Lies, Damned Lies, and Alyssa Milano

[goout]

goout:

This is an old and very tired smear of the pro life community that has absolutely no basis in reality.

You are overstating your case, and it isn’t necessary. I am in this pro-life camp you speak of. I have “smeared” no one. And yes, all of my points so far have a basis in reality. But if you simply want to deny this, there is no reason to engage me. Obviously, true dialogue requires being open to persuasion.

The Catholic Church is the largest NGO charitable organization in the world and can be found providing assistance wherever it is needed,

I know this. Again, I am in this church you speak of. I’m sorry my comments got you rattled, but you’re overstating your case. I’m not against anything you’re against. Rather, I’m trying to assist others in seeing the rationale behind some pro-choice stances. And yes, lazy moralizing occurs from both sides. Surely, we wouldn’t be so absurd as to suggest that being Catholic makes you immune to telling others how they should live their moral lives. Quite the opposite, from what I gather on CAF.

Your comments about the pro life community being somehow lax in pursuing human well being are without merit. They have no basis in fact, any way you want to measure it.

Moral issues can be unpleasant, and this kind of attack on the motivations and actions of the pro life community is always an effort to shut down difficult conversations about morality (of course, the opponents of life must believe they are above moralizing…they are immune to their own criticism of empty harshness…while they criticise others)

 

[Magnanimity]

I’m totally fine with trying to increase help to single mothers in this country; even if that means we have fraud and (sometimes staggering) economic inefficiencty, in order to save the unborn and maybe help the kids.

It is wonderful to hear you say this. I feel exactly the same way. I would be willing to actually accept a lower standard of living in order to assist and help such mothers. I’m not sure how many (Americans) would be so willing, but maybe I’m just pessimistic! Very glad to read this though.

I think I see what you mean about the pro choice side… but I can’t help but think that gives them a way to sidestep the real issue: dehumanizing a group of people so that you can kill them is a human rights violation

It’s a really good point. I completely agree. There is a danger in trying to see the perspective of the other side in that we can make it seem as if it’s always virtuous. Clearly, it isn’t. There is plenty of dehumanizing going on. Or rather, the possibility of abortion (for some) follows logically from having already discounted the intrinsic dignity of all human persons.

And the cognitive dissonance in many pro choice people I’ve run into is staggering. We all have it to some degree or another,

It’s true, and I guess I’m just trying to avoid this in myself—no pat answers. Unless/until we’re dealing with the totality of the issues raised by the “other side,” we’re not really getting at the heart of the matter (or at a better way forward).

 

[goout]

It can’t be ignored, not at any moment. The church ignoring (or downplaying) the fact that it truly does take a village to raise a child well, has been part of the problem of today’s pro-life movement. Too much moralizing, not enough actual assistance provided. Not enough willingness to take on the heavy burden of assisting someone in raising a child.

Can you see how you are presenting a very confusing picture of your position?

 

[Magnanimity]

Can you see how you are presenting a very confusing picture of your position?

Ha! Maybe!! I try to eschew obfuscation as often as possible, but I’m not always successful

Let me try to make another run at the point I was making to see if it’s any more palatable to you.

1. The raising of a child is not designed to be a solitary act, not by any stretch of the imagination. To be done in a healthy way (for the parent and child), it is to be done communally. To be solitary as a parent rearing a child is to suffer tremendous hardship (e.g., single-parents, those living far from friends/family, those too poor to afford professional assistance like a nanny, etc).
2. The making of a child (conjugal act), in stark contrast to the rearing of a child, is relatively easy.
3. Simple moralizing on pro-life issues tends to discount the truth of #1 above and probably has a Modernist, hyper-individualistic view of humanity underlying it.

How’s that?

 

[goout]

goout:

Can you see how you are presenting a very confusing picture of your position?

Ha! Maybe!! I try to eschew obfuscation as often as possible, but I’m not always successful

Let me try to make another run at the point I was making to see if it’s any more palatable to you.

1. The raising of a child is not designed to be a solitary act, not by any stretch of the imagination. To be done in a healthy way (for the parent and child), it is to be done communally. To be solitary as a parent rearing a child is to suffer tremendous hardship (e.g., single-parents, those living far from friends/family, those too poor to afford professional assistance like a nanny, etc).
2. The making of a child (conjugal act), in stark contrast to the rearing of a child, is relatively easy.
3. Simple moralizing on pro-life issues tends to discount the truth of #1 above and probably has a Modernist, hyper-individualistic view of humanity underlying it.

How’s that?

Right ok.
“Simple moralizing” is abdicating responsibility. I thought you were singling out the pro life community for that. It sure read that way.

Moralizing is done by many points of view. Moralizing is in fact not moral because it tends to remove human responsibility for real problems in favor of rhetoric.

Trumpeting human rights while also advocating for abortion would be one example of moralizing (it’s also contradictory)

 

[Lost_Sheep]

What it all boils down to is people want to enjoy recreational sex without being responsible for the consequences.

 

[vern_humphrey]

A gun can have many purposes, including sports, hunting, self-defence.

An abortion can, by definition, have no purpose other than to end a life.

Correct. And self-defense is a duty, especially of your wife and children are threatened.

 

[JohnDennis]

All I can say is to spread the truth about the abortion industry. However you do. And pray, fast, attend Mass frequently and receive the Eucharist, help when you can. With all these weapons Milano may relent and become a life advocate. I know this sounds farfetched but with the unlimited power of God who knows.
God Bless
JohnW

 

[Wozza]

Yes as long as they were of the appropriate age.

You might need to explain yourself to the parents of a child killed by an alcoholic unlicensed driver who had been previously jailed for ten years and banned from driving for life for causing the death of a pedestrian whilst drunk.

What do you say? ‘Hey, he was of the appropriate age. What else do you think we could do?’

According to you…nothing.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

So your one that likes to assign responsibility to anyone other than the actual responsible party. Got it.
In your opinion, if I am a store owner and sell ice cream unknowingly to a diabetic and they eat it and die than I am liable and responsible. For that matter I guess the store clerk is as well and the delivery truck driver and the ice cream manufacturer.

 

[Wozza]

So your one that likes to assign responsibility to anyone other than the actual responsible party. Got it.

No, you ain’t got it. The unlicensed alcoholic is to blame. He’d just be operating under the system you’d prefer.

But if only there was a way to ensure only responsible people got licensed to drive cars and stopped people like him avoiding all the checks and balances that you and I have to go through. And maybe ban people from using cars if they did use them irresponsibly. I dunno. Kind of a tough one, isn’t it.

But if you want the only criteria to be ‘of an appropriate age’ then what can we do? I guess that we just have to accept any deaths caused by selling cars without any process to determine the suitability of the person buying it as part of the freedom car lovers demand.

As you suggest that anyone can buy them I assume you’d agree with that.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Wouldn’t the safer thing be to have checks anyways?

 

[ConcernedConvert]

With guns or cars?

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Well that’s one of the (problems) with freedom. I say that seriously and sarcastically because I love freedom but it does have a catch.
Where is the line drawn where we have to have safety checks, licenses, and regulations? Is it it guns, cars, knives, ice cream fast food…
the problem with a highly regulated system is it doesn’t keep bad things out of the hands of bad people, it keeps things away from people who would follow the regulations.
We have regulations already for unsafe driving. People lose licenses, insurance, jail time.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

We already have checks for both. Federal background checks for guns and drivers license tests for cars

 

[Wozza]

Well that’s one of the (problems) with freedom. I say that seriously and sarcastically because I love freedom but it does have a catch.
Where is the line drawn where we have to have safety checks, licenses, and regulations? Is it it guns, cars, knives, ice cream fast food…
the problem with a highly regulated system is it doesn’t keep bad things out of the hands of bad people, it keeps things away from people who would follow the regulations.

You already have a highly regulated system for those who want to drive cars. And it doesn’t keep cars away from people who would follow the regulations. But if you remember, you wouldn’t mind circumventing that system as long as they were ‘of a certain age’. That means you allowing people to drive who should not be on the road.

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

I said I would sell a car… you are taking this round and round and round. I guess I will just be thankful that for now we still have the freedom to buy and sell things without needing to run checks on everyone for everything we sell that could potentially be used to hurt someone.

 

[Wozza]

I said I would sell a car… you are taking this round and round and round. I guess I will just be thankful that for now we still have the freedom to buy and sell things without needing to run checks on everyone for everything we sell that could potentially be used to hurt someone.

No, you said there would be no checks on their suitability to drive it. And it would be allowed for them to use the car on the roads whenever and wherever they pleased.

I’m obviously not suggesting that YOU do the checks and are responsible for the correct procedure. But even in a private sale, there are procedures in place to ensure that whoever drives the car is allowed under law to do so. That they have got a license. That they haven’t been banned. That they have passed a driving test.

That’s certainly the case in Australia. And I’d bet that would be the case in the US as well.

Would you want to abandon those procedures and allow anyone to drive on your roads? Because those procedures don’t keep cars away from responsible people who use them responsibly.

 

[OneSheep]

Again, I am as pro-life as anyone on this forums. But I’m also trying to be sympathetic to the reasoning of the other side and not trying to attribute stupidity or a horrible moral sense to account for their pro-choice views.

I think that what you are saying here is key. I am also very much in the Pro-life camp, but I think it behooves us to call upon the Gift of Understanding and approach people who favor abortions with our forgiving hearts.

I once heard a CAF-sponsored speaker (or it may have been on Catholic radio) on the topic of changing minds and hearts concerning abortions, and he said that it was unfruitful to push the moral standpoint. What happens there is that the abortion advocate simply “turns off” his or her mind.

What is helpful is to find some common ground. Everyone can agree, for example, that the life of the mother is extremely important, and that there is much to be said for the common good. In addition, all parties can agree that what is best is that abortions never happen.

And then, rather than haggle about opinions, it is more fruitful to bore right down to experiences. “What experiences have you had in relation to this issue?” “What hurts have you experienced or witnessed?”

 

[Maximus1]

The pro choice people aren’t interested that the unborn is a life. So there is no real surprise here.
They are concerned with control of their own bodies. Which in most every situation but this one, has merit.
You see a medical truth and a spiritual truth. They all conclude a different truth. This seems the political phenomena of the day.
Like everyone I throw my hands up, but I don’t give up.
I think our last few Popes are onto something with promise. The Catholic theology of HUMAN DIGNITY has emerged.( Emphasis gives the appearance of emerge) I see a consensus view of the unborn possible as part of a push of human dignity.
But that won’t happen piecemeal. It cannot be the viewpoint for abortion and not Capital punishment. It cannot be for the unborn alone but not in keeping with Catholic social and economic doctrine. It cannot ignore the stranger and dehumanize them.
To draw people in from the full spectrum, you have to be a beacon of consistency. And Catholics from the full spectrum must lead the way.
The moment ," ok here but not there," and it becomes a stalemate.