F
FCS
Guest
If you know abortion is murder, why wouldn’t you want it to be illegal?
- Status
S
Sbee0
Guest
What’s an indirect abortion? There’s only one kind of abortion - the deliberate termination of a pregnancy and a life.Cathoholic:
The Church takes a nuanced view when it distinguishes between “direct” and “indirect” abortion.
Nuances are important and perfectly fine when the aim is truth. Sometimes they’re annoying, but they’re useful and an important element in any discussion which aims to understand the opposing viewpoint.
Pro-choice people fall into two categories:
Those who believe abortion is immoral.
Those who believe abortion is not immoral.
Proceed the conversation accordingly.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Surgery for a tubal pregnancy where you want to save baby AND mother, but right now medical science is not up to the task (so the baby dies).
Some day both the baby and mother will be able to be saved.
Last edited:
C
chessnerd321
Guest
If I understand him, St. Thomas Aquinas thought about these sorts of questions on this basis: If enforcing a law outlawing a sin is impractical, impossible, or more damaging to society than allowing the sin, then we shouldn’t make it illegal.
Even in American society we recognize the wisdom here. We don’t waste police officers time hunting down under age porn use for example.
What about abortion? Well, honestly it’s no contest. It’s hard for me to imagine someone who shares the church’s position on the dignity of the unborn saying “the damage to society caused by forcing women to bare their children is great than that of murdering helpless babies”. If someone really feels that way, I mean fine. I have never met a single person who says that; I’ve never read that on this forum; I’ve never read it in an article online. But if those people exist… fine. Maybe. (Although honestly it’s probably official Catholic doctrine that murder should be illegal. And abortion is murder, so not really. I’m just not gonna look for a source right now.)
Even in American society we recognize the wisdom here. We don’t waste police officers time hunting down under age porn use for example.
What about abortion? Well, honestly it’s no contest. It’s hard for me to imagine someone who shares the church’s position on the dignity of the unborn saying “the damage to society caused by forcing women to bare their children is great than that of murdering helpless babies”. If someone really feels that way, I mean fine. I have never met a single person who says that; I’ve never read that on this forum; I’ve never read it in an article online. But if those people exist… fine. Maybe. (Although honestly it’s probably official Catholic doctrine that murder should be illegal. And abortion is murder, so not really. I’m just not gonna look for a source right now.)
Last edited:
A
Ana_v
Guest
Direct abortion is abortion willed as a means or an end; it’s a procedure which intends the destruction of the embryo or fetus.
Indirect abortion is a therapeutic procedure which intends treatment of a pathological condition and results in the death of embryo or fetus as a side effect of treatment, though this death is merely tolerated, not willed (e.g. removal of fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, removal of cancerous uterus)
Last edited:
A
Ana_v
Guest
@Cathoholic
You seem to be conflating two different things:
I’m concerned with #2.
Making sweeping generalizations about pro-choice people because of what they agree on (legality of abortion) without factoring in what they disagree on (morality of abortion; extent to which abortion should be legal) is overly simplistic “us vs. them” type of thinking which, I think, undermines the prolife cause. You also risk losing opportunities to have a rational discussion with a prochoice person if you rashly dismiss that person without taking into consideration the particularities of his/ her prochoice position. You focus on the high profile cases which are not a reliable metric for gauging the views of every prochoice person in America.
Not every prochoicer is a Peter Singer.
Not every prochoicer is a Ralph Northam or Cecile Richards.
Let me give you an example. Below is a segment of an interview, on the topic of abortion, between Dave Rubin and atheist and science author, Michael Shermer:
Shermer corrects Rubin and states he is "prochoice " not “proabortion” and then goes on to explain why (it’s quite apparent in this segment that Shermer has reservations about abortion, even as a libertarian).
You may point out that he’s still wrong in his conclusion (that abortion, with qualifications, should be legal).
But my point in linking this video is merely to show that this guy, like many prochoice people, doesn’t fit the bill of radical, aggressive anti-life activist.
You seem to be conflating two different things:
- Nuances about abortion (the act)
- Nuances about people who are pro-choice
I’m concerned with #2.
Making sweeping generalizations about pro-choice people because of what they agree on (legality of abortion) without factoring in what they disagree on (morality of abortion; extent to which abortion should be legal) is overly simplistic “us vs. them” type of thinking which, I think, undermines the prolife cause. You also risk losing opportunities to have a rational discussion with a prochoice person if you rashly dismiss that person without taking into consideration the particularities of his/ her prochoice position. You focus on the high profile cases which are not a reliable metric for gauging the views of every prochoice person in America.
Not every prochoicer is a Peter Singer.
Not every prochoicer is a Ralph Northam or Cecile Richards.
Let me give you an example. Below is a segment of an interview, on the topic of abortion, between Dave Rubin and atheist and science author, Michael Shermer:
Shermer corrects Rubin and states he is "prochoice " not “proabortion” and then goes on to explain why (it’s quite apparent in this segment that Shermer has reservations about abortion, even as a libertarian).
You may point out that he’s still wrong in his conclusion (that abortion, with qualifications, should be legal).
But my point in linking this video is merely to show that this guy, like many prochoice people, doesn’t fit the bill of radical, aggressive anti-life activist.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Ana_v . . .
I ran the full spectrum of examples.
Low profile generalizations to high profile specific cases that are well known.
Here it is again . . . .
The common thread is the same.
To RE-DEFINE a PERSON as something LESS THAN a PERSON.
All of the abortion people have this error in common. ALL of them.
.
It isn’t going to work Ana_v.
The tubal pregnancy (etc.) of the “indirect abortion” is not the same thing.
I already told you. The older medical terminology even ALSO talks about “miscarriages” in terms of “abortions” (“spontaneous abortions”).
Neither of these situations (ectopic pregnancies and spontaeous miscarriages) are what we are talking about here.
What we are talking about here is the direct willed pre-meditated murder of an innocent baby at differing stages.
Don’t fall for the “pro-choice” vrs. “pro-abortion” weasel language by the abortion activists Ana_v.
(Just because they argue amongst each other WHICH innocent people it is “acceptable” to murder, don’t think ANY of those positions are appropriate. They are not appropriate. They are ALL intrinsic evils, so going on to the situations is pointless for any but God.)
They see murdering innocent human beings as a (no pun intended) . . . . “viable” option.
Those people place more value on a California Condor egg, than a human baby!
No I didn’t.
I ran the full spectrum of examples.
Low profile generalizations to high profile specific cases that are well known.
Here it is again . . . .
- “pro-choice people” are working to destroy the fabric of our society by RE-DEFINING certain persons as LESS THAN persons.
- If you (not “you” personally) are a typical pro-abortionist, you are working to redefine preborn babies as less than persons and allow for their elective premediated murder.
- If you are a typical pro-abortion New York politician you are working to redefine preborn babies AND babies that are BEING BORN as less than persons and allow for their elective premediated murder.
- If you are Peter Singer, you are working to redefine preborn babies AND babies that are BEING BORN and babies that HAVE BEEN BORN AND are up to SIX MONTHS OLD (formerly Dr. Singer said two YEARS old, but he has changed that since) as less than persons and allow for their elective premediated murder.
- If you are Democrat Governor Ralph Northam, you are working to allow aborted babies born alive to just wait it out until they die.
That means to put a live baby in a plastic bag and toss it away alive (in some cases). Or in other cases it means putting it in a bucket, and placing the living baby in the refrigerator while it may be crying.
The common thread is the same.
To RE-DEFINE a PERSON as something LESS THAN a PERSON.
All of the abortion people have this error in common. ALL of them.
.
It isn’t going to work Ana_v.
The tubal pregnancy (etc.) of the “indirect abortion” is not the same thing.
I already told you. The older medical terminology even ALSO talks about “miscarriages” in terms of “abortions” (“spontaneous abortions”).
Neither of these situations (ectopic pregnancies and spontaeous miscarriages) are what we are talking about here.
What we are talking about here is the direct willed pre-meditated murder of an innocent baby at differing stages.
Don’t fall for the “pro-choice” vrs. “pro-abortion” weasel language by the abortion activists Ana_v.
(Just because they argue amongst each other WHICH innocent people it is “acceptable” to murder, don’t think ANY of those positions are appropriate. They are not appropriate. They are ALL intrinsic evils, so going on to the situations is pointless for any but God.)
They see murdering innocent human beings as a (no pun intended) . . . . “viable” option.
Those people place more value on a California Condor egg, than a human baby!
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Sin darkens the intellect, the sin of murder of an innocent human being especially so.
There have been a LOT of “abortions” out there.
Some people have played a role in propagating this disaster of murder (“abortion”) in various ways. (See below)
So we would expect that there is going to be a LOT of fool-talk out there in society.
(And there IS a lot of fool-talk out there in society.)
Most of these people refuse the humility to go to Confession.
This has disasterous results on our society.
We must not remain silent in the midst of this mass murder.
.
Nine Ways of Being Accessory to Another’s Sin
accessory to another’s sin
There have been a LOT of “abortions” out there.
Some people have played a role in propagating this disaster of murder (“abortion”) in various ways. (See below)
So we would expect that there is going to be a LOT of fool-talk out there in society.
(And there IS a lot of fool-talk out there in society.)
Most of these people refuse the humility to go to Confession.
This has disasterous results on our society.
We must not remain silent in the midst of this mass murder.
.
Nine Ways of Being Accessory to Another’s Sin
accessory to another’s sin
- By counsel.
- By command.
- By consent.
- By provocation.
- By praise or flattery.
- By concealment.
- By partaking.
- By silence.
- By defense of the ill done.
Last edited:
- Status