Liberals war on unborn children

[openmind77]

Like imposing our values on how WE want to live life on to those infants who had no choice in whether or not to be conceived?? Or is it okay for SOME humans (adults who made a choice) to impose their values on others (infants who had no choice)…as long as those same humans don’t feel like others’ values are being imposed on them?

I am not sure how any values are imposed on the infants. The infants can choose their own values - however, they will probably be subjected to difficult lives, but that is true in all cases where abortion is avoided. Of course since pro-life people will be willing to save the infants at any cost, I am sure they will be willing to raise them (though adoption).

The final resolution for this problem, like I said, will have to await the return of the Christ (which they say, is very likely to occur in the next few years)

 

[polytropos]

I am not sure how any values are imposed on the infants. The infants can choose their own values - however, they will probably be subjected to difficult lives, but that is true in all cases where abortion is avoided. Of course since pro-life people will be willing to save the infants at any cost, I am sure they will be willing to raise them (though adoption).

Values are imposed on the infants in the sense that abortion can only be performed when one decides (arbitrarily and selfishly) either a). that fetuses are not persons, or b). that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy is more important than the fetus’s right to life. These are ideological sentiments, hence the imposition of values. The infants can’t choose their own values and are killed before being able to do so.

Abortion violates the golden rule. How many abortion advocates - even those who had “difficult lives” - really are not glad that they had a chance at life? I am sure some pro-choice individuals will bite the bullet and say that they would stand up for their parents’ right to choose, but I think a lot of people would agree that as much as they would like the convenience of aborting unwanted children, they would not want to have been aborted. Abortion is a fundamentally selfish act.

 

[livingwordunity]

With liberalism, all are equal but some more equal than others. It makes no sense, but since liberalism is emotional it doesn’t have to make any sense.

 

[openmind77]

Values are imposed on the infants in the sense that abortion can only be performed when one decides (arbitrarily and selfishly) either a). that fetuses are not persons, or b). that the woman’s right to bodily autonomy is more important than the fetus’s right to life. These are ideological sentiments, hence the imposition of values. The infants can’t choose their own values and are killed before being able to do so.

Abortion violates the golden rule. How many abortion advocates - even those who had “difficult lives” - really are not glad that they had a chance at life? I am sure some pro-choice individuals will bite the bullet and say that they would stand up for their parents’ right to choose, but I think a lot of people would agree that as much as they would like the convenience of aborting unwanted children, they would not want to have been aborted. Abortion is a fundamentally selfish act.

Indeed abortion is a selfish act. However that is exactly what our democracy and capitalistic system embraces and stands for. Obviously the pregnant woman with an unwanted child wishes to have an abortion for selfish reasons, however our democratic principles of personal liberty and autonomy proclaims that this should be her own decision and that the government should not be dictating to her what she may and may not do to herself. Most decisions that people make in this system are usually for selfish reasons - as conservatives especially the rich ones (or wannabe rich ones) will tell you, there is nothing wrong with that.

The rest of us surely wish that the unborn fetus should be given the opportunity to have a life of its own. The best solution I think is that the fetus be transplanted to a sincere pro-life person who is anxious to save its life. In this way everyone’s rights are preserved. This is the best interim solution until the return of the Christ.

 

[JimG]

Indeed abortion is a selfish act. However that is exactly what our democracy and capitalistic system embraces and stands for.
…

Well, not entirely. Our democracy and capitalistic system doesn’t embrace and stand for every selfish act. Some laws do prohibit theft, robbery, assault.

Some laws even prohibit the killing of other human beings. Unborn children have less protection in this regard. They are subject to be sliced up and dismembered at the whim of others. Birth might finally protect them, unless Professor Peter Singer’s ideas gain acceptance. He maintains that post-birth abortion should be allowed, up to about age 6 months or more, to give parents time to change their mind. And why not? The infant is no less dependent immediately after birth than before birth. If babies can be subject to arbitrary killing, the delimiting point is equally arbitrary.

 

[lynnvinc]

“War on women,” “war on the unborn [but only in regard to medical abortion].”

As important as these issues are, that seems to be about the limit of some people’s thoughtscape and concernscape…perhaps even a way of escaping other underreported but greater wars, such as the full-scale war on the unborn (incl all assaults), the yet-to-be-born, the war on God’s creation, which sustains us and make’s life possible.

There is an all-out “war on life” going on that many people don’t think about in their busy lives and dealing with these other wars, but they none-the-less are the very front-line combatants engaged in this war against life in their daily lives and choices, whether or not they are aware. Their political-vision goggles/blinders only allow them to see the world in “blue & red.” What about “green”?

These combatants against life come from both liberal and conservative camps. Neither side is adequately addressing this “war on God’s creation” that includes issues ranging from serious local to global environmental harms that threaten humankind’s subsistence and threaten the yet-to-be-born for many millennia. Sometimes the “blues” are slightly better on it, sometimes the “reds” are slightly better (Nixon, TR Roosevelt, and various others active today being the best), but on the whole it seems both sides are atrocious. It would be great they would halt their squabbles against each other long enough to see the larger picture and come together to halt their war on life, maybe have some friendly competitions to see who is the greenest and least harmful to life.

I’m so glad we have a pope who truly understands the situation and is calling for us all to protect creation. I hope he will be able to get the message across to effect a real truce, a real “cease and desist” to truly help the situation so as to save lives.

 

[edwest2]

Propaganda relies heavily on emotion and redirecting the thinking of the average person. It’s easy to break it down but much easier to go out and carry a sign and call people names and accuse them falsely.

1. In the case of consent, the woman needs another human being - a man - to have sex that may result in pregnancy.
2. The woman becomes pregnant. What happens?

A) It’s a blob of tissue. It’s not even human. No worries.

B) Even if it is human, it’s not a person. No worries.

C) It’s going to be born and I don’t want it to be born. Magic Trick: The man magically disappears. The other magic trick: Only the woman gets to choose whether or not her (the man was there, right?) baby gets to live or die.

It’s simple. There’s money in abortion. And there are those that claim they want to see the number of peasants reduced.

My favorite description of The Pill comes from a priest who called it “the anti-baby pill.”

“Stop the War on Babies!” “Let Our Babies Live!”

Ed

 

[Mulligan2]

Can you not generalize all liberals as being pro-choice/pro-abortion/whatever? You can be a moderate and be pro-abortion. You can be a Republican and be pro-abortion. You could even be the bishop of a major diocese and be pro-abortion. Sadly, they come in all shapes and sizes and affiliations.

Your question is very valid, as there are many posters on this forum who are highly political and overly partisan. In fact, I would be quite disinterested in Catholicism if this forum was representative of the Catholics I encounter in church and in real life. Thankfully that is not the case.

 

[Mulligan2]

With liberalism, all are equal but some more equal than others. It makes no sense, but since liberalism is emotional it doesn’t have to make any sense.

This is a straw man. Surely you don’t like it when liberals make the same type of arguments against conservatives?

 

[edwest2]

William F. Buckley - “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[Mulligan2]

William F. Buckley - “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

Peace,
Ed

Is this a forum on politics or on Catholicism?

 

[powerofk]

Is this a forum on politics or on Catholicism?

It is a forum on Catholicism. The thing is, though, is that much of Catholic teaching forces us to take a so-called political stand on issues. Catholics are called to be political in our eternal quest to save souls in order to try to transform the world as best as we can to bring about God’s Kingdom on Earth. This requires us to try to vote for people, Catholic or not, whose policies most reflect Catholic teaching (there are many politicians who consider themselves Catholic but whose policies do not reflect Catholic teaching).

Unfortunately, what ends up happening oftentimes, is that Catholics see themselves as “politically conservative” on some issues (namely, abortion and same-sex “marriage”), and then adopt “conservative” positions on all issues, regardless of what the church teaches on the issues.

Other Catholics see themselves as “politically liberal” on some issues (namely, helping the poor, protecting the environment, and immigration reform), and then adopt “liberal” positions on all issues, regardless of what the church teaches on the issues.

We Catholics are not called to be Conservative/Republican first or Liberal/Democrat first. We are called to be Catholic first - and then elect the people who we believe most exemplify Church teaching, whether or not they themselves are Catholic.

 

[edwest2]

Yes. The problem is “My Party, Right or Wrong” or “My Label - Conservative, Liberal - Right or Wrong.”

As Catholics, we need to step outside of these artificial boxes and examine the issues. I don’t care if I live in a (ridiculous idea) Blue State or Red State. I am not a Republican or a Democrat, I am a Catholic who wants to be informed and vote for those issues that reflect logical, rational Church teaching. Today, the Church is brushed aside by self-proclaimed Progressives who seem to think that almost anything can be acceptable if you can just find the right way to sell it to the people. That needs to end.

nytimes.com/2012/03/04/nyregion/cardinal-timothy-m-dolan-urges-catholics-to-become-more-politically-active.html?_r=0

Peace,
Ed

 

[SamH]

Is this a forum on politics or on Catholicism?

On this topic one deals with the other.