in another and that is OK because that culture has codified it in their laws?

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

You’re asking what issues should be talked about other than abortion. The problem is that there’re so many issues most people are aware of, & too many to be discussed here.

One issue is that USA is in danger of slowly becoming an autocracy. Then there’s, limited healthcare access, rising mortality rates, rising inequality, gun violence, rising prison population etc. It’s no secret that sexism & inequality cause abortion. Knowing that, miscearrying women are being prosecuted by feticide laws & pro lifers are iffy about punishing women for abortion, making criminal justice more fair & rehabilitative might be important. With rising maternal mortality, women’s access to healthcare is important. Again there’re to many issues to be discussed here.

I also Catholic teaching on sex should talk more about rape culture & the importance of consent.

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

You’re asking why Catholics are obsessed with abortion. It’s a controversial topic which brings out passion. Pro choices are just as obsessive. Asking why pro-lifers are obsessed with abortion is like asking why environmentalists are obsessed with climate change. The obsession is also a response to secularisation&other changes. Fighting abortion is a way to fight, using secular arguments, the sexual revolution, secularisation,&to restore traditional gender roles. This obsession can’t last forever. If, abortion were to be outlawed, atheist/feminists/liberals became mostly pro-life, or other issues were to rise, abortion would become less of an issue. The abortion issue is also a way to secularise the church, & to raise to the church issues of human, particularly, women’s, rights.

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

Some here are saying “everyone says those things are bad.”

Well, not necessarily.

A Trump rally audience cheered when he said he loved water boarding(torture method). There’re those who oppose gun restrictions.

A while ago on this forum someone started a thread on South American femicide, posting an article about the acquittal of some people who killed&tortured a female, to which some responded by blaming women.

The Polish gov tried to decriminalise single domestic violence instances&has conducted raids on groups helping people fleeing domestic violence. Countries like the Philippines let rapists go free if they marry their victim. El Salvador tried to enforce something similar.

 

[Sbee0]

Vonsalza:

Sbee0:

laylow:

Gingersnaps4:

It’s laughable to see all of the anti-science “logic” that pro-choice people use to justify murder. Throwing around terms like personhood which can never be scientifically proven. But if you are a Christian and are familiar with scripture, then you know that God sees us as persons having humanity in the womb. Scripture wouldn’t say. That He knows us before we are born if we weren’t human beings with souls at that point.

It’s amazing how Conservatives justify letting children all over the world die everyday, so they can live in their privileged world of nice houses, multiple cars, and abundant food. That is the same as murder to me. And I am not even convinced that most abortions are murder to begin with.

I bet I wouldn’t be able to find one person identifying as conservative who would justify letting children all over the world die every day, etc.

Jesus found one pretty easy in Luke 18:

18 A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[a]”

21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

22 When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

23 When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy.

There’s nothing in scripture to say that rich man justified letting children all over the world die every day, etc. Jesus was also not condemning being wealthy, nor advocating for government to be the best provider of things for people.

In Jesus’s time wealth was considered a sign of God’s favor. There’s a reason why Jesus told him to do this, and he knew what the answer would be. AN essential part of our love for Christ is to be detached from what we have on earth. As Jesus said these are only temporary. We can’t take these to Heaven.

Also nothing in there that says the rich man is “Conservative” either.

There are plenty of rich liberals including CEOs of major tech companies who aren’t paying the taxes they should be.

 

[Vonsalza]

I’m slowly backing out of this thread because it’s getting repetitive and my points aren’t really getting addressed.

I feel the same way. Most pro-lifers seem to have little concern for the woman involved.

How is that so?

Toddlers enjoy much more bodily autonomy and self-determination than a fetus. They’re not developmentally independent of a guardian - they’re still kids. But when they want to walk over to the toy bin and get into it, they do. And when they want to tell you “no!”, as my toddlers were so fond of doing, they do.

A fetus has no capacity for any of these things.

And, most important of all, a toddler is a physically separate thing from the mother than bore it. A fetus is not.

You really mean the state? So whether or not a human being is a person, or sufficient enough of a person do be granted the right to live, is determined by the laws of that country?

No, it’s determined by the culture that creates those laws. Laws don’t just pop up out of nowhere.

But rights are indeed enforced by the laws. Absolutely.

A human being could be a person with sufficient ‘personhood’ to have the right to live, in one nation, but not in another and that is OK because that culture has codified it in their laws?

For good or bad, any right you have that isn’t enforced by the state is a right that you actually don’t have.

But in appealing to a theoretical absolute moral authority on the matter, it seems that the most common practice among developed countries is that a fetus has a right to life - but that right doesn’t overshadow a woman’s right to do what she wants with her own body.

The possible peril and certain damage from pregnancy is not something a woman “owes” the unborn in her womb. So if she doesn’t want to do it, she doesn’t have to - at least in the vast majority of the developed world.

 

[Vonsalza]

Also nothing in there that says the rich man is “Conservative” either.

Yes there is. Read again.

19 “Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20 You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’[a]”

21 “All these I have kept since I was a boy,” he said.

He was a devout Jew. It would be difficult to envision someone more conservative.

There are plenty of rich liberals including CEOs of major tech companies who aren’t paying the taxes they should be.

Sure. Most wealthy folks tend to be republican.

But when you get into the super-wealthy, there is much more focus on philanthropy since the personal microeconomic “joy” they feel by grinding out another million is very small. In those echelons of wealth you see about as many dems as you do reps. So you’re right.

It might, then, appear that the primary divide you should be concerned about is class rather than party. But that’s a separate discussion.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Ugh. Back in those days EVERYONE was “conservative” compared to people now. You cannot apply the labels of liberal vs conservative to the Levitical Jews.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

I also don’t uunderstand always pegging rich people as conservative or republican and the “working people” as liberal. It’s ridiculous considering that the CEO’s and owners of so many of the big companies are liberal, not to mention that 99.9% of Hollywood is liberal. Basically most of what people consider society’s Elite are liberal.

 

[blackforest]

I feel the same way. Most pro-lifers seem to have little concern for the woman involved.

This is little stab is emotive and inaccurate. As a dues-paying member of Feminist for Life and Democrats for Life, both organizations that work tirelessly to provide pregnant women with financial and social resources to avoid abortion, I’d encourage you to use real, substantive arguments instead of blind stereotypes.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I feel the same way. Most pro-lifers seem to have little concern for the woman involved.

This is little stab is emotive and inaccurate.

No, it isn’t. Respectfully, this is just your attempt to dismiss it so you don’t have to answer it. And I understand why. There is no good answer to it other than “okay, we have to respect the agency of women as persons too”.

I’d encourage you to use real, substantive arguments instead of blind stereotypes.

Again, labeling in attempt to dismiss rather than address.

It’s not a “blind stereotype” that a woman should have control over her body. It’s a very basic ethical position. In consideration, should I have any dominion over your body? Of course not. Should any person besides you have dominion over your body? Of course not.

I’m just asking you to be consistent and apply that truth to other women as well.

At least my side considers the other side - the fetus. And in direct consideration of it, it is obvious that no one can authoritatively speak for it. But the woman can, very clearly, speak for herself.

She must be free to do that in a free society.

That’s very basic and sound rationale. No fallacy involved.

 

[laylow]

At least my side considers the other side - the fetus. And in direct consideration of it, it is obvious that no one can authoritatively speak for it. But the woman can, very clearly, speak for herself.

I find this to be true as well. For the majority of my life, I have been on the Pro-life side. Personally, myself, I am pro-life, but being a man, I will never have to actually make a personal decision.

After being more educated on the matter, I now side with the Pro-choice side in terms of the law. The biggest factors are the woman’s control of her own autonomy vs the progressive nature of the developing being. In a perfect world, one would not have to choose one over the other. In a perfect world there would not be miscarriages, or birth defects, or natural disasters, or hunger, or poverty, or disease. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world.

I find the pro-choice side much more intellectually honest. Sure, you have the outrageous pro-choice extremists, who are mainly trying to get under the skin of the opposing side, but the pro-life people claim the decision is easy and set in stone. Those are the ones whom must leave the discussion table first. There is a reason why the issue is so controversial, because it is not clear-cut. And for that reason, it makes sense to allow for choice. I do believe that the choice should be restricted a bit, certainly not allowing for late term abortions, unless there is a medical necessity. I will say I am open to changing my view, although that would be repetitive to every view I hold.