Pro Choice/Abortion “Catholics”

[Sbee0]

goout:

Is this settled science for you or does some religious belief of yours trump this?

I think you are missing the point.

As a Catholic, I would never recommend or support someone having an abortion.

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.

Neither is a migrant to America a citizen. I’m sure you consider migrants worthy of life. A migrant is just as much a person as an unborn child.

As a realist, I understand that the positions of Republicans, and to a lesser degree Catholics, do not SOLVE the problem. Pro-life is a scam. How can you be against health insurance and be “pro-life”? How can you be against social programs and be “pro-life”? How can you be pro-life and cut adoption, food stamp, and foster programs? We don’t live in a perfect world, and unfortunately the number ONE cause of poverty is having children you cannot support.

I heard this argument many times and like all pro abortion rights arguments it is a fallacious one. There is no logical difference between this argument and saying a father and mother with 3 children who lose their jobs and can’t find another one - finding themselves in a position where they indeed have children they cannot support - they ought to have to right to execute those children to relieve the financial burden. No-one in their right mind would agree with that so it wouldn’t make sense to agree to the former either.

And a fetus is a person, it is alive, as science has proven. The 18-25 week marker is completely arbitrary, completely fabricated and has no basis in science whatsoever. No point disputing what is scientific fact. There is simply no moral justification for abortion regardless of circumstance.

 

[Annie]

There is no more intrusive institution than religious ones.

Let’s see now, the Church specifies how I spend 1/3 or more of my money— Oh, no, that’s the government.

The Church requires that I do a lot of detailed bookkeeping each year so they can check that I am “donating” the right amount of money to the poor, regardless of my circumstances—oh, no, that’s the government.

The Church requires that I pay for the leisure activities of other people— oh, no, that’s the government.

What were you saying about the intrusiveness of religion? That churches are more intrusive than the government?

Care to back that claim up, because I ain’t seeing it.

 

[Uncertain2]

Healthcare costs have been skyrocketing since the 1980’s. Trying to pin that on the Affordable Care Act is inaccurate. That stinks that you lost healthcare during the Obama administration. I know many others who finally were able to get insurance, due to pre-existing conditions not being an automatic disqualifier anymore. We spend almost twice as much (percentage wise) of our GDP on healthcare than every other developed country. Something needs to change. I’m for changing or eliminating the ACA, but going back to where we were before isn’t smart either.

 

[Uncertain2]

sickening to hear Catholics say this.

Please prove this claim.

 

[Uncertain2]

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

Was the war on poverty intended to end poverty, or to help those living in poverty to have a better standard of living?

You mention the poverty rate. Does giving a starving child something to eat lift them out of poverty? No, so the poverty rate is the same (in fact it might increase the rate of poverty simply through keeping the poor child alive longer than they normally would be without being given food).

It would be nice to end poverty, or reduce it. But, if we can’t do that, should we not help those who are in poverty? Ask anyone old enough to remember elderly living without medicare. My grandparents lived below the poverty line, but having medicare raised their standard of living tremendously compared to their parents, who didn’t have medicare.

 

[Convert3]

Okay, here’s an article stating the top six health care insurers increased their profits to a total of $6 Billion. I know it’s not all of them, but being the top six gives you an idea of how profitable the industry was for one quarter. You can extrapolate that to $24 Billion for a year.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/08/05/top-health-insurers-profit-surge-29-percent-to-6-billion-dollars.html

Here’s an piece of the article in the link below about government waste of $137 billion in 2015:

“At first glance, the improper payments figures tell a dismal story. Total improper payments reported by government benefits programs rose from $38 billion in 2005 to $137 billion in 2015, a 197 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars over 10 years.”

Fraud, waste, and abuse in entitlement programs | Deloitte Insights

I think you can see there isn’t even a close comparison between government waste and corporate profits.

 

[Convert3]

The war on poverty had good intentions of ending poverty, but ended up taking away incentives to work or get married. It led to many fatherless homes. Yes, there should be a safety net, but if able to work there should be incentives to do so.

 

[HarryStotle]

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.

Nazis didn’t typically believe Jews were persons. To them it was apples and oranges. The same argument that applies to you and me didn’t apply to Jews.

See how pernicious that looks?

The problem is that YOU and ME were both fetuses at one time in our lives, so the argument does indeed apply to both you and me.

You and me wouldn’t be here today if someone had decided to kill us when we were fetuses then. If then, why not now? Me as a fetus has become me today, and no one else.

I didn’t just magically appear from moondust at some undetermined time in some undetermined way. That is the fictional account that tries to disconnect fetushood from personhood as if they were two different things entirely.

Nope they are not.

 

[Rubee]

I dislike Republicans a great deal. Democrats even more. Thank Jesus I’m not American and don’t have to vote for either. But what does what Republicans want or don’t want have to do with whether the unborn are human beings and deserving of not being killed? What has one to do with the other?

I am pro-life, also support universal healthcare and other social systems, and against the death penalty in the modern age where I do not believe it to be necessary. I wouldn’t fit anywhere in America’s camps or any country’s political camps for that matter because I’d be a weird mix of a Republican and a Social Democrat…Republican Social Democrat?

My point? Stop hiding under the Republican banner to support YOUR personal decision to support legal abortion. Republicans are a political party that has changed its policies for ages. A person interested in issues isn’t deciding to support abortion based on how sincere they think Republicans are.

If we are arguing slavery in the early 19th century and a rotten Republican party is advocating for its abolition, you don’t decide whether black people are fully human or mere property based on how sincere you think those in that Republican party are being in their antislavery stances and policies. The two have nothing to do with each other. So stop using that as an excuse for your immoral choice to put into question the humanity of others based on how convenient those lives are to others.

 

[Brendan_64]

Pro-choice people don’t typically believe the fetus is a person.

And on what basis do they make that judgement?

That argument seems to be an argument created in order to try to justify abortion.

It seems to me that people who engage in abortions seem either not to care (or at least don’t want to know) whether or not the living, human being they are killing is a person. The human being in question seems to be viewed primarily as a problem that needs to be removed by killing him/her.

 

[Sbee0]

Every argument by the pro abortion rights side that tries to justify saying an unborn fetus is not a person can easily be applied to argue the personhood of someone already born. Therefore it doesn’t make logical sense to try.

 

[QwertyGirl]

It seems to me that people who engage in abortions seem either not to care (or at least don’t want to know) whether or not the living, human being they are killing is a person. The human being in question seems to be viewed primarily as a problem that needs to be removed by killing him/her.

I don’t think so. I think they just see things differently than you do. Human reproduction is a unique process, and the people I know who support the right of a woman to choose an abortion do so for a variety of reasons, the least of which I would classify as apathy. They may or may not believe in ensoulment. They don’t believe a fetus is the same thing as a person. They often times differentiate between early term and late term abortions. At what point does batter become cake? It is an arbitrary question which means you will get different answers from different people.

Catholics believe a human person is created at conception. Not everyone believes this.

 

[Sbee0]

Convert3:

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

Was the war on poverty intended to end poverty, or to help those living in poverty to have a better standard of living?

You mention the poverty rate. Does giving a starving child something to eat lift them out of poverty? No, so the poverty rate is the same (in fact it might increase the rate of poverty simply through keeping the poor child alive longer than they normally would be without being given food).

It would be nice to end poverty, or reduce it. But, if we can’t do that, should we not help those who are in poverty? Ask anyone old enough to remember elderly living without medicare. My grandparents lived below the poverty line, but having medicare raised their standard of living tremendously compared to their parents, who didn’t have medicare.

We absolutely should help those in poverty. I will never accept the idea that submitting to the notion of big government is the only acceptable way to do so or the most efficient.

 

[Sbee0]

Brendan_64:

It seems to me that people who engage in abortions seem either not to care (or at least don’t want to know) whether or not the living, human being they are killing is a person. The human being in question seems to be viewed primarily as a problem that needs to be removed by killing him/her.

I don’t think so. I think they just see things differently than you do. Human reproduction is a unique process, and the people I know who support the right of a woman to choose an abortion do so for a variety of reasons, the least of which I would classify as apathy. They may or may not believe in ensoulment. They don’t believe a fetus is the same thing as a person. They often times differentiate between early term and late term abortions. At what point does batter become cake? It is an arbitrary question which means you will get different answers from different people.

Catholics believe a human person is created at conception. Not everyone believes this.

Life begins at conception. Catholics don’t just believe that, it’s a scientific fact. In my opinion rejection of science is rejection of reality. It makes no logical sense to say that a human life is not a person regardless of stage.

Batter/cake is a poor analogy for an unborn person. Batter is not alive and it has no intrinsic or “programmed” ability to do anything other than be batter.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Batter/cake is a poor analogy for an unborn person. Batter is not alive and it has no intrinsic or “programmed” ability to do anything other than be batter.

it wasn’t used as an analogy for an unborn person. It was used as an analogy for any process that has a beginning, a middle, and an end.

 

[Brendan_64]

Catholics believe a human person is created at conception. Not everyone believes this.

A human being is created at conception. That isn’t a belief, that is a scientfic fact.

This isn’t an argument about ensoulment. This is about the fact that a human being is formed at conception. That is not a religious belief, but an absolute fact.

The attempt to create a divide between a human being on the one hand, and a human person on the other hand, doesn’t stack up. This is about (at best) a belief that has no basis in science. At best it is purely a philosophical position (that is if it isn’t simply a cynical excuse). Human beings are being killed on nothing more than (at best) a personal belief in a concept that has no basis on scientific fact.

Is it OK to deliberately kill an innocent human being because you happen to believe that he or she is not a human person?

 

[Sbee0]

The latest Gallup poll that I saw says 48% of Americans identify as pro choice, with the same percentage as pro life.

I don’t know if it’s ever been done but I’d be interested in the results of a poll that asks the pro choicers “if we were to tell you that science has proven that human life begins at conception are you still pro choice”? I suspect it wouldn’t be nearly as much as it is today.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Is it OK to deliberately kill an innocent human being because you happen to believe that he or she is not a human person?

I agree with you that this is a philosophical issue. Science can tell us what the matter is and how far along it is in potential development. Science doesn’t tell us the value of it.

 

[Brendan_64]

I agree with you that this is a philosophical issue.

And it is OK to deliberately kill another person (and an entirely innocent and extremely vulnerable person at that) based on a subjective, personally held, philosophical position?

 

[QwertyGirl]

And it is OK to deliberately kill another person (and an entirely innocent and extremely vulnerable person at that) based on a subjective, personally held, philosophical position?

You say another person, others say a clump of cells with the potential to become a person. Therein lies the philosophy.

I am not here to argue right or wrong on either side with regards to this philosophy. I do point out, though, that it is generally erroneous to assume apathy on the part of those who support abortion rights.