Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”

[Sbee0]

jeannetherese:

Another way of looking at it is those who are pro life would like the baby to be able to choose life, rather than have that choice denied him or her. It relates to the suggestion that one out of every two patients leave an abortion clinic alive.
In cases where you will be killed without your consent, what choice is there for you?

Pro-choice people don’t typically believe the fetus is a person. To them, it is apples and oranges. The same argument that applies to you and me doesn’t apply to a fetus.

And they would be just as wrong about that as those in the USA a century and a half ago who believed that African Americans were 3/5 of a person. Or some Germans in the 1930s believing that Jewish people were not persons.

That’s what happens when we make ourselves the authority on who is a person and who isn’t. This argument about personhood is also completely logically fallacious as any factors that you use to determine a person for the unborn can easily be applied to those already born and thus is easily debunked.

I find that those in favor of abortion rights tend to stick to their cultural leftist talking points and not think critically about them otherwise they would see the fallacies in their arguments.

 

[Elf01]

A fetus, legally, is simply not an American citizen at the moment of conception.

A human not being an American citizen does not mean you can kill them.

 

[LateCatholic]

Who’s against health insurance? Conservatives just don’t want government control of all health insurance and health decisions based on what the government decides what they’ll pay for.

I mean, these comments are so laughable. You are against a non-profit government of the people, by the people, for the people making those decisions, butt you are OK with a corporation doing it, when the entire mission of that entity is to make money??? By God, I can’t take it. So you are OK with pregnant women being denied health insurance because they had a miscarriage? Or cancer victims losing coverage because it just got too darn expensive? It’s so darn sickening to hear Catholics say this.

We believe in social programs for the truly needy. What we don’t want are programs that provide so much that people don’t want to get off them. Provide incentives to work, not incentives to stay on the government dole.

Sure would be nice if Republicans actually IMPLEMENTED that. It’s a lie.

You are just rationalizing in your mind that you are against abortion yet want it legal. Murder of unborn children is not an acceptable way to lessen the problems of poverty or inconvenient pregnancies.

Unfortunately, as an American, I cannot force my moral position (which is against abortion)on others- at least without some rational and reasonable expectation that those people will be cared for. I don not see pro-life as actually supporting life. I see it simple as anti-abortion. Until the needy are cared for DIRECTLY - not via some trickle-down mirage - I will not have the arrogance to tell them what to do.

 

[goout]

Unfortunately, as an American, I cannot force my moral position (which is against abortion)on others- at least without some rational and reasonable expectation that those people will be cared for. I don not see pro-life as actually supporting life. I see it simple as anti-abortion. Until the needy are cared for DIRECTLY - not via some trickle-down mirage - I will not have the arrogance to tell them what to do.

You are blinded by political rhetoric at the expense of human dignity. You draw false dichotomies based on political stereotypes and prejudices. You cast human beings to the fate of power because doing charity is difficult and messy. (yes, you do, read your own words above).

If we should not force our moral opinion, then you must allow lynching, genocide, child trafficking, sex slavery, euthanasia…
PICK YOUR EVIL, and step back to allow it.

 

[LateCatholic]

A fetus, legally, is simply not an American citizen at the moment of conception.

I did not say that, of course. I am saying that the position of Republicans is hypocritical because clearly you could assign social security cards and declare tax benefits effective at conception if you really thought life started then. But republicans would never do that because it would cost too much money. It actually might provide some incentive for women to keep their babies. But Republicans don’t care about “life”, they just want your votes. But hey, at least we are saying “Merry Christmas” again! Go vote Republican as your health care whithers away.

 

[goout]

Elf01:

A fetus, legally, is simply not an American citizen at the moment of conception.

I did not say that, of course. I am saying that the position of Republicans is hypocritical because clearly you could assign social security cards and declare tax benefits effective at conception if you really thought life started then. But republicans would never do that because it would cost too much money. It actually might provide some incentive for women to keep their babies. But Republicans don’t care about “life”, they just want your votes. But hey, at least we are saying “Merry Christmas” again! Go vote Republican as your health care whithers away.

It is pathetic to see issues of human life reduced to political posturing. I wish you would stop, it’s embarrassing.

 

[LateCatholic]

I am for the killing of the poor and handicapped.
This is my choice and option: to eliminate those who are not persons.

But the poor and handicapped ARE persons.

Again, understand my point - we cannot force our morality on others unless we give them clear and reasonable alternatives whereupon there is no logical reason to have an abortion. Otherwise we are also “morally bankrupt”.

 

[greenqueen]

Go vote Republican as your health care whithers away.

Sorry. My healthcare withered away when Obama was in office. We can no longer afford it.

 

[LateCatholic]

It is pathetic to see issues of human life reduced to political posturing. I wish you would stop, it’s embarrassing.

It is the Republicans that are doing this, obviously.

How about this? I would support making abortion illegal if every American man and woman had to adopt at least one child in their lifetime before they turned 40, unless they had biological children or their income was less than $50K. Would you sign up for that?

 

[goout]

goout:

I am for the killing of the poor and handicapped.
This is my choice and option: to eliminate those who are not persons.

But the poor and handicapped ARE persons.

Again, understand my point - we cannot force our morality on others unless we give them clear and reasonable alternatives whereupon there is no logical reason to have an abortion. Otherwise we are also “morally bankrupt”.

False dichotomy.
Morality is not based upon the myriad consequences of human policies and shortcoming. We don’t kill people because life is messy and contradictory.
A human being has inherent dignity whether you will admit it or not.

So by your own reckoning you will be reckoned. And genocide, slavery, etc…are all just fine apparently, since you will not take a stand against those choices, by your own words.

 

[goout]

goout:

It is pathetic to see issues of human life reduced to political posturing. I wish you would stop, it’s embarrassing.

It is the Republicans that are doing this, obviously.

How about this? I would support making abortion illegal if every American man and woman had to adopt at least one child in their lifetime before they turned 40, unless they had biological children or their income was less than $50K. Would you sign up for that?

I would support life in the womb in any case…any case…whether they could all be adopted or had to live in poverty.
Just like I would defend the rights of black people from lynching, and the rights of Jews from extermination, and the rights of my mother who lives alone with her walker from being pushed out the back door of the hospital in a hearse.
I support the right of a human being to live and flourish, as a God given right.

Are we on the same page? If so, let’s proceed to human welfare policies.
If we are not on the same page with the inherent dignity of life, then your welfare is a sham.
(I’m not going to play whose compassion is bigger with you, cause you might lose, and that just wouldn’t be right, you might be eliminated because you can’t win the compassion contests).

if every American man and woman had to adopt at least one child

Just to be clear, are you talking about the children who are living or those who are aborted? Cause, obviously, you can’t care for the human needs of dead people.

 

[Convert3]

you are OK with a corporation doing it, when the entire mission of that entity is to make money??? By God, I can’t take it. So you are OK with pregnant women being denied health insurance because they had a miscarriage? Or cancer victims losing coverage because it just got too darn expensive? It’s so darn sickening to hear Catholics say this.

There is more money lost through government waste and fraud that corporations make in profit from health insurance. Corporations, in order to make money, must have products people want. So they must tailor their health plans accordingly. The Obamacare laws took away that choice you are so fond of using in your support of your abortion “option” argument. However, I do believe there is a place for government to help those truly in need. No, I don’t think someone with cancer or has had a miscarriage should be denied healthcare. But a friend of my wife’s up in Canada isn’t around anymore because she had to wait too long to see an oncologist when she had ovarian cancer. My wife had stage 3 ovarian cancer and uterine cancer at the same time as her friend. My wife is still around because the government wasn’t involved with any healthcare decisions.

Sure would be nice if Republicans actually IMPLEMENTED that. It’s a lie.

Unemployment numbers for African Americans, Hispanic Americans and women are at record lows, with better paying jobs than were created in the previous administration. How is that a lie?

Unfortunately, as an American, I cannot force my moral position (which is against abortion)on others- at least without some rational and reasonable expectation that those people will be cared for. I don not see pro-life as actually supporting life. I see it simple as anti-abortion. Until the needy are cared for DIRECTLY - not via some trickle-down mirage - I will not have the arrogance to tell them what to do.

You keep saying you can’t force your moral position on others. Yet you ignore the unborn having their lives snuffed out because of an inconvenience. You say you want the needy cared for directly, so you don’t mind others being forced to pay more of their hard earned money to pay taxes to support these people on welfare rather than have them work? Look back at President Johnson’s War on Poverty back in the 1960s. Hundreds of billions of dollars spent and the poverty rate is no different. That’s what happens with direct payments. Before that time, under the Truman, Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, the poverty rate was actually falling.

 

[LateCatholic]

I really don’t want this devolve into politics. So, on the surface, I honestly feel that the Democratic platform is far closer to Jesus’ original message than Republicans. I really can’t see how that can be argued. Let’s try to keep the rest civil:

The Obamacare laws took away that choice you are so fond of using in your support of your abortion “option” argument.

Not sure about this. Obamacare basically set minimal standards for health care. Pregnancy was one such minimal requirement. That, not surprisingly, made a bunch of men furious. Some women too. But again - I fail to see how requiring health insurance to take care of the unborn and pregnant women is a bad thing.

No, I don’t think someone with cancer or has had a miscarriage should be denied healthcare.

See, then why are you supporting the Republican position. which is to REMOVE all the safeguards now in place? Republicans don’t have an alternative. If they did, we could have a discussion. But until they do, all you are doing is supporting going back - and that means denying the sick coverage.

Unemployment numbers for African Americans, Hispanic Americans and women are at record lows, with better paying jobs than were created in the previous administration. How is that a lie?

So you think taking babies away from their mothers, shipping them thousands of miles apart, simply because a family is running away from violence and gangs is OK? It’s not all about money. Also, the gap between rich and poor is greater now than ever before.

You say you want the needy cared for directly, so you don’t mind others being forced to pay more of their hard earned money to pay taxes to support these people on welfare rather than have them work?

You are really making jumps. I said no such thing. I said that we should support pregnant women, babies, and their mothers and families. Don’t jump to conclusions about able-bodied adults without children. But - let’s be clear - I don;t think that this administration gives a rat’s behind about the poor.

 

[Convert3]

Your way of not making this political is interesting.
However, this will be my last post here, since we’ll never agree.
Your thoughts on the Republican stance on issues is much along the lines of Democratic talking points and not the Republican views. So I suggest you research a bit more and you’ll find there are a variety of viewpoints amongst Republicans regarding pre-existing conditions on health care and nobody is trying to strip away care, but simply not trying to force a one size fits all kind of policy.
Though I have no idea how taking babies away from mothers fits into this discussion, Trump signed an executive order long ago to stop the practice that began long ago, including in the previous administration.
Again, check your facts. Republicans haven’t taken away any programs helping mothers who need it. In fact, with better jobs and unemployment dropping, families are better off. Republicans want to reduce incentives that break up families, and to create incentives to keep families together.
I’m done. God Bless!

 

[goout]

I really don’t want this devolve into politics.
…

ok…
Would you be willing to read back over your posts and those of others and do some self reflection?
You specifically are making this overtly political.

 

[Sbee0]

I really don’t want this devolve into politics. So, on the surface, I honestly feel that the Democratic platform is far closer to Jesus’ original message than Republicans. I really can’t see how that can be argued. Let’s try to keep the rest civil:

Calling out Republicans by name is an odd way to “not want this to devolve into politics…

Not sure about this. Obamacare basically set minimal standards for health care. Pregnancy was one such minimal requirement. That, not surprisingly, made a bunch of men furious. Some women too. But again - I fail to see how requiring health insurance to take care of the unborn and pregnant women is a bad thing.

There are many MANY charities run by the Church which provide these services including support for teens and young women who are pregnant. So as you can see that, along with many other areas, is not a domain reserved for big government.

Democrats believe big government should be created (and taxes raised accordingly) to intrude in every aspect of people’s lives. I’m not sure I see the connection with that position and Christian belief. Jesus did say render to Caesar what is Caesars but He did not say that we are servants of government nor that government is the way to make society function and we Christian’s must accept it.

Someone who disagrees that they are morally obliged to want to have their taxes raised to support big government or that big govt is the only way society should function in no way shape or form means that they hate the poor, sick, etc. Stop drinking the leftist koolade and think objectively.

 

[AZ42]

Again, understand my point - we cannot force our morality on others unless we give them clear and reasonable alternatives whereupon there is no logical reason to have an abortion. Otherwise we are also “morally bankrupt”.

If someone thinks it is OK to kill adults and children who have been born- should we stop them, or “not force our morality on others”?

Some issues are non-negotiable. Murder is one of those. No murderer will ever get away in court saying that they should stop forcing their morality on him.

 

[LateCatholic]

Someone who disagrees that they are morally obliged to want to have their taxes raised to support big government or that big govt is the only way society should function in no way shape or form means that they hate the poor, sick, etc. Stop drinking the leftist koolade and think objectively.

The problem with this thinking is that it is hypocritical. There is no more intrusive institution than religious ones. That being said, if you honestly donate a large percentage of your income to an organization that directly supports the poor, I commend you. But most people do not. We have to support the less fortunate. Government programs is BY FAR the best way to do this. Do you really believe that if we cancelled all social programs in the United States, we would be better off? Crazy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

As an American, we cannot force our views on others. A fetus, legally, is simply not an American citizen at the moment of conception. Perhaps we can say at 18-25 weeks or so it is. Abortion is morally wrong, but so is forcing a religious position on others.

I explained this to you once before, but you seemed to have ignored it or forgotten it. Here it is once more. Please pay attention this time.

As Americans everyone has the right to try to force their views on everyone else. It is called democracy. If you have a view that taxes should be raised to support mass transit, you can try to make everyone pay those taxes by advocating for and electing people who share those views. If you have a view that mass transit should be defunded in favor of highway expansion, you have the right to advocate for that too. In both cases you are forcing your views on everyone else. Of course you will not be effective if your view is not shared by a majority of others. Similarly, if you have a view that a fetus ought to be protected from abortion, you have the right in a democratic society to advocate for such protection. And if a sufficient number of others agree with you, you will be able to force that view on everyone else. If not, then you will not succeed.

This is not a case of the First Amendment protections. An atheist might also want to protect the unborn. Many do. The view that the unborn should be protected is not an exclusively religious view.

“Thou shalt not steal” is a religious commandment. Yet we have no trouble incorporating into our civil laws provisions that punish those who steal. So views that affirmed by our faith are not automatically excluded from civil law.

I hope I have convinced you that it is OK to try to “force” your religiously-inspired views on all of society. You have the right to try.

 

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

Someone who disagrees that they are morally obliged to want to have their taxes raised to support big government or that big govt is the only way society should function in no way shape or form means that they hate the poor, sick, etc. Stop drinking the leftist koolade and think objectively.

The problem with this thinking is that it is hypocritical. There is no more intrusive institution than religious ones. That being said, if you honestly donate a large percentage of your income to an organization that directly supports the poor, I commend you. But most people do not. We have to support the less fortunate. Government programs is BY FAR the best way to do this. Do you really believe that if we cancelled all social programs in the United States, we would be better off? Crazy.

But that’s the thing. Big government DOESN’T do that very well at all. All they are good at is collecting taxes and writing checks to whomever they please. They cannot replace charity. Government has tried and is doing a lousy job at providing real services like child care and health care and education. They just write their checks, spending well beyond their means regardless of party in charge, hence the 20 trillion dollar debt. Paying taxes does not equate to “helping the poor” either, it is paying government to do whatever they please with your money. If say you are against “the wall” and government agrees to build it- that is what you are paying for. Not helping the poor.

Unlike big government, private charity (including the Church, by far the biggest charitable organization on the planet) does do those things extremely very well.

Wanting to help people by charity rather than accepting a proven inefficient government to do it for them =/= being greedy or heartless or whatever the left calls conservatives these days.