Not to rain on Montgomery, Alabama's parade

Status
Not open for further replies.
The end doesn’t justify the means. Even if it did “save more lives” to allow abortion legally, we don’t do morality based on statistics. Morality is rooted in principles, and it can never be right to unjustly deprive the innocent of life.

Furthermore, what possible value can society place on life at all if it tolerates the taking of some innocent lives in the womb so as to “save more lives” as you put it? Any society which tries to justify it like that has its priorities seriously out of whack. Either human life is sacred and it is wrong to deprive the innocent of it, or it is not and we may take it as we will. Full stop.

-Fr ACEGC
 
Romania being a communist country might have something to do with it.
 
Last edited:
I’m confused then, if the objective is fewer abortions, why not promote a seamless veil approach to life. It’s odd that one of the poorest states in America would ban abortion. James 2:16 says “If one of you says to them, “go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is that?” The same principle applies here. It would seem Alabama is pro birth but cares little about its citizens after they are born.
 
JohnStrachan said:
I’m confused then, if the objective is fewer abortions, why not promote a seamless veil approach to life. It’s odd that one of the poorest states in America would ban abortion. James 2:16 says “If one of you says to them, “go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is that?” The same principle applies here. It would seem Alabama is pro birth but cares little about its citizens after they are born.
Click to expand...
This is such a tired argument. “You don’t take good enough care of them after they’re born, so you’re no different than those who would have them slaughtered by the millions.”

There’s no equivalence between a poor social safety net and literal mass murder.
 
edward_george1 said:
The end doesn’t justify the means. Even if it did “save more lives” to allow abortion legally, we don’t do morality based on statistics. Morality is rooted in principles, and it can never be right to unjustly deprive the innocent of life.

Furthermore, what possible value can society place on life at all if it tolerates the taking of some innocent lives in the womb so as to “save more lives” as you put it? Any society which tries to justify it like that has its priorities seriously out of whack.
Click to expand...
Strangely enough, I was reading an argument just yesterday that God allows people to be brought into this world, knowing that they will be evil and are bound for hell, because they themselves will bring people into this world that will do good. And will be heaven-bound. Might have been Trent Horn.

The argument appears to be that evil must be allowed so that good can come from it.
 
Didn’t news come out that showed Alabama has a higher adoption rate than before ?


Regardless, we can talk about how we can improve qualify of life but it still deflects from the main point. That taking away life is immoral.

The solution isn’t to take away the ban, but to improve the quality of lives while maintaining that abortion is still not allowed.
 
Last edited:
Also, it is certainly true that abortion bans don’t stop all abortion. Likewise, bans on burglary do not stop all burglaries, and bans on murder have not stopped all murder. Should we legalize those things because the laws don’t perfectly prevent the things banned?
 
Last edited:
But if we use the example of the Netherlands - which has the lowest abortion rate in the Western world - abortion rates would plummet if we provide freely obtainable contraceptives, modern sex education in all schools, universally available public daycare, and if we work to eradicate poverty, empower women, and economically support mothers in general and especially those who are struggling financially.
 
JohnStrachan said:
But if we use the example of the Netherlands - which has the lowest abortion rate in the Western world - abortion rates would plummet if we provide freely obtainable contraceptives, modern sex education in all schools, universally available public daycare, and if we work to eradicate poverty, empower women, and economically support mothers in general and especially those who are struggling financially.
Click to expand...
Good luck convincing a board full of Catholics that the government should provide people with free contraceptives.

Abortion is an evil, but it isn’t the only evil. We shouldn’t fight one evil by engaging in another.

And of course we should work to eradicate poverty and economically support mothers. What do you think the hordes of Catholic charities are doing? You’re preaching to the choir on these things to distract from the question of whether it should be legal to butcher babies by the millions.
 
I see your point, and it makes good sense, but if a woman is bent on getting an abortion, she will get one. Ireland’s restrictive law did not prevent droves of women from going across the Irish sea to England for one. It’s still a problem.
 
JohnStrachan said:
I see your point, and it makes good sense, but if a woman is bent on getting an abortion, she will get one. Ireland’s restrictive law did not prevent droves of women from going across the Irish sea to England for one. It’s still a problem.
Click to expand...
If a person is bent on murdering his neighbor, he will. Restrictive murder laws have not ended murder; Chicago, despite murder’s illegality and strict gun control laws, still has rampant homicide.

None of these facts in any way support legalizing murder.
 
JohnStrachan said:
I’m confused then, if the objective is fewer abortions, why not promote a seamless veil approach to life. It’s odd that one of the poorest states in America would ban abortion. James 2:16 says “If one of you says to them, “go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is that?” The same principle applies here. It would seem Alabama is pro birth but cares little about its citizens after they are born.
Click to expand...
As Father mentioned, the ends don’t justify the means.

Did you see the movie Avengers Infinity War?

The reason I ask is because the movie discused two situations like this.
  1. the obvious is with Thanos. He wanted to “mercifully” HALF the people in the universe so the remaining half could thrive. He’s goal (thriving people) is good, but the means (killing half the people in the universe) was evil.
  2. the 2nd example involved Vision. Vision was willing & ready to die in order for the Avengers to distory the mind stone in his head so Thanos wouldn’t get it. But the Avengers were not willing to trade one life for quadrillions. Finally, at the end, Wanda was TORN it it crushed her to distory Vision’s mind stone while holding off Thanos… only to have Thanos use the Time Stone to undo what she had done. It was heart wrenching to watch go through that.
Why do I write this? Because deep down, we all know that human like is sacred and we cannot allow the legal murder of one person - even if it means many will live.

It’s ok for an individual to sacrifice him/herself for others. But it’s not ok for people to sacrifice another for the greater good.
 
Last edited:
God allows people to be brought into this world, knowing that they will be evil and are bound for hell, because they themselves will bring people into this world that will do good.
Click to expand...
Sounds like private revelation but, it ,apparently, does to happen.
 
HopkinsReb said:
Good luck convincing a board full of Catholics that the government should provide people with free contraceptives.

Abortion is an evil, but it isn’t the only evil. We shouldn’t fight one evil by engaging in another.

And of course we should work to eradicate poverty and economically support mothers. What do you think the hordes of Catholic charities are doing? You’re preaching to the choir on these things to distract from the question of whether it should be legal to butcher babies by the millions
Click to expand...
I’m not trying to convince you. I’m trying to flesh out the different perspectives on this issue. I’m as prolife as one can be - financially supporting BirthRight International and having volunteered at a home for pregnant teens.

But we seem to spend so much energy trying to fine a legal solution when the state avoids programs that would lead to fewer abortions. I find it immoral that a country as wealthy as the US argues about providing universal health care for its citizens. I find it immoral that the US does not provide universal post natal care and paid maternity leave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top