A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
On a more serious note, this answer is incredibly arrogant, to an extent I doubt any mere ‘boy’ (Catholic or otherwise) could appreciate.
Personhood amendment campaigners vow to fight on after Mississippi defeat
- Status
R
Robert_Bay
Guest
MODERATOR NOTICE
Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other
Remember, this is a Catholic site. If you wish to bad mouth Christians, go elsewhere
Please charitably discuss the issues, not each other
Remember, this is a Catholic site. If you wish to bad mouth Christians, go elsewhere
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I suggest you proofread your posts in the future.
Taken at face value, the highlighted line seems to indicate that you also think its creepy to long for the end of the world and the chance to see your ideological enemies sent to hell.
F
followingtheway
Guest
Well I don’t think he meant that. I mean as Christians, we don’t enjoy seeing people in Hell at all, the reason why we “long for” the "end’ of the world is pretty much the us seeing God and going to Heaven part. Hopefully you’ll join us
C
CMatt25
Guest
I was referrng to the thread author’s opening words in the original post. Which were and I quote, “…But, more tellingly, it could prohibit a doctor from saving a woman’s life if that meant causing the destruction of a fertilised egg inside her. In the law’s eyes, the woman on the operating table would not matter. She would be disappeared. This simply does not happen in a country that values women.”
Suudy
Active member
First, I completely disagree with her assessment. In all cases where a person’s life is threatened, that person is permitted to defend themself. Non-lethal means are preferred (such as escape or incapacitating the attacker), but lethal defense is permitted. Her idea that it would “prohibit a woman’s life if that meant causing the destruction of a fertilised egg” is unfounded, and, in my opinion erroneous. As has been discussed numerous times, the Church permits indirect abortion, but never direct abortion.
Second, she tries to bolster this point by speaking to wage gaps? Huh? That’s crazy talk. She starts with a flawed assumption, draws a false conclusion, then tries to continued with more flawed thinking. This opinion piece is pure, bald faced rhetoric not based at all in fact and creates strawmen.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
I think the several hundred women being prosecuted for miscarriages counts as harm against women.
S
scipio337
Guest
Would you care to see the voting rolls for The Civil Rights Act of 1964? The list of those who philbustered against it?Logical gymnastics?
Like claiming conservatives supported things such as the Civil Rights Movement in the past
And before you roll out the “Dixiecrat” canard, include a list of those who switched parties.
Hop to it.
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
How many times has a genuine conservative tried to explain conservatism to no avail?
You can explain until you’re blue in the face, but that does not mean others will be interested enough to overwrite the media programming that says, ‘Him conservative. Him hate women.’
You can explain until you’re blue in the face, but that does not mean others will be interested enough to overwrite the media programming that says, ‘Him conservative. Him hate women.’
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
I know a lot of Republicans (far more than Democrats) supported the measure.
Who cares?
Conservative is not the same as Republican.
Back then the Democrats were the conservative/Southern party.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
A conservative by definition tries to maintain the status quo.
And a lot of traditional practices (especially prior to the 2nd half of the 20th century) were very hateful and demeaning towards women
Suudy
Active member
Misogyny is an intentional act. Do these laws intend harm to women? Or is it a side effect of protection of the unborn?
You can’t look only at the effect to determine the nature of a law. It has been argued that the legal system is racist because the greater proportion that are convicted are people of color. But this is a cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. And it is the same when people say that personhood amendments are misogynistic.
S
scipio337
Guest
I think your definition of “conservative” is the disconnect with your faulty analysis.
Were the Democrats of 1964 politically more conservative than today? Possibly. Were Republicans less conservative? Not really.
By your definition a “Fiscal Conservative” is happy with the status quo: 12 billion federal deficit and a current budget of $3.7 Trillion. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Todays conservative is more like a “classical” liberal.
S
seekerz
Guest
The more appropriate question might be,*** can the two be separated***? A woman’s wages determine the nutritional status, health care, environment and to some extent, even the disease risk profile (poverty predisposes to several complications of pregnancy) of her unborn baby.
Suudy
Active member
Irrelevant. Real or perceived threats to economic or social status do not justify the killing of anyone, especially the innocent.
S
scipio337
Guest
Imagine the same argument given as a support to the death penalty (which I oppose).
“This convicted felon will never acheive ‘wage justice’, or have a very high quality of life inside, or outside of prison. Therefore, he should be put to death.”.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
A false conclusion. Neither the text of the proposed law (which was merely a definition of “person”, btw) nor existing law (which may have been applied more broadly had the initiative passed) would have provided for prosecution of miscarriages unless there was already an explicit law protecting unborn victims. The scope of the latter is typically limited to cases where an unborn child dies as a result of someone injuring the mother (e.g. abuse, car accidents) - the proposed law would have had no impact on enforcement of such laws.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
That’s all very well, but sorry to inform you - existing laws ARE being twisted to punish women for miscarriages. It helps if you read the article on this thread - forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8586105#post8586105
Suudy
Active member
That still doesn’t make the law itself misogynistic. Even if they are being “twisted to punish women,” the law itself is not targeting or hateful to women, rather the DA’s bringing charges are.
S
SonCatcher
Guest
What I wrote is correct. The woman was charged because her drug use was deemed abusive (akin to injecting the drug directly into a newborn infant). Notably, the case discussed first in the article involves a Mississippi woman. This is the same state that just failed to pass the “personhood” amendment (that is, there was no “personhood” law in place at the time and there still is not). Therefore, the amendment would have had no effect on the prosecution.
- Status