Issues other than abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter YourNameHere
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JimG said:
In fact, and old person in a nursing home is as dependent as a baby. He or she is using the bodies of younger people for support. What if the younger people don’t want to lose their autonomy? They don’t want to support safety nets; they would rather keep their own hard earned money?
Click to expand...
Please.

The older folks are not connected directly to the younger ones, taking the oxygen, calcium, minerals, and vitamins right out of the younger folks bodies and placing the younger folks lives and health directly at risk. The actual body systems of the younger folks are not having to compensate for a 50 % increase in blood volume and 50% increase in glomerular filtration rate just to stay alive while caring for the older folks.

You’re talking apples to oranges here.

And even so, you would probably argue that the government has no right to force any younger person into a paid job position of caregiver to an elderly person. Younger people have the right of self determination of career choice. Gotta love the right of autonomy. We can only hope that the young folks will be there for the old folks.

Like I say, “Children. Families can’t afford to have them in the short run, and society can’t afford not have had them in the long run.” Someone’s gotta take the hit, so make it the mama.
 
MamaJewel said:
We can only hope that the young folks will be there for the old folks.

Like I say, “Children. Families can’t afford to have them in the short run, and society can’t afford not have had them in the long run.”
Click to expand...
Yes. We sure won’t have them in the long run if we kill them off before birth.
 
If it’s true that is the core point it would make sense to focus on that and not on other parts.
 
goout said:
Where I come from, sidewalk counselors are trained to offer practical options. Many women would not like to have an abortion and an offer of financial assistance may provide an escape for the woman. The pro-life community does a lot of practical assistance for single mothers especially. And there is a good epidemic of adoption where I live. We have two neighbors, young couples, one couple has adopted 2 young children from overseas, the other has adopted 3. Our deacon raised 2 adopted children. Our parish has taken a domestic violence shelter as a ministry. Many pregnant women seek shelter there, and frequently they have other children.

Of course, while people are trying to save lives on the thin strip of sidewalk, abortion clinic assistants wear bright colors, crank loud pop music, and do a little happy dance.
It’s just sick.
And you have to think this is what Calvary must have been like, with mind numbed workers going about their hideous duty, hiding the barbarity of it all with indifferent and fake laughter.
Click to expand...
My community and parish operate differently. Sometimes, people are to “protective” of their social projects. In my community there is now some type of pro-life clinic where the abortion clinic had once been. A crisis pregnancy center is next door and there is another crisis pregnancy center a few miles away. We have a DV center as well, but it doesn’t get the assistance it needs compared to the pregnancy center. It’s sad because the lives of these women and their children are greatly at risk. We do have solid support for the issue of homelessness. The local government and churches are working to create housing and services in a one-stop location for those who are homeless.

I’m glad to read that your parish is so involved with disenfranchised groups. I have seen firsthand how these types of practical assistance support women in their decision to continue a pregnancy and help to create positive pregnancy outcomes with a healthy mom and baby(ies).

My parish once had a womb-to-tomb Life Center. It was amazing to see how helping one another multiplies the blessings through a sharing of resources.
 
True. But if the current trend continues, women in the US won’t be aborting because they aren’t getting pregnant to begin with. The trend over the last couple of years seems to be that married women are having children while the birthrate is falling for single mothers. Regardless, the US birthrate is now below replacement rate, which can be very problematic for long-run scenarios.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
“A country that can ban infanticide can also impose it.”
Click to expand...
Correct.

But in the US, we will have to suspend the 14th amendment. While personhood doesn’t have a definitive beginning under US law, citizenship does. It’s when we are born in the US, territories, or under other specified circumstances. Infants with citizenship have the right to their rights, including the right to life, privacy, and bodily autonomy. Equal protection under the law.
 
LiveSkype said:
So, @Vonsalza, after reading your statements, I have noticed that you believe that women have the right to bodily anatomy, and that she should have access to get an abortion because:
40.png
Vonsalza:
That fetus isn’t a person in the same way and degree as its mother. And since it relies on her body to live, she gets to rule the situation.
Click to expand...
Am I correct?
Click to expand...
Yeah, that’s pretty much the gist.

This argument doesn’t exist to the exclusion of others, but that is my over-arching point.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
not being property anymore… 😝
Click to expand...
Actually abortion helps the mentality that allows men to use women for pleasure and discard them when things start to get difficult.
Click to expand...
So long as the women are also using the men for pleasure and can also discard them when things start to get difficult, then that’s fine.

What’s the saying, turnabout is fair play?
JimG said:
The same principle applies. If the other person’s body is making too many demands on your own body, demand the right to terminate it.
Click to expand...
Sure! What you’re missing here is that the only way to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is abortion.

If you’re wanting to terminate someone’s dependency upon you, you can. There are plenty of foster homes full of kids whose parents don’t give a rip. There are plenty of nursing homes full of parents whose kids don’t give a rip.

After birth, people don’t require the aid of others in a bodily way. That is the distinction you refuse to make.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
Just make the laws include unborn humans and problem solved.
Click to expand...
The problem’s already solved.

Women get to be people who also get to decide what happens to their own bodies.

Church and state were separated in the US by the first amendment, at least at the federal level. Catholic policy will thusly rule Catholic houses and none other. Similarly, the Muslim Sharia will rule Muslim houses and none other.
 
You know what I mean, so there’s no need to play word games.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
Church and state were separated in the US by the first amendment, at least at the federal level. Catholic policy will thusly rule Catholic houses and none other. Similarly, the Muslim Sharia will rule Muslim houses and none other.
Click to expand...
I haven’t mentioned religion at this point so that’s irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
VanitasVanitatum said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Church and state were separated in the US by the first amendment, at least at the federal level. Catholic policy will thusly rule Catholic houses and none other. Similarly, the Muslim Sharia will rule Muslim houses and none other.
Click to expand...
I haven’t mentioned religion at this point so that’s irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Fair enough (despite the fact that you’re certainly being crypto-religious),

So using a secular argument, why must women be forced to surrender their bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus?
 
Last edited:
Just to add some clarity to the issue, here’s a short clip I found on youtube of some congressional testimony.

 
Sorry, I just randomly came in, but the argument that was just made compared, perhaps unintentionally, women to animals.
Perhaps make a different argument.
 
It shouldn’t matter and it isn’t my intention to degrade women.
 
Last edited:
Vonsalza said:
So using a secular argument, why must women be forced to surrender their bodily autonomy in favor of the fetus?
Click to expand...
People have some moral obligation to offer assistance to others.
Can a mother, who for the sake of the argument has no access to baby formula, choose not to breastfeed her knewborn for the sake of bodily autonomy?
To be sure, it’s immoral to force someone to donate their organs to save another’s life.
Now if pregnancy termination was moral on the grounds that it is merely a refusal to donate the mother’s body for the baby, then of the baby’s death would have to be an unintended side effect & not the aim of the termination. This would mean that only ending the pregnancy would be moral and procedures that damaged the foetus proper would still be immoral.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top