Yes, it is too much power, and history has shown that to be true. It is govt power that has violated more individual rights over time. Your desire to ignore that does not change it but does show your ignorance of history.Yes, a law protecting the individual’s right to live will threaten individual rights. It’s too much power for our evil government to be entrusted with.
Where historically do we learn, or see precedence, that using govt to protect all life of all persons has given said govt too much power, such that it uses that comprehensive life protection legislation as a catalyst to evolve into some sort of autocracy which violates individual rights? Like Benadam, I likewise am ignorant of the history of that reality. Could you enlighten?Yes, it is too much power, and history has shown that to be true. It is govt power that has violated more individual rights over time. Your desire to ignore that does not change it but does show your ignorance of history.
Come on guys, you are really not being this difficult are you? If you want to be pro-life supporting putting a whole new class of criminals in jail then fine----I am sure the local prosecutors who get paid about 40K a year and work 60 hours weeks will be more than happy to have the extra workload.
I agree. Why should the church try to appease a group that killed 13 women with Ru 486? These people are evil pure and simple. I don’t even think that pro choice is waht most abortion doctors call them selves. They admit they’re pro abortion if you listen to them. Pro choice is a sham of a term.
It’s not a “whole new class of criminals.” Abortion was illegal before, and somehow, the justice system managed to handle the workload.
If the historical evidence is so significant, why do you delay in producing the evidence?Come on guys, you are really not being this difficult are you? If you want to be pro-life supporting putting a whole new class of criminals in jail then fine----I am sure the local prosecutors who get paid about 40K a year and work 60 hours weeks will be more than happy to have the extra workload.
The idea that you cannot see the importance of the concept of limited government has in the founding of this country is a little much. And that you need me to name examples in history of displays of autocratic centralized power is a little much too.
You do not have to agree with the Pro-choice position on limiting govt power—reasonable people can disagree—but to not recognize it as a legitimate position is too much. If it is so unreasonable—why then have a number of supreme court justices have either voted in the Roe case or have since re-affirmed its core holding despite some of its unworkable framework. Do you think Sandra Day O’Connor is an unreasonable person? True, there is the value of precedent–but the Court is a deliberative body.
This is the first issue with pro-choice Catholics, if they don’t adhere to the teachings of the Catechism, you simply do not adhere to the teachings of the Church which makes them Cafeteria–Catholics or simply not Catholic at all.
I don’t know if you agree with this view, but I’ll ask you since you seem to know. Just when, exactly, does the embryo ‘become’ human if not at conception?
I have to disagree with this statement. It is provable from Scripture and history that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and is infallible when teaching definitively on a subject touching faith and/or morals. The Church has declared that an embryo is human and that abortion is wrong, no further proof needed.
It has been scientifically proven that initial cell that comes into being at the moment of conception contains 26 human alleles (DNA strands) - 13 from its mother, and 13 from its father. These are the same 26 strands of DNA that that person will have right up to the moment of death and beyond, possibly even to eternity (since apparently scientists have found DNA from creatures that became extinct many millions of years ago.)Well, it seems pretty obvious that if you conform to the Catechism that you cannot be pro-choice.
You cannot take away the biological argument and still have a debate. Those who are pro-choice fundamentally disagree with Catechism 2270.
“Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”
In addition, the CC also does not have any proof that an embryo is human from conception. The CC believes it and has very good reasons for believing it but there is no actual proof.
This is where the discuss would need to start, IMHO.
Nice post.
.
Not the point, the fetus is not like born people is it? It is life, but it, unlike your example, is inside another person.Did that happen when it became illegal to kill black people?
That person has the duty. To usurp that is autocratic. Power itself and those who wield it, become corrupt, and abuse it. 
It is significant, because it is not the aim that is the point my friend, it is the means by which such ends are attempted to be achieved----that is the power issue. And if you cannot figure out where centralized power got out of hand in history then there really is no point to further discuss. But this poster is not going into the history of those regimes.
And YOU can pay for MY share of the taxes to build new abortion clinics . . .
So you think newborn babies are not dependent on their parents yet? I don’t see any real difference between an unborn baby and that same baby the day after it’s born . . .Not the point, the fetus is not like born people is it? It is life, but it, unlike your example, is inside another person.
Sorry, I’m not quite sure what ‘ends’ you’re referring to, I guess I missed that!
not by protecting an individual’s right to live it hasn’t. Ever.
Diverting the issue. Arguing a pro-choice position based on a limited govt concern does not also mean a support for tax dollars to build an abortion clinic.=zach dunn;5941680]And YOU can pay for MY share of the taxes to build new abortion clinics . . .
I
Well it no longer is inside the women, and who said anything about allowing late term abortions.don’t see any real difference between an unborn baby and that same baby the day after it’s born . . .
Not the point, did you read what was said? It is not the aim that is the issue, but the means that are employed.
Yes, “it” (she) is. She’s a human person, just like you, with feelings just like yours. She feels fear and pain when she is killed, and asks God “Why?” just like you would.
I wasn’t diverting the issue, I simply showed you your reasoning goes both ways.Diverting the issue. Arguing a pro-choice position based on a limited govt concern does not also mean a support for tax dollars to build an abortion clinic.
I read what you said and thought you meant that the parent “has the duty” to take care of the child while it is still in the whom, it was kind of ambiguous, do you care to elaborate?
Why is the fact that it is still inside the woman mean it is OK to kill it? I never said anything about allowing late term abortions, I just said there is no essential difference between the two.Well it no longer is inside the women, and who said anything about allowing late term abortions.
I read that. It means little unless you can offer a reason to believe that protecting the right to live will lead to this. Since you are advocating that individual huan beings are worth the sacrifice for this I think it must be a very ineviteable and grave danger we are facing if we pass this law. How does the outcome outweigh the cost here?