D
davidv
Guest
Not very definitive.Human behavior is rarely, if ever, a signal factor response. Do any of these studies demonstrate causality?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
F
fakename
Guest
Is this a response to the first or second parts of my post?It may be, but you have no rational reason to believe it is so.
Under the suspicion that it is a reply to the second, is the first part true?
M
mytruepower2
Guest
No. Our moral determinations can’t be based on whether or not we’ll achieve success. That’s consequentialism.I’m not sure if this was submitted yet, but basically I would like to ask a few questions: (1) Granted that it’s not true that the proposition “we should make abortion illegal” is just a prudential matter, could it be true that “we should make abortion illegal now and by this process” is? (2) The Catholic Encyclopedia defines a good custom as a law. If that is true, then can one make abortion “illegal” by decentralized means too?
I suppose that the answer to the first question is the answer to the general question of whether murder should be made illegal now. And it should be made illegal now, so the same holds true of abortion.
But I don’t think that deduction is true in every scenario. For instance, to publicly argue against abortion could make people even more obstinate in their pro-choice convictions. So the only way to get rid of abortion might be to emphasize doing other things so that eventually, abortion could be made illegal. Is this valid moral reasoning?
The teaching of the church on the subject of abortion is this; that according to the highest law; the unchanging nature of God, abortion is a moral abomination. If human laws agree with God’s law, it will make those human laws stronger. If human laws disagree with God’s law, it will ultimately destroy the ability of lawmakers to make laws at all.
Our attempt to make abortion illegal again is not merely a moral action, although that would be enough. Our system of laws surrenders much of its substance and credibility when it endorses grave evils in this way.
P
Peanut7949
Guest
Are there any copies of how they teach abstinence, because I am sure there is some teachings that are not as good as others. There are big cities in Texas, too, so that is a weighty factor. Also, a friend who lived there from school chose life so maybe it is also a life choosing people… anyway, I understand that there are MEGA churches there so there MUSt be MEGA people there. That is usually not a good thing when speaking about abortion numbers… Miami also is highest in my state. So they have a few huge cites… i think that is the worse place to look. What is your purpose of bringing Texas’ worst assets to the table?Yes, that’s part of the problem.
Take Texas for example. Practically all schools there teach abstinence as opposed to contraception and it has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in the US. Leading, obviously, to much higher rate of abortions.
More education about contraception, less abortions.
F
fakename
Guest
I suspect that it’s not consequentialism. The reason is that everything necessarily wants to achieve success, for the opposite statement is self-refuting. With this established the question then is “does backing down from abortion help us get to our goal or does it hinder us?”. The answer depends on the circumstances, since it’s best not to accidentally encourage people to become more obstinately pro-abortion (for the new wine will break the old cup). And indeed, backing down is not intrinsically evil for then going on the attack would be intrinsically good and yet doing that is sometimes both in vain and it threatens to make some people worse. So it happens that what is intrinsically good is unreasonable or detrimental and this is impossible. So backing down on an issue is not evil in itself.No. Our moral determinations can’t be based on whether or not we’ll achieve success. That’s consequentialism.
The teaching of the church on the subject of abortion is this; that according to the highest law; the unchanging nature of God, abortion is a moral abomination. If human laws agree with God’s law, it will make those human laws stronger. If human laws disagree with God’s law, it will ultimately destroy the ability of lawmakers to make laws at all.
Our attempt to make abortion illegal again is not merely a moral action, although that would be enough. Our system of laws surrenders much of its substance and credibility when it endorses grave evils in this way.
M
mytruepower2
Guest
“Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.”I suspect that it’s not consequentialism. The reason is that everything necessarily wants to achieve success, for the opposite statement is self-refuting. With this established the question then is “does backing down from abortion help us get to our goal or does it hinder us?”. The answer depends on the circumstances, since it’s best not to accidentally encourage people to become more obstinately pro-abortion (for the new wine will break the old cup). And indeed, backing down is not intrinsically evil for then going on the attack would be intrinsically good and yet doing that is sometimes both in vain and it threatens to make some people worse. So it happens that what is intrinsically good is unreasonable or detrimental and this is impossible. So backing down on an issue is not evil in itself.
Joseph Stalin
Believe it or not, not everyone things in these terms. The pro-life movement is not some grab for power and influence, as you seem to think it is. It’s an outreach to try to protect innocent children, who we genuinely care about. I think what you’re really asking is; can we settle for a half-victory for the moment, in the hopes of getting a fuller one in some future time that may or may not occur? Can we compromise with evil? This question has an obvious answer.
With respect to whether it’s okay to back down from telling the truth about this issue, I’ll just let Our Lord do the talking.
“What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.”
Matthew 21:28-31
So will he speak to us if we “back down” from doing his will.
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
if you have ever read the book ten universal principles or read some of it you would understand that everything about roe vs wade was unethical unpermissable illogical and two other words i cant remember and that you can’t just be an incrimentalist it is an unjust law a must be removed from civil society
SHALOM
GOD Bless
SHALOM
GOD Bless
F
fakename
Guest
(1) Of course it’s a grab for power, for how else can we protect people through laws except by means of power? and how else does one get power except through the art of the possible? And anyways, the question doesn’t have an obvious answer for we see that people legitimately compromise with evil all the time and in ways that are not obvious: for instance people are allowed to omit laws against murder and are also allowed to buy (on sufficient reasons) products that use aborted fetal cells.“Everyone imposes his own system as far as his army can reach.”
Joseph Stalin
Believe it or not, not everyone things in these terms. The pro-life movement is not some grab for power and influence, as you seem to think it is. It’s an outreach to try to protect innocent children, who we genuinely care about. I think what you’re really asking is; can we settle for a half-victory for the moment, in the hopes of getting a fuller one in some future time that may or may not occur? Can we compromise with evil? This question has an obvious answer.
With respect to whether it’s okay to back down from telling the truth about this issue, I’ll just let Our Lord do the talking.
“What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.”
Matthew 21:28-31
So will he speak to us if we “back down” from doing his will.
(2) Holy writ doesn’t interpret itself; the mere quoting of a text which simply asserts that one should do God’s Will already assumes that God’s will is to literally always fight against abortion. That’s just circular reasoning. After all it’s perfectly possible that God’s will is to have us not fight abortion given certain circumstances. Indeed, given the circumstances (which happen to always exist) we should tolerate foreign religions which is a much worse evil than tolerating abortion.
F
fakename
Guest
Don’t leave me hangin’…Is this a response to the first or second parts of my post?
Under the suspicion that it is a reply to the second, is the first part true?
R
robwar
Guest
To accept a law that keeps certain forms of abortion legal while greatly limiting others that are currently legal can be evaluated in light of the Church’s teachings on cooperating with evil – direct/indirect and material cooperation vs. remote cooperation, etc.
So if we cannot convince everyone that abortion is always wrong, it may be permissible to grudgingly accept small steps in the right direction. Maybe someone else can go deeper into how the “cooperation” ideas apply to the OP’s question./QUOTE
the one arguement the convinced me many many years ago to become prolife was the point that abortion is wrong in every case. you do not have to moral right to kill someone because they were conceived by rape. not only do you punish the mother twice but you are taking a life created by God, even if it is under the worse situation such as rape. We are only deceiving ourselves if we think or go down the road that we need to compromise in abortion. a little poison or evil will poison the whole well. you will not win over others to prolife by compromise. standing strong and for truth will.
B
Bradski
Guest
There is a direct correlation between sex education and teenage pregnancies. Not just in Texas and not just in the US but worldwide. The more sex education that is available to teenagers, the less pregnancies.Not very definitive.Human behavior is rarely, if ever, a signal factor response. Do any of these studies demonstrate causality?
M
mytruepower2
Guest
I don’t know -any- actual people involved in the pro-life movement who see it the way you describe. Pro-lifers protect children by making convincing statements, explaining their case well, and at times, convincing women out of making bad decisions on the very doorstep of a clinic. Being pro-life is about believing that God’s teachings on the value of human life are morally-binding on everyone, but if you think people need to seize power in order to do the will of God, you’re fooling yourself. Jesus never said -anything- like that.(1) Of course it’s a grab for power, for how else can we protect people through laws except by means of power? and how else does one get power except through the art of the possible? And anyways, the question doesn’t have an obvious answer for we see that people legitimately compromise with evil all the time and in ways that are not obvious: for instance people are allowed to omit laws against murder and are also allowed to buy (on sufficient reasons) products that use aborted fetal cells.
(2) Holy writ doesn’t interpret itself; the mere quoting of a text which simply asserts that one should do God’s Will already assumes that God’s will is to literally always fight against abortion. That’s just circular reasoning. After all it’s perfectly possible that God’s will is to have us not fight abortion given certain circumstances. Indeed, given the circumstances (which happen to always exist) we should tolerate foreign religions which is a much worse evil than tolerating abortion.
As for the interpretation of Holy Scripture, I think the Catholic Church has done a fine job in that respect, saying that abortion is one of the greatest sins, and must never, under any circumstances, be allowed. So clearly, you’re wrong that backing off from it is God’s will.
M
mytruepower2
Guest
Mind citing a source for this claim?There is a direct correlation between sex education and teenage pregnancies. Not just in Texas and not just in the US but worldwide. The more sex education that is available to teenagers, the less pregnancies.
M
Moore11
Guest
I would think it would be the opposite. Sex “education” Seems to be the opposite as it usually gives teens the idea that sex does not have to have consequences. Because the education you mean usually involves the false promise of birth “control” which in reality involves far more unintended pregnancies than before!There is a direct correlation between sex education and teenage pregnancies. Not just in Texas and not just in the US but worldwide. The more sex education that is available to teenagers, the less pregnancies.
More sex “education” = more abortions.
S
surritter
Guest
surritter;9485180:
It’s true that all abortion is evil, but when dealing with those who refuse to reject all evil, we can tolerate imperfect laws, which is not the same as a compromise.To accept a law that keeps certain forms of abortion legal while greatly limiting others that are currently legal can be evaluated in light of the Church’s teachings on cooperating with evil – direct/indirect and material cooperation vs. remote cooperation, etc.
So if we cannot convince everyone that abortion is always wrong, it may be permissible to grudgingly accept small steps in the right direction. Maybe someone else can go deeper into how the “cooperation” ideas apply to the OP’s question.
So regarding your last sentece, John Paul II disagrees with you. The Church teaches that we can never directly do an evil act, but we sometimes have to indirectly tolerate an immoral act if there is proportionate good act.
Read “Evangelium Vitae,” paragraph 73.
S
surritter
Guest
It’s true that all abortion is evil, but when dealing with those who refuse to reject all evil, we can tolerate imperfect laws, which is not the same as a compromise.The one arguement the convinced me many many years ago to become prolife was the point that abortion is wrong in every case. you do not have to moral right to kill someone because they were conceived by rape. not only do you punish the mother twice but you are taking a life created by God, even if it is under the worse situation such as rape. We are only deceiving ourselves if we think or go down the road that we need to compromise in abortion. a little poison or evil will poison the whole well. you will not win over others to prolife by compromise. standing strong and for truth will.
So regarding your last sentece, John Paul II disagrees with you. The Church teaches that we can never directly do an evil act, but we sometimes have to indirectly tolerate an immoral act if there is proportionate good that comes along with it.
Read “Evangelium Vitae,” paragraph 73.
F
fakename
Guest
Well even the pastoral document for voter’s conscience, which outlines the “non-negotiables”, accepts that if abortion cannot be prohibited in all cases, then at least in some cases it can be permitted (for instance here politicalresponsibility.com/voterguide.htm). But I’m asking if there are even more scenarios where this is true, testing the principle to see if I interpreted correctly.I don’t know -any- actual people involved in the pro-life movement who see it the way you describe. Pro-lifers protect children by making convincing statements, explaining their case well, and at times, convincing women out of making bad decisions on the very doorstep of a clinic. Being pro-life is about believing that God’s teachings on the value of human life are morally-binding on everyone, but if you think people need to seize power in order to do the will of God, you’re fooling yourself. Jesus never said -anything- like that.
As for the interpretation of Holy Scripture, I think the Catholic Church has done a fine job in that respect, saying that abortion is one of the greatest sins, and must never, under any circumstances, be allowed. So clearly, you’re wrong that backing off from it is God’s will.
S
surritter
Guest
The whole notion of “just war theory” in Catholic teaching is based on a similar premise.I’m asking if there are even more scenarios where this is true, testing the principle to see if I interpreted correctly.
D
davidv
Guest
Correlation does not equal causation. The promiscuity that results from the lie of “safe sex” more the outweighs the incidence of conception in relationship where no such safety is promised.There is a direct correlation between sex education and teenage pregnancies. Not just in Texas and not just in the US but worldwide. The more sex education that is available to teenagers, the less pregnancies.
D
davidv
Guest
I have nothing to add.Don’t leave me hangin’…
- Status
- Not open for further replies.