W
Worthy5
Guest
Yes I agree.
- Status
W
Worthy5
Guest
No it does not, the pro-choice position based on limited govt has nothing to say about tax dollars for abortion clinics. The pro-choice position is not asking a law to be enforce requiring real costs like the pro-life position is taking.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Okay guys, confession, this poster is pro-life. But to really understand the issue you have to be able to argue both sides. And the Pro-choice position based on limited govt and privacy has a legitimate argument. As far as the above, here is your hurdle. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1973:
“This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (underline added)
Thus, the Court thought that the costs was too high—the cost to liberty and privacy. In its view, it is the women’s duty to protect that life, at least early on, and not society’s.
J
jmcrae
Guest
So then, how does the fact that she is still in her mother’s womb mean that people would lose their human rights, if it were illegal to kill her?
B
Benadam
Guest
ok. The duty to protect the babies life is the right to end it as well? I also have issue with that duty being the womans in an absolute sense.
hehe that was pretty good. You hung in there pretty good as pro-choice
S
SteveGC
Guest
Wow. So you’ve been playing devil’s advocate all along? Will be interesting to see the reaction you’ll get here. As for me, that’s cool…
I still don’t see the problem debating this issue of limited govt with pro-choice crowds. Look, it always will be the duty of the parents (not just the woman, btw) to protect the life of the baby inside mom, from the point of conception onward. IOW, it is their duty to choose life, to conduct themselves within objective morality. And this is the duty of ALL of us…to conduct ourselves morally, to protect one another within all practical means. But that duty can, and should, be supplemented by our govt through comprehensive legislation…
who cares what Blackmun declared in 73…he’s a moron, with no moral fiber. Not that that opinion will win me any ground with pro-choicers, but I couldn’t care less what he and the Court decided was “best”. It WASN’T the best…it was the WORST decision they could’ve concluded…they lost sight of morality in legislation, all for the sake of this altered, distorted version of liberty and privacy. Bottom line, it is a weak argument to claim that legislation which protects life from conception to natural death will threaten our nation with autocracy. It is simply an alarmist tactic to scare pro-lifers into backing down.
…and I’m not compelled by any argument about overloaded prisons and more tax dollars. If someone comes to me arguing that, I will tell them they are cowards with a defeatist mentality, who value their own comfort and treasure more than the life of a defenseless baby…that’s the truth.
C
Caramel
Guest
I agree with most of what you say here, but as a biologist I have to disagree with “scientifically proven.” In science, at least in the life sciences, nothing can be proven. That is a given in scientific work. Nothing is proven. Data can be presented which have a significant correlation with other data. But there is always the possibility (although it may be extremely small) that the results are obtained by chance.
That’s the way it should be in science. There are no facts in science - just levels of significance. However, how much evidence does one need to accept what you have stated as “proven scientifically?” Sometimes the evidence is so clear, as it is with what happens with conception, that it is as close to a *fact * as it can be.
So, although I will admit there is no scientific proof (simply because there can’t be, I accept that a new human being is formed at conception.
Just trying to keep things clear…
J
jmcrae
Guest
Okay. I will amend my statement to say "The scientific data available to us today indicates that … "
E
edwest2
Guest
Hello. Where is the man? In the case of consensual sex, Where is the man? Just gets to walk away? Not responsible?
Forget about government for a minute and think about the child.
Peace,
Ed
Forget about government for a minute and think about the child.
Peace,
Ed
C
Caramel
Guest
Yes, where is the man? It takes two to produce a child (although neither could do it without God’s help.) Why doesn’t the father get to choose? Shouldn’t he at least have a say in what happens?
C
Caramel
Guest
Cool!! And it most definitely does!!Okay. I will amend my statement to say "The scientific data available to us today indicates that … "
C
Caramel
Guest
I doubt you’ll see much reaction as he already admitted it in the last thread…
Z
zamboni
Guest
What I find in 2271 is that “God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.”
It makes sense to me that if men were to accept this responsibility before contraception needs develop, obviously there would then be a lot less need to debate whether contraception and abortion services should be legally available. It seems clear that men have the power to turn the abortion issue around on a dime, or at least make the biggest dent in the problem, just by accepting 2271 responsibility from the moment of conception… which I understand to mean before or no later than during sex, or at least not after it becomes too late to make a “worthy” decision. Otherwise, what does the responsibility of men consist of? Are we just supposed to prevent women who are living in unsafeguarded conditions from being able to legally choose abortion, and then go play golf?
Z
zamboni
Guest
While I did say that the “Catholic Church should remain pro-life in order to show civilization how life would ideally be respected in a perfect world,” I did not say utopia or bust, as you suggest. I said I will remain pro-choice “until such time as an adequately safe and secure world is created by men — according to 2271 of Church Catechism.”OK let me get this straight. You are willing to allow the killing of the unborn in our society until we get to live in a utopia, which we cannot possible get to with the killing of the unborn. How do you expect this “perfect world where life will be respected” to come about if people continue to let this killing continue?
Z
zamboni
Guest
I appreciate how this response appears to advocate choosing the path of the least resistance. I am usually the first one to say that the easy way is at least worth a test drive or, some kind of dry run.
Z
zamboni
Guest
I have no desire to be at odds with central Church teaching, I just don’t expect garden perfection in a fallen world. I expect an uphill battle, like Vimy Ridge: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vimy_ridge
G
gakroeger
Guest
Thanks zamboni, this certain helps me understand how the rationalizing mind of a “pro choice” Catholic works. I have seen people pull words from a statement and use them out of context before; however, this has got to be the best example of it I have ever seen. You completely miss the whole message in 2271 and pull out one sentence and give it a meaning which is totally opposite of its intention.
Let me ask another question, when you posted this originally as 2271 supports your interpretation without the specific sentence you quote, did you honestly think anyone (even pro-choice Catholics) would come to the same conclusion?
I think you need to take estesbob’s advice and ask yourself, “Does your faith form your politics or does your politics form your faith?” In any case IMHO you need to delve deeper into the tragedy of abortion.
W
Worthy5
Guest
Come now Caramel; have to keep you on your toes. :dancing:
Z
zamboni
Guest
It’s a little hard to tell what the “H” in your IMHO would stand for when your response seems to lack a honest question, while also neglecting to mention the interpretation you must prefer of 2271. Your response does not say when you think a man’s responsibility for conception begins either, even though you apparently don’t like my opinion very much. It would have been useful to know which aspects of the tragedy of abortion that you think I need to “delve deeper into”, also, so I would have no particular objection to a response from you with something deeper to delve into.
G
gakroeger
Guest
If you have been following this thread I don’t think you could have any question about my position. If you do still have questions, then read the Catechism, it is exactly where I stand. However, you must read the entire statements and not try to parse the words you like and ignore the rest. The statements from the Catechism when taken in their entirely are very clear and difficult to misinterpret, you must force yourself to misinterpret what is stated there.
You seem to like most “pro choice” Catholics like to break things like abortion down into little pieces so you can find one piece that will support your politics. When I say you need to delve deeper into the tragedy of abortion, I mean you need to understand what it really is in its entirely; how it effects not only the baby whose life was taken, but also the social impact on the Mother, Father, family members, and society in general. Please read the quote from Mother Teresa below, this is the only reason abortion exists, for the convenience of others.
Although I have no idea what your point is about the father, the answer to your question is the father has equal responsibility with the mother.
- Status