Pew: 77% of Catholics who are Democrats say abortion should be legal

[Freddy]

Freddy:

To the point when a woman can have an abortion without feeling that she’s losing a baby.

Precisely that a woman loses her baby via an abortion that hurts her so deeply emotionally.

That’s possibly true for many women. So can you explain to me why other women do not suffer emotionally when having an abortion.

 

[Randolph]

That’s possibly true for many women. So can you explain to me why other women do not suffer emotionally when having an abortion.

Freddy, in all seriousness and in charity, you should get of this thread and do some serious self examination and self reflection. Killing innocent, vulnerable babies is simply pure evil. The most dangerous and violent place for a baby to be in is his/her mother’s womb.

I will stop corresponding with you now.

 

[Rau]

But it governs her thinking.

Certainly influences. Reason plays a role to.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That’s possibly true for many women. So can you explain to me why other women do not suffer emotionally when having an abortion.

Freddy, in all seriousness and in charity, you should get of this thread and do some serious self examination and self reflection. Killing innocent, vulnerable babies is simply pure evil. The most dangerous and violent place for a baby to be in is his/her mother’s womb.

Then you need to tell me why you think women can have abortions. I’ve been telling you why in post after post after post. Maybe you have a different reason.

 

[LilyM]

Randolph:

Freddy:

To the point when a woman can have an abortion without feeling that she’s losing a baby.

Precisely that a woman loses her baby via an abortion that hurts her so deeply emotionally.

That’s possibly true for many women. So can you explain to me why other women do not suffer emotionally when having an abortion.

Why do some people kill their born children, their parents, siblings, spoouses, friends - without metaphorically batting an eyelid or feeling remorse? Lots of reasons.

Since when does the lack of remorse or empathy or even understanding on the part of a killer mean that the victim.is somehow less than fully human?

 

[Freddy]

Since when does the lack of remorse or empathy…

Can you tell me how you empathise with a blastocyst? Perhaps you meant something else.

Empathise: understand and share the feelings of another.

 

[vz71]

there is a scientific basis for it.

Which makes it simply an opinion that you are trying to peddle of to support murder.

 

[Rau]

Can you tell me how you empathise with a blastocyst? Perhaps you meant something else.

I’d suggest empathy is not the most relevant word. It’s either acceptable to kill human beings - our offspring - or it isn’t. Individuals may or may not “feel” badly about their act. They may feel if it’s painless for the one killed, it’s ok. How they feel - or anticipate they will feel - may well influence their decision to act, but it is not a proper basis to determine whether or not to act. An act is not immoral because the actor feels bad about it.

 

[vz71]

there is no bright line that says at 9:00am at such and such day it changes from one to the other.

That’s correct.
It is murder, no matter where on the timeline you put it.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Can you tell me how you empathise with a blastocyst? Perhaps you meant something else.

I’d suggest empathy is not the most relevant word. It’s either acceptable to kill human beings - our offspring - or it isn’t. Individuals may or may not “feel” badly about their act. They may feel if it’s painless for the one killed, it’s ok. How they feel - or anticipate they will feel - may well influence their decision to act, but it is not a proper basis to determine whether or not to act. An act is not immoral because the actor feels bad about it.

Nobody is arguing that. But it does seem that almost everyone seems to think that any attempt to determine why women have abortions is therefore a support of abortions.

 

[Freddy]

They clearly meant sympathetic. You are being purposely pedantic to avoid the point directed towards you which is: one does not need to feel sympathy towards their victim for them to be murderers.

I’m pretty sure you don’t know exactly what they meant. I might point out that I can only respond to what is posted. Notwithstanding that I have previously had numerous discussions with people who are adamant that one can empathise with a few cells.

So please disuss what is being posted and not what you think people mean. In any case, as you undoubtedly noticed, I also asked for clarification.

 

[Donkey]

And what, what, what can we do to catechize them?

For 30 years, the willful act of abortion was automatic excommunication from the Church.
How about extending that excommunication to those that vote for pro abortion politicians?

This is the main cause of the divide we see in the Church today. Perhaps the Church has always been too soft on its stance against abortion.

 

[Rau]

Nobody is arguing that.

Could’ve fooled me!

But it does seem that almost everyone seems to think that any attempt to determine why women have abortions is therefore a support of abortions.

Their motivations have been documented in various surveys. Why other considerations don’t cause them to say “no” to abortion is no doubt more complex.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Nobody is arguing that.

Could’ve fooled me!

But it does seem that almost everyone seems to think that any attempt to determine why women have abortions is therefore a support of abortions.

Their motivations have been documented in various surveys. Why other considerations don’t cause them to say “no” to abortion is no doubt more complex.

Motives and reasons can be considered seperately.

The motive for having an abortion might be financial. The woman simply cannot afford to have another child. The solution is then quite simple. Make sure she is financially able to do so (rather more easily said than done).

But the reason she has for allowing herself to have the abortion might be, as I have continuously been saying, that she doesn’t consider what she is carrying any more than a group of cells. She cannot empathise with it and so feels no compunction in ending it. The solution is then a lot more difficult. You need to convince her that it is a person in its own right. I don’t think that’s possible.

So where should the greater effort be expended? In tackling the motives or the reasons?

 

[Shakuhachi]

Did you hear Obama wants people to text him? So i did and I complained that as a Pro-life (Consistent Life Ethics Democrat) I am not welcome in the party.

 

[stpurl]

Re the ‘convinced it is a clump of cells’ type argument.

Well that whole bogus argument is a product of the 1960s onward. I know, I was ‘there’. The thing is, prior to this ‘argument’, women believed that when they got pregnant, they were going to have a baby. There was no ‘clump of cells’ etc.

So basically women have been indoctrinated with tissues of lies for the last 60 years or so (no coincidence that this came about with the release of the birth control pill either).

And that means that if the ‘collective’ can change once, it can ‘change back’.

For lesser examples, may I cite also the whole “eggs/cholesterol are bad for you” (1980s) now reversed.
“Coffee is bad for you”. (Ditto).

“Having a child sleep on the back causes SIDS” 1970s
“No, having them sleep on the stomach causes SIDS” 1980s.
(Talk about reversal).

1970s: Alcoholics and pedophiles can be cured.
(Note how well THAT went, and it was the AMA).

Prior to Geraldo: Airing ‘dirty linen’ in public is hurtful to the victim.
Post Geraldo: Airing dirty linen in public is cathartic, freeing, and indeed necessary for mental health.

“Masturbation is wrong’.
“Masturbation is healthy and good!”

So you see, humanity can be ‘swayed to believe polar opposites rather easily, if the opposite is presented as a ‘benefit’ or is presented by ‘Science’ or ‘beloved figures’ or is accompanied by ‘ostracising’ or ‘shaming’ for holding the opposing view.

It doesn’t happen overnight; there were and are plenty of people who vigorously defended the now ‘discredited in favour of the ‘current norm’ in a lot of areas. To ‘reverse’ the trend we are going to see, for a generation or two, those who will ‘fight’. But again, understanding can be changed, and if it was done wrongly (and I submit it was with abortion, where many lies and distortions were used), it SHOULD be changed.

 

[JimG]

What I know is that it was you and nobody else but you from the very start.

This is exactly true. Once a new human being is formed, it remains the same human individual through life.

Every human being contains the aspect of personhood. Just because we can not see personality expressed until later stages of development does not mean there is no human person. If a person is comatose, he or she is still a person. It’s an aspect of human nature.

 

[stpurl]

You will actually find a few people (I know one myself) convinced that personhood is related to ‘reason’, and who indeed feel that a person who has Down syndrome or other disabilities, or who develops dementia, a ‘vegetative status’ etc is no longer a person ‘by definition’ and therefore needs to be euthanised, just as we would euthanise an animal. Concurrently often these same people are more concerned with animal rights and lavish care on their pets as long as it suits them.

 

[BlessedYoungCatholic]

Many Catholics don’t believe in the reality of hell anymore, and when we don’t fear hell we tend to run in our own directions. .

Couldn’t have said it better myself !

 

[BlessedYoungCatholic]

Yea well people don’t get abortions 24-36 hrs after getting a pregnancy and that’s a fact. And not to mention instantly at the moment of conception the life of human being starts because they start to have a soul, and start individually growing.she had a choice before (not counting other circumstances) It’s not up to the mom anymore what she wants to do after the moment of conception takes place