Personhood amendment campaigners vow to fight on after Mississippi defeat

[Not_Sure_1]

The amendment is not against women, it is against IMMORAL women.

Now, I’m going to say something against the pro-life movement.

These laws against abortion are like trying to save a patient on an operating table with a main artery torn wide open, by simply pumping pint after pint after pint of blood into the patient, without any remedial surgery. Eventually, you would run out of blood. Making law after law after law against abortion is not going to keep people from having abortions when you have the rampant immorality in society that we have. Conservatives don’t care about pregnant woman, and how did these women get pregnant? Not rape and incest, but rather, no morals. These are not more examples of the Virgin Birth!

But we’ve gone ahead and made laws legalizing immorality BEFORE Roe v Wade that made that decision necessary.

The resources to help pregnant women are limited, just like a hospital has limited stock of blood.

should not murder be illegal?

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Perhaps not, but it may greatly diminish the number of abortions, and it will move us closer to having a just society, one which does not openly countenance the slaughter of children.

That is not true.

I should have wrote, “supposedly”.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I don’t think you’ve made any points.

I am noticing a trend here Sam
Do you have an actual argument to make or are you just going to complain about hers?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I posted in your original posting of the story, which was locked.

The brain trust at The Guardian has uncovered an insidious conservative plot to kill women.

**That, and they got their political designations switched around regarding who supported Jim Crow. **

Bon fait!

Edit: Ohhh, it’s an American who wrote the story. That explains it. What’s that? She wrote for The Nation and Salon??

You’re claiming American conservatives didn’t support Jim Crow (please remember that Republican and conservative are not necessarily the same thing)?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes, Matt, at least one very good one.

The point is that anytime legislation is posed restricting abortion, those on the left cart out the appeal to emotion fallacy “this means women will be DYING in the STREETS!!! WON’T SOMEBODY THINK OF THESE POOR WOMEN???” canard, and some use logical gymnastics to convince themselves it’s true.

Rinse, repeat.

Logical gymnastics?
Like claiming conservatives supported things such as the Civil Rights Movement in the past

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Though you’ve now linked a news article, it looks like you still want to discuss the opinion column.

The charges are false. The personhood amendment would have been no more misogynistic than passing a law that only women could bear children. The opinion article is mainly a pundit’s taking of the language to an extreme, unfounded conclusion.

Here’s the definition of the term misogynistic to clarify things SonCatcher:

Of or characterized by a hatred of women.

From the American Heritage Dictionary (link to source: thefreedictionary.com/misogynistic).

So yes, such a law would be a bit more misogynistic than simply legally declaring the obvious.

 

[Suudy]

Here’s the definition of the term misogynistic to clarify things SonCatcher:

Of or characterized by a hatred of women.

From the American Heritage Dictionary (link to source: thefreedictionary.com/misogynistic).

So yes, such a law would be a bit more misogynistic than simply legally declaring the obvious.

Non sequitur. You haven’t demonstrated that the law characterizes hatred of women. To do so, you have to show the means and end are harmful to women. Did the writers of the law intend to harm women, or protect unborn children? In effect, does the law primarily harm women or protect unborn children? Given this criteria, I don’t see how anyone can conclude that the law in any way is “Of or characterized by a hatred of women.”

 

[AngryAtheist8]

**The amendment is not against women, it is against IMMORAL women. **Now, I’m going to say something against the pro-life movement.

These laws against abortion are like trying to save a patient on an operating table with a main artery torn wide open, by simply pumping pint after pint after pint of blood into the patient, without any remedial surgery. Eventually, you would run out of blood. Making law after law after law against abortion is not going to keep people from having abortions when you have the rampant immorality in society that we have. Conservatives don’t care about pregnant woman, and how did these women get pregnant? Not rape and incest, but rather, no morals. These are not more examples of the Virgin Birth!

But we’ve gone ahead and made laws legalizing immorality BEFORE Roe v Wade that made that decision necessary.

The resources to help pregnant women are limited, just like a hospital has limited stock of blood.

Assuming you’re right, who gets to decide which women are immoral (and therefore deserving of punishment)?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Non sequitur. You haven’t demonstrated that the law characterizes hatred of women. To do so, you have to show the means and end are harmful to women. Did the writers of the law intend to harm women, or protect unborn children? In effect, does the law primarily harm women or protect unborn children? Given this criteria, I don’t see how anyone can conclude that the law in any way is “Of or characterized by a hatred of women.”

Their laws (and punishments) aimed specifically at women.
Pregnant ones to be exact.

Declaring that only women can bear children couldn’t qualify (as misogynistic) because it wouldn’t change anything.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Words of supposed hate sprinkled in a document that would save lives?

I don’t know, but I vote for the greater good of saving the unborn with the personhood amendment even if it hurts the pride of some of the fairer sex.

No offense, but the greater good must be done, and although hate is a mortal sin, we Catholics are not participating in it by voting for that bill, we have to look at the non-negotiable issues first. By voting for the bill we are saving lives, and the bad things in the bill (if there are any) do not go against the non-negotiable issues. Therefore, If you are a CAtholic in Mississippi, morally you were probably obligated to vote for it, because the bill would have saved the lives of the unborn.

THink Edmund Burke, good men do nothing and evil succeeds.

 

[Suudy]

Their laws (and punishments) aimed specifically at women.
Pregnant ones to be exact.

For what purpose does the law exist? To punish? Or to protect? You apparently think the former. I think the latter.

I think too that the legal community agrees that it is about protection, and punishment is only a means to ensure protection, not the ultimate end. From this link, it gives an interesting explanation of the purpose of law:

We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force. When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are *** defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.***

In this sense, the law’s end is protecting the unborn, not punishing women.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

should not murder be illegal?

Yes, it should be illegal, but it’s not, and why is that? Because we’ve gone ahead and legalized rampant immorality. Now try to stop it. I suspect the solution will be:

681 On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.

 

[Not_Sure_1]

Yes, it should be illegal, but it’s not, and why is that? Because we’ve gone ahead and legalized rampant immorality. Now try to stop it. I suspect the solution will be:

No, I’m responding to those who say that it is no use making abortion illegal, because people will still abort.

Murder should remain illegal, even if serial killers are a-plenty ignoring the law.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Words of supposed hate sprinkled in a document that would save lives?

I don’t know, but I vote for the greater good of saving the unborn with the personhood amendment even if it hurts the pride of some of the fairer sex.

No offense, but the greater good must be done, and although hate is a mortal sin, we Catholics are not participating in it by voting for that bill, we have to look at the non-negotiable issues first. By voting for the bill we are saving lives, and the bad things in the bill (if there are any) do not go against the non-negotiable issues. Therefore, If you are a CAtholic in Mississippi, morally you were probably obligated to vote for it, because the bill would have saved the lives of the unborn.

THink Edmund Burke, good men do nothing and evil succeeds.

Its worth noting that Edmund Burke spoke in a time when women were not considered full and equal parts of society. It is questionable whether or not he meant men and women when he said that.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

For what purpose does the law exist? To punish? Or to protect? You apparently think the former. I think the latter.
I think too that the legal community agrees that it is about protection, and punishment is only a means to ensure protection, not the ultimate end. From this link, it gives an interesting explanation of the purpose of law:

We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force. When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither his personality, his liberty nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are *** defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.***

In this sense, the law’s end is protecting the unborn, not punishing women.

I think it depends on the specific legal system frankly.
For instance, the legal system in the theocracy of Iran is definitely designed to punish its citizens (particularly women).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Not Sure
should not murder be illegal?

Yes, it should be illegal, but it’s not, and why is that? Because we’ve gone ahead and legalized rampant immorality. Now try to stop it. I suspect the solution will be:

Quote:
681 On Judgment Day at the end of the world, Christ will come in glory to achieve the definitive triumph of good over evil which, like the wheat and the tares, have grown up together in the course of history.

:

I think there is something creepy and distasteful about the way that some Christians long for the end of the world (when everyone who disagrees with them will be thrown into hell).

Oh well:shrug:

If its true at least I will have most of the musicians, intellectuals, and other interesting people to keep me company

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

Assuming you’re right, who gets to decide which women are immoral (and therefore deserving of punishment)?

2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Don’t knock yourself out trying to understand that answer.

11He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

 

[followingtheway]

I think there is something creepy and distasteful about the way that some Christians long for the end of the world (when everyone who disagrees with them will be thrown into hell).

Oh well:shrug:

If its true at least I will have most of the musicians, intellectuals, and other interesting people to keep me company

Anyone who"disagrees" with us? Well, since I’m Catholic, I believe it’s up to God where Non-Catholics/Christians go.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Assuming you’re right, who gets to decide which women are immoral (and therefore deserving of punishment)?

Quote:
2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Don’t knock yourself out trying to understand that answer.

Quote:
11He replied, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.

.

Cute

Since I doubt you have any saints handy, I am guessing you think you and yours are qualified to decide which girls are naughty and deserving of punishment

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

I think there is something creepy and distasteful

I bet it is!

about the way that some Christians long for the end of the world (when everyone who disagrees with them will be thrown into hell).

Oh well:shrug:

If its true at least I will have most of the musicians, intellectuals, and other interesting people to keep me company

And I will see the God, face to face, that created them. Enjoy your destiny!