Issues other than abortion

[goout]

blackforest:

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”.

Your statement is emotive and inaccurate. The pro-life community, by definition and action, is concerned with the welfare of every human being.
Your position by contrast is concerned with individualist power. Individualist power cares about itself, or about groups of people, not the whole of humanity. As you demonstrate throughout your thoughts.

The prolife people I know are the ones adopting children, paying for birth expenses, contributing to social justice causes with actual dollars, not lip service.

 

[goout]

Though I do not mean to minimize the issue of abortion, I would like to say that there are other issues of importance in the USA.
Poverty, physical abuse, drug and other substance abuse, corruption, and so many other things.
I would like to see my brother and sister Catholics address these issues.
We can be concerned and focused on more than on issue at a time.
Love and peace to everyone!

We can focus on various prudential judgments for sure.
You are asking about human rights and human welfare. At the basis of all human rights, or at the source of any moral evaluation, a common good must be held objectively.

What in your mind is that common objective good?

 

[Vonsalza]

Your statement is emotive and inaccurate. The pro-life community, by definition and action, is concerned with the welfare of every human being.

Then in this case, the pro-life community has evaluated the (hazy at best) “conflict” between an unwilling mother not wanting to subject herself to the perils of pregnancy vs the supposed (but factually unobservable) agency of a fetus.
The pro-life community has then decided that her body must serve as hostage to it, no matter the risks - including the real risk of her own death. She is, factually, to be a bodily slave to the child she does not want despite the fact it will almost certainly leave her permanently changed in the best of outcomes for her.

I guess the pro-life community just doesn’t have the “guts” to come out and directly say that… At least the pro-choice community is generally willing to directly consider the outcome for out contraposed party - the fetus - in this matter.

Your position by contrast is concerned with individualist power.

Yes. We call this “liberty”. Other words often used are “autonomy”. “Freedom”.

Individualist power cares about itself, or about groups of people, not the whole of humanity.

No one can authoritatively speak for “The Whole of Humanity”. Just like the supposed agency of the fetus, the agency of “The Whole of Humanity” cannot be demonstrated to even exist.

In both cases, you’re appealing to something that you can’t even be sure is real.

The prolife people I know are the ones adopting children, paying for birth expenses, contributing to social justice causes with actual dollars, not lip service.

Oh boy, I wish I could say the same. The pro-life politicians I know are also the ones most opposed to expanding support for pregnant women. They routinely oppose paid maternity leave, subsidized childcare, guaranteed continued employment while on maternity leave among other things.

They’re only “pro-life” until the thing gets here. Then they typically flip over to “deal with it - not my problem!” and then wonder why so many women view pregnancy with such trepidation.

 

[goout]

goout:

Your statement is emotive and inaccurate. The pro-life community, by definition and action, is concerned with the welfare of every human being.

Then in this case, the pro-life community has evaluated the (hazy at best) “conflict” between an unwilling mother not wanting to subject herself to the perils of pregnancy vs the supposed (but factually unobservable) agency of a fetus.
The pro-life community has then decided that her body must serve as hostage to it, no matter the risks - including the real risk of her own death. She is, factually, to be a bodily slave to the child she does not want despite the fact it will almost certainly leave her permanently changed in the best of outcomes for her.

Go ahead and accuse me of characterizing your point of view, because I’m going to do that now.

This is naive and juvenile.
There is no arena of life where one person is not subject to the objective good of the whole of humanity. For God’s sake, every time you buy a cup of coffee you are paying sales tax to benefit the whole of society.

You can’t leave a day old infant in the car while you go to the bar, you will go to jail for that.

This demonstrates the evil of your position: it subjects human life to minimalist and perverse standards of personal autonomy which are arrogant and ignorant of everyday natural law, which is planted in the heart of every human being.

And the only reason you are not laughed into scorn and derision in this society is that our society worships personal license, and especially sexual license.

Your position exalts personal license at the expense of scientific realities that any 3rd grader can understand. That ought to cause you to stop. Maybe you haven’t really thought this through well. You are in bed with 6 day creationists.

 

[goout]

Don’t even bother to reply.
We are not in the same conversation.

 

[Vonsalza]

This demonstrates the evil of your position: it subjects human life to minimalist and perverse standards of personal autonomy which are arrogant and ignorant of everyday natural law, which is planted in the heart of every human being.

Apparently that didn’t get planted in my heart. Which seems to clearly undermine your position.

Your first and primary possession is the body in which your “self” resides. The notion that someone else should get to lord over it is ludicrous.

And the only reason you are not laughed into scorn and derision in this society is that our society worships personal license, and especially sexual license.

Well, individual freedom was kind of a big thing when the Declaration and Constitution were written… Call me biased in favor of liberty. I’ll bear that scarlet letter proudly.

Your position exalts personal license at the expense of scientific realities that any 3rd grader can understand.

Really? I wasn’t aware that science could tell you when it’s a person.

You weren’t even uniquely you upon your conception. The division of the cell membranes of your germ cells and subsequent chromosome exchange (thus creating your unique genetic material for the very first time) doesn’t happen the instant that sperm hits the egg. Takes some time, you might be surprised to find out.

An extremely common position espoused by the scientific community is that it might be considered a person at possible viability - 22 weeks or so.

That ought to cause you to stop. Maybe you haven’t really thought this through well. You are in bed with 6 day creationists.

Regrettably, you’re just unfamiliar with what science can and can’t “do”. Personhood isn’t on their list.

 

[blackforest]

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”.

That is just your opinion, and this kind of moral superiority is truly counter-productive to the debate.

 

[Al1234]

I agree that all of these issues are important. As a non US citizen living outside of your country, it looks like you are in a battle over the issue of abortion though. A really intense one that is a matter of life or death for countless millions and which will have a massive effect on your nation over time. I am glad for those who fight against this as your great country often influence events in the rest of the world. What becomes law and culture in America often sets the trend for us here in Africa and we adopt similar ideals later. We need you to win this battle.

I do agree that you have many other battles to win too. As a superpower and the worlds biggest economy - don’t forget that with greatness comes great responsibility. I watch your earthly and spiritual battles with great interest as they often foreshadow what we will be dealing with down the line.

May God bless you all and keep you strong.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

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”.

That is just your opinion, and this kind of moral superiority is truly counter-productive to the debate.

Blackforest, the notion that women should have bodily autonomy just like everyone else, I assure you, is MOST CERTAINLY not a mere opinion.

The reason it’s counter-productive to the debate is because it essentially ends it for most reasonable people.

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

Like the Nuremberg laws? I guess they didn’t pop up out of nowhere either. Or the slavery laws? Or perhaps sharia law as enforced by Islamic State, those laws were a product of culture, that’s all fine too?

Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that simply because a law exists within a culture to even grant or not grant the right to life to an innocent individual, that that is all well and good. Humans are made in the image of God, but it is the prerogative of other human beings and their man-made laws to decide whether or not the right to life should be bestowed upon the individual?

In other words, none of us have any inherent right to life other than how the laws of the nation dicates?

Your view of a state-determined right to life of individuals is a very scary view indeed?

 

[goout]

Your view of a state-determined right to life of individuals is a very scary view indeed?

People are frequently excoriated for bringing up connections with Nazi philosophies, and I’ll gladly accept that criticism now as well. And that Nazi playbook is almost reflexively referenced. Why is that?
Because it ought to demonstrate to the personal power/mightmakesright folks the logical ends of their position. Those ends are demonstrated by looking directly at history.

I suggest reading Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s biography. Metaxas writes a good one.
You’ll see the terrifying thinking expressed in this thread throughout the rise of the Nazi party.
Power is supreme.
Church serves power.
Human life itself is subject to power.
State control is supreme to the moral law.
Basically, it’s the cry of a 3 year old with more power than responsibility:
“I do what I want when I want, because I can”.

And millions die as a result.
We have killed more human beings in this country than any other civilization, ever.

 

[goout]

And I suppose our ancestors had a little more going for them when they at least admitted the black population to 3/5ths personhood. Drain on resources, those blacks. But hey, they get some work done, so 3/5ths it is!

Maybe that’s better than just claiming “not a person”.
Whuddya think…

 

[Vonsalza]

@goout
@Brendan_64

I must say, I appreciate the irony of discussing slaves and Nazis while simultaneously not being capable of seeing that the literal enslavement and oppression of women is exactly what you’re advocating.

It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic…

 

[Elf01]

I must say, I appreciate the irony of discussing slaves and Nazis while simultaneously not being capable of seeing that the literal enslavement and oppression of women is exactly what you’re advocating.

And I appreciate the irony of condemening slavery and the holocaust while using their arguments to refuse the unborn the right to life.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

A fetus has no capacity for any of these things.

This also applies to infants.

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

I don’t see why this matters.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Then in this case, the pro-life community has evaluated the (hazy at best) “conflict” between an unwilling mother not wanting to subject herself to the perils of pregnancy vs the supposed (but factually unobservable) agency of a fetus.
The pro-life community has then decided that her body must serve as hostage to it, no matter the risks - including the real risk of her own death. She is, factually, to be a bodily slave to the child she does not want despite the fact it will almost certainly leave her permanently changed in the best of outcomes for her.

I guess the pro-life community just doesn’t have the “guts” to come out and directly say that… At least the pro-choice community is generally willing to directly consider the outcome for out contraposed party - the fetus - in this matter.

You don’t get a moral high ground for this. You are willing to allow someone to kill a fetus so it’s neutral and is a good example of a emotional argument and not a logical one.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

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 must say, I appreciate the irony of discussing slaves and Nazis while simultaneously not being capable of seeing that the literal enslavement and oppression of women is exactly what you’re advocating.

It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic…

Hmm…
You’re being pretty dismissive yourself.

 

[goout]

@goout
@Brendan_64

I must say, I appreciate the irony of discussing slaves and Nazis while simultaneously not being capable of seeing that the literal enslavement and oppression of women is exactly what you’re advocating.

Because nourishing and giving birth to a new human being is slavery?
Mother Teresa was right. The greatest poverty exists in the western world where we kill our children.

 

[anon48198893]

“Literal enslavement”.

Where are these plantations or work camps located, so that we might liberate them?

 

[Vonsalza]

And I appreciate the irony of condemening slavery and the holocaust while using their arguments to refuse the unborn the right to life.

I don’t reject the unborn’s supposed “Right to Life”.
I’m only stating, correctly, that it doesn’t trump a mother’s right to control her own body.

This also applies to infants.

Well, no. Infants begin expressing autonomy and self-determination upon birth. They learn very quickly to scream when they experience hunger or other bodily discomfort.

A fetus has no expressed capacity for self-determination or autonomy that was can observe.

I don’t see why this matters.

Because when the fetus is part of its mother, it’s part of her body - and at least most certainly dependent upon her body. And the mother has absolute control over her body.

You don’t get a moral high ground for this. You are willing to allow someone to kill a fetus so it’s neutral and is a good example of a emotional argument and not a logical one.

Hmmm… Sounds like a complicated argument where folks with different values make different choices and no objective standard can be factually, demonstrably proven here.

So how do we solve it?

Make no law concerning it. Each individual makes their own choice.

Hmm…
You’re being pretty dismissive yourself.

Not at all. I recognize that what’s developing is a little proto-human. I understand fully that by recognizing a woman’s right to control her body we also empower her to kill this little proto-human if she doesn’t want it inside her.

Because nourishing and giving birth to a new human being is slavery?

No, forcing a woman to risk death and peril so she can carry a child she does not want - that’s slavery by any standard.

How many maternal deaths are we going to have this year in the US?

https://www.npr.org/2017/05/12/528098789/u-s-has-the-worst-rate-of-maternal-deaths-in-the-developed-world

Forcing a woman to risk this against her will is literal enslavement, @anon48198893.