Issues other than abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Vonsalza said:
40.png
Sbee0:
History has proven again and again and again that when we use personhood as a measuring stick to determine worth or right to life, the results are catastrophic.

It really has no place with the informed in an abortion debate.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The wanton disregard the prolife movement shows women by trampling their autonomy and enslaving their actual, pregnant bodies simply can’t exist if you treat them as people and give them the autonomy due all people.
Click to expand...
Now who’s being silly? 🙂 Or at the very least… a fundamental and basic lack of understanding about what it means to being pro life.

As I’ve explained many times. We pro lifers mean just what our label says. We want to cure the “disease” if you will, that leads women to abort their children - the fact society has let them down and they feel they have nowhere to turn. We do NOT want America to just pass a law and let them be. Pro choicers for some odd reason believe it’s the latter and not the former.
 
Last edited:
Sbee0 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
40.png
Sbee0:
History has proven again and again and again that when we use personhood as a measuring stick to determine worth or right to life, the results are catastrophic.

It really has no place with the informed in an abortion debate.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The wanton disregard the prolife movement shows women by trampling their autonomy and enslaving their actual, pregnant bodies simply can’t exist if you treat them as people and give them the autonomy due all people.
Click to expand...
Now who’s being silly? 🙂 Or at the very least… a fundamental and basic lack of understanding about what it means to being pro life.

As I’ve explained many times. We pro lifers mean just what our label says. We want to cure the disease that leads women to abort their children, not just pass a law and let them be. Pro choicers for some odd reason believe it’s the latter and not the former.
Click to expand...
Simply not true.

The pro choice folks want a woman to have control over her body. But as most of them tend to be progressive (notice we’re switching categories here), most of these folks have also been championing women and mothers by advocating for birth control, paid pregnancy leave of a sizeable duration, job guarantees, free insurance for mothers and children and a host of other things.

I’m going to shock you here, but most of those folks tend to be a bunch of horrible, liberal, progressive, pro-choice democrats.

And most of those who oppose these after-birth-pro-life measures tend of be conservative republicans.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
40.png
Sbee0:
40.png
Vonsalza:
40.png
Sbee0:
History has proven again and again and again that when we use personhood as a measuring stick to determine worth or right to life, the results are catastrophic.

It really has no place with the informed in an abortion debate.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The wanton disregard the prolife movement shows women by trampling their autonomy and enslaving their actual, pregnant bodies simply can’t exist if you treat them as people and give them the autonomy due all people.
Click to expand...
Now who’s being silly? 🙂 Or at the very least… a fundamental and basic lack of understanding about what it means to being pro life.

As I’ve explained many times. We pro lifers mean just what our label says. We want to cure the disease that leads women to abort their children, not just pass a law and let them be. Pro choicers for some odd reason believe it’s the latter and not the former.
Click to expand...
Simply not true.

The pro choice folks want a woman to have control over her body. But as most of them tend to be progressive (notice we’re switching categories here), most of these folks have also been championing women and mothers by advocating for birth control, paid pregnancy leave of a sizeable duration, job guarantees, free insurance for mothers and children and a host of other things.

I’m going to shock you here, but most of those folks tend to be a bunch of horrible, liberal, progressive democrats.

And most of those who oppose these after-birth-pro-life measures tend of be conservative republicans.
Click to expand...
Whoever is in that latter group of opposition certainly does not speak for me and I doubt they speak for very many pro lifers (certainly on these boards) in general. True pro lifers are pro life at all times from conception to the moment of death.

My main problem with mainstream progressive ideology is the belief that big government is the best solution to manage people’s problems. I disagree. And being opposed to government intervention doesn’t mean you’re opposed to those things that benefit people. I think a lot of people make this assumption and it’s not true.

I love that our Church plays an active role in the love, care and support of women (and men) when they need it the most. Filling an important gap in society.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Simply not true.

The pro choice folks want a woman to have control over her body. But as most of them tend to be progressive (notice we’re switching categories here), most of these folks have also been championing women and mothers by advocating for birth control, paid pregnancy leave of a sizeable duration, job guarantees, free insurance for mothers and children and a host of other things.

I’m going to shock you here, but most of those folks tend to be a bunch of horrible, liberal, progressive, pro-choice democrats.

And most of those who oppose these after-birth-pro-life measures tend of be conservative republicans.
Click to expand...
Wow, it is absloutely reprehensible and of the utmost arrogance in my opinion when someone claims to speak for all women. This is actually demeaning of women. Susan B. Anthony was a feminist and very pro-life.

I really don’t think your line of reasoning is even worth following and yes, it appears to be very sexist at that, in saying what you did.
 
This is just secularism, also, the whole history of planned parenthood is very racist. Now, PP has gone into infanticide and because they are such a huge special interest of the Democratic party, the Democrats are supporting this.

It’s really “What Would Jesus Do”, some of these views are very objectionable.
 
Sbee0 said:
Whoever is in that latter group of opposition certainly does not speak for me and I doubt they speak for very many pro lifers (certainly on these boards) in general. True pro lifers are pro life at all times from conception to the moment of death.
Click to expand...
shrug

It’s reality in the US. There’re actually voting records on these issues if you would like to check for yourself.
My main problem with mainstream progressive ideology is the belief that big government is the best solution to manage people’s problems. I disagree. And being opposed to government intervention doesn’t mean you’re opposed to those things that benefit people. I think a lot of people make this assumption and it’s not true.
Click to expand...
The reason the government is the go-to for much of these issues stems from the fact that most progressives would like these solutions implemented in a uniform fashion where women had some semblance of a guarantee that these services would be available to them.

Left to private charity, it’s catch-as-catch can. Under those auspices, many women won’t actually get any support and most women that get this kind of equivalent support won’t get enough of it.

And then there’s efficiency. Contrary to popular right-wing claims, there are no charities as efficient as the government. Awesomely efficient charities have 15% admin overhead.

The social security administration? 2-3%. Just can’t beat it privately. Impossible.
I love that our Church plays an active role in the love, care and support of women (and men) when they need it the most. Filling an important gap in society.
Click to expand...
The Church has surrendered nearly all its of its historic power to the state - as it should in a secular society. Looking for religious groups to carry the social burden in a constitutionally secular society is a bit of a disconnect.

The church should just tend to souls. Let social infrastructure do the job it was made to do.
 
Victoria33 said:
Wow, it is absloutely reprehensible and of the utmost arrogance in my opinion when someone claims to speak for all women.
Click to expand...
No one is trying to do that here. Progressives are just trying to create these support structures for them. Resistance is typically fiscal, if not ideological.
This is actually demeaning of women. Susan B. Anthony was a feminist and very pro-life.
Click to expand...
And I think that’s wonderful.

The absolute greatest thing about the pro-choice view might be the fact that it allows pro-life folks to be just as pro-life as they want to be… over themselves.

Make little communities around it. Hang a banner on your door. Go nuts!

-Just let women who disagree have the freedom to meaningfully disagree.
 
Planned Parenthood and it’s hard for anyone to deny they stand for infanticide besides abortion, push these kinds of ideas. We don’t have a Supreme Court of our choosing anymore because we saw from the Kavanaugh trial how they will terrorize anyone who stands in the way of the half million dollars they get from the federal government each year.
 
Okay, So I haven’t read this whole thread, but one of them many arguments against he pro-life movement is the “why aren’t you there after the person is born?” I know many organizations help with pregnant women and getting them help before and after pregnancy, but let’s just say that the child ends up having special needs. This kid is going to need life-long services that the CPC isn’t equipped to deal with, and the woman is going to have to be referred to an outside agency, and the depending on where this woman lives, the services might have a waiting list. And when this kid grows up, how is this person going to live?
I know there are many people here who knows a parent with kids with special needs. How about we start small and help them out? Make them dinner. Watch their other children while the one with the disability gets therapy. I know it’s stressful, but this is how we can change.
 
goout said:
Now, if the human society was starting a home for abandoned kittens, and at the same time your neighbors were clubbing them over the head…wouldn’t that be a little illogical?
Click to expand...
Seriously, your lack of compassion is very telling.
It really is all about power and control isn’t it?

I’ve sat in group settings with women who are victims of domestic violence. Some of these women were pregnant and chose to stay that way. A small percentage of those very same women had been raped and impregnated by their partners so he could maintain control over her. These women were facing being harmed and possibly killed (while pregnant) by their intimate partners. Others faced peril at the hands of different family members.

This is a genuine issue faced by some pregnant women. And all you can give is some snarky comparison about abandoned kittens being clubbed over the head.

Intimate Partner Violence During Pregnancy: Maternal and Neonatal Outcomes - PMC

The effects of intimate partner violence (IPV) on maternal and neonatal outcomes are multifaceted and largely preventable. During pregnancy, there are many opportunities within the current health care system for screening and early intervention ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

a
 
Sbee0 said:
My main problem with mainstream progressive ideology is the belief that big government is the best solution to manage people’s problems. I disagree. And being opposed to government intervention doesn’t mean you’re opposed to those things that benefit people. I think a lot of people make this assumption and it’s not true.

I love that our Church plays an active role in the love, care and support of women (and men) when they need it the most. Filling an important gap in society.
Click to expand...
I don’t think mainstream progressive ideology is anymore about big government than conservative ideology is. It’s just that one group is about social welfare while the other is about corporate welfare. And since it is secular taxpayer funds that provide a consistent social safety net for individuals, progressives scratch their heads at the rejection of these programs by the numbers of conservatives who profess being pro-life.

As far as the church is concerned, the intentions of help are greatly appreciated, but they alone can’t offer the safety net that is needed.

Some of my children would be dead or crippled if it hadn’t been for socialist government programs. All my kid with a life threatening illness got from the church was, “God has a reason for this”. That’s not something you want to hear as a parent when your recently diagnosed adolescent would rather be dead, than live with and deal with their condition.

I’ve known some true, womb to tomb, pro-lifers. But they are few and far between.
 
Vonsalza said:
If they’re physically attached to my body in a way I don’t want and my detaching them would kill them?

Yes. I absolutely have the right to kill them.
Click to expand...
The thing is, since you believe abortion is fine up until the moment of birth, you actually believe it’s ok to kill even when detaching them wouldn’t cause death. This whole argument about bodily autonomy of the woman is bogus since killing the baby is needless if it is viable. Would you support a law that says that past a certain gestational age, the woman is free to rid herself of the pregnancy and the baby goes to live somewhere where it is wanted, rather than it being killed?? That’s actually easier on a woman’s body than a late term abortion.
 
We absolutely should help people out who are taking on the amazing task of caring for a special needs person. I think we should go further than that too, with pro life government policies. Caps on what adoptions can cost, plus government grants/programs to help cover the cost of adoption based on income. Also paid maternity leave of at least 12 weeks and some type of system to help defray the cost of childcare. We can do all of that plus shunt the taxpayer money that planned parenthood receives over to women’s healthcare places that do not perform abortion. Trump has stated several times that something will be in the works with regard to maternity leave and childcare. It will be interesting to see if it gets bipartisan support.
 
Last edited:
Gingersnaps4 said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
If they’re physically attached to my body in a way I don’t want and my detaching them would kill them?

Yes. I absolutely have the right to kill them.
Click to expand...
The thing is, since you believe abortion is fine up until the moment of birth, you actually believe it’s ok to kill even when detaching them wouldn’t cause death.
Click to expand...
In the world of grey areas, the drawing of a line will always chafe those closest to it. For what it’s worth, I personally consider it born upon exit. The cord immediately begins drying and dying - ceasing function.

Makes me glad that the number of abortions that occur after the midpoint of pregnancy is less than 2%.
This whole argument about bodily autonomy of the woman is bogus since killing the baby is needless if it is viable. Would you support a law that says that past a certain gestational age, the woman is free to rid herself of the pregnancy and the baby goes to live somewhere where it is wanted, rather than it being killed??
Click to expand...
Given that, again, late term abortion (especially third trimester) is so rare, I wouldn’t have a huge problem with it, but it would need to be realistic.

Setting it at the gestation of the earliest baby to ever survive wouldn’t be practical. Spit balling, start of 3rd trimester would sound about right.

But I’d want the law established democratically and subject to revision at absolutely any time in the same way.
 
The one where somone is pushed off a boat in the middle of the ocean since it wasn’t theirs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top