Italian women take legal action over graves of aborted children marked with mothers' names

  • Thread starter Thread starter Victoria33
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
@Sarcelle I agree, if someone wrote random names on crosses marking the graves of aborted babies that would be very wrong. If that is what happened, that is wrong.

I based my judgement off of what the article said and that was not alleged in the article.
 
Last edited:
What is not clear is where the information came from.

Either way it’s a problem if the information came from patient records or the phone book.
 
Last edited:
Are people really ok with private medical information being shared so publicly?

Bob Roberts has erectile dysfunction
Joe Jones is impotent
Sally Smith has had 4 miscarriages

This is medical information that was shared publicly - regardless of whether or not we like that it is about abortion. How ok would you be with the information of you or your loved ones being broadcast for all the world to see?

There are much better ways to promote pro life causes that don’t involve violating privacy rights
 
Inquisitor85 said:
It actually entrenches positions it does nothing productive, if I were to call you “forced-birth” it doesn’t really help further any discussion does it?
Click to expand...
So what WOULD you call the killing of a baby in the womb?
 
I realise that this wasn’t directed at me but I think the issue is, is not that the foetuses were buried but that the womens names were attached to them, meaning literally anyone would know that person had an abortion. I think that’s why theres an outcry.
 
So when will we see expeditions of Catholics to parts of the world (India for example), where many people do not believe in resurrection and consequently cremate bodies, seizing the bodies and carrying them off for burial?
 
Patient confidentiality is not an unjust law.

A woman who confesses her abortion to a priest should also not have that confidentiality violated.
 
Those terms are euphemisms, and could be used for mechanical processes. Surely forcibly ending the life of an unborn human is qualitatively different from forcibly ending a construction project or software program.

Also “forced birth” is absurd. Birth is a natural purpose of reproduction. It’s like saying that because we’re not allowed to punch people in the stomach so they throw up, it’s “forced nutrition” and denies us our digestive rights. [Give this analogy some thought.]
 
Last edited:
Raxus said:
Why call killing a human being anything but what it is?
Click to expand...
Because it’s bad activism, if you want to change someone’s mind, calling them a murderer is not going to work.

Here’s a non related example, vegans will frequently say ‘meat is murder’, and they do genuinely believe that to be true. However if someone comes up to you while you’re eating a burger screaming ‘meat is murder’ you’re likely to just order a steak to annoy them. However veganism is on the rise, why? Because as a collective they recognised that the old ways weren’t working, changing to cool Insta posts showing colourful food, extolling how healthy, and environmentally friendly the vegan diet is does work.

My point is much like the vegans calling pro-choicers murderers is not helping. You need to change up your activism because your old ways aren’t working, and sticking with them just makes your movement look out of touch with actual conditions on the ground.
Neithan said:
Also “forced birth” is absurd. Birth is a natural purpose of reproduction.
Click to expand...
Come on this is obvious, you are in favour of forcing women to carry pregnancies to term regardless of the risk to their physical or mental health or any other factors. If you are wanting women to carry to term unwanted pregnancies you are definitionally forcing them to give birth. Its not used as term (outside of being used as a snarl) because its fundamentally bad activism.
 
Inquisitor85 said:
Because it’s bad activism, if you want to change someone’s mind, calling them a murderer is not going to work.
Click to expand...
Would you day the same thing about lynchings?

Or is it only this type of murder where we have to be gentle with how we describe it?
 
Call it what you want, I’m done. Frankly you’re being obtuse and comparing apples and oranges. If you want to continue being an increasingly marginalised minority position arguing using bad faith tactics that are failing your cause then be my guest.
 
Inquisitor85 said:
Come on this is obvious, you are in favour of forcing women to carry pregnancies to term regardless of the risk to their physical or mental health or any other factors. If you are wanting women to carry to term unwanted pregnancies you are definitionally forcing them to give birth. Its not used as term (outside of being used as a snarl) because its fundamentally bad activism.
Click to expand...
Not to be forgotten in these arguments is the fact, infanticide is now part of the picture, the pro-abortion side has introduced infanticide into the issue. One may say they are not for that but we see what the progressives have wrought on our society, this is the slippery slope.

It is also legal for babies up to a year old with parental consent.”
Click to expand...
So, we should not forget the total of what the pro-abortionists stand for.

In the US and the rates reflect similarities elsewhere, are much higher rates of abortions of children of cover.

Even funding abortions overseas, impoverished areas.

So, just as much as the so-called enlightened views of the progressives, we should also see them for carrying out what truly are racist policies against the very populations of people.

One may think “hey, I’m cool, talking about abortion as an atheist in a religious forum” but atheists out of Europe, like Agnostics are really pretty routine.
 
Last edited:
Kaninchen said:
There seem to be some serious data protection issues here.
Click to expand...
There seem to be some serious charity and compassion issues here. This makes the pro-life movement look like all they care about is vengeance, no matter the harm to souls.
 
puer.dei said:
There seem to be some serious charity and compassion issues here.
Click to expand...
I was leaving all that up to Catholic posters to wrangle about. 😉
puer.dei said:
This makes the pro-life movement look like all they care about is vengeance, no matter the harm to souls.
Click to expand...
I thought Catholics believed that good ends don’t justify bad actions but it’s obviously more up for debate than that.
 
I think it was Chesterton who said that the problems of this world are caused by virtues run amuck instead of vices.

Edit: It is Chesterton and this is what he said.

“The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues…The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues are mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone.”
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top