Should Abortion be illegal?

[Caesar517]

I think society has a role to play in ensuring certain basic levels of well-being for mothers and their children. I think that is what a civilized society does. I grew up in Norway, and mothers received pretty generous support, especially during the early years of child rearing.

Society =/= Government.

Just in case I missed something: does this seem un-Christian to you?

It seems un-Christian to me to shirk the responsibility of the individual (charity, in this case) on the government, who has proven that they cannot effectively do things that the U.S. Constitution does not give them the power to do (surprise, surprise).

And one last thing, Caesar. In case you haven’t noticed, we are the government.

That’s how it is meant to be, but it’s less and less true. Slowly, the politicians become the government and are further and further set apart from the rest of the population. This is the inevitable course for all human governments.

 

[JReducation]

I am sure it is in reference to the final judgment. I did not assume it was something Jesus expected to have happen right at that moment. It just seemed a little bloodthirsty to me.

All my best wishes,

Tor

If you were so sure of its meaning, then why did you post it? It sounds as if you’re trying to provoke or instigate on issues that you seem to agree with the rest of us. That makes no sense to me.

You don’t believe in abortion and yet your argue in favour of the legal right to an abortion.

You agree that man has not authority to authorize the killing of the innocent, but you post in that vein.

You did the research on the neural development of the fetus and you saw that the neural system begins after the 3rd week, when I had said at about the 4th week, and then you added other points that don’t support the idea of pro-abortionists that an embryo is vegetative. When your citation says that there is a developing nervous system from very early in the pregnancy.

What gives? Why are you making statements and then say that you really believe what others on this thread believe?

Look, you sound like a nice person; but I come to these threads with a pastoral mission, not to waste time. If you want to believe, please do so. If you don’t want to believe, state why you don’t believe and leave it at that.

I wish you luck and would be more than happy to further a friendship, if you’re interested. But my terms are very simple. I’m here for pastoral reasons, not entertainment, either mine or that of others.

You’re more than welcome to stay and debate with people who come to CAF for the sole purpose of debating and proving their point and those who want to convert others to their way of thinking by force. I prefer to bring others of God and his love through the use of reason, friendship, warmth, justice, charity, prayer, service and my knowledge of mystical theology and philosophy.

I’m not a scholar by any means, but have been well trained in the field.

God bless you!

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, Caesar, we don’t know that.

Come on now. With that kind of attitude, we won’t be able to discuss or conclude ANYTHING because hey, just because somebody SAID something, we don’t ‘know’ that he is telling the truth and he ‘really’ did. Just because he SAYS he did it on his own, we don’t KNOW that. However, WE can HINT or even outright state that the person was really ‘coerced’ somehow, though he says he was not, because ‘we don’t KNOW’.

Sheeshh.

 

[SFTor]

Of course not. That’s doesn’t seem to be the case in aspawloski4th story.

Let me rephrase that, as your meaning was that he or she sought out the material without assistance. In that case I would say that an adult guardian should have been on hand to deny access.

 

[SFTor]

Society =/= Government.

It seems un-Christian to me to shirk the responsibility of the individual (charity, in this case) on the government, who has proven that they cannot effectively do things that the U.S. Constitution does not give them the power to do (surprise, surprise).

That’s how it is meant to be, but it’s less and less true. Slowly, the politicians become the government and are further and further set apart from the rest of the population. This is the inevitable course for all human governments.

No, it isn’t true that human governments have to become increasingly removed from society. It is not the case in most countries. It may be happening in the United States because special interests (especially corporations) have obtained undue influence.

It’s our job to vote and make sure we have government by the people, of the people, and for the people. It’s not an empty slogan. It’s at the heart of what this country is all about.

I don’t understand where you have it from that government is unable to perform. Look at Medicare and Medicaid. They are far more effective than private health care organizations. Our private health care system now has 50 million people without insurance, 10 million children without insurance, and 50% of all bankruptcies being caused by medical costs for people who have health insurance. Does that work for you?

The only places in the world where you have effective health care with access to doctors for all is in countries that put the oft-reviled government on the job.

It seems to me that if we want to take care of children, then this is top priority. There are ten million of them, already born and breathing, who need our help. If charity is working so well, how come they don’t have something as basic as access to a doctor or a dentist?

Respectfully,

Tor

 

[Caesar517]

This is getting off topic. I am vehemently opposed to a nanny state for a variety of reasons. I suggest you read this thread in it’s entirety for a discussion on the matter.

 

[SFTor]

If you were so sure of its meaning, then why did you post it? It sounds as if you’re trying to provoke or instigate on issues that you seem to agree with the rest of us. That makes no sense to me.

You don’t believe in abortion and yet your argue in favour of the legal right to an abortion.

You agree that man has not authority to authorize the killing of the innocent, but you post in that vein.

You did the research on the neural development of the fetus and you saw that the neural system begins after the 3rd week, when I had said at about the 4th week, and then you added other points that don’t support the idea of pro-abortionists that an embryo is vegetative. When your citation says that there is a developing nervous system from very early in the pregnancy.

What gives? Why are you making statements and then say that you really believe what others on this thread believe?

Look, you sound like a nice person; but I come to these threads with a pastoral mission, not to waste time. If you want to believe, please do so. If you don’t want to believe, state why you don’t believe and leave it at that.

I wish you luck and would be more than happy to further a friendship, if you’re interested. But my terms are very simple. I’m here for pastoral reasons, not entertainment, either mine or that of others.

You’re more than welcome to stay and debate with people who come to CAF for the sole purpose of debating and proving their point and those who want to convert others to their way of thinking by force. I prefer to bring others of God and his love through the use of reason, friendship, warmth, justice, charity, prayer, service and my knowledge of mystical theology and philosophy.

I’m not a scholar by any means, but have been well trained in the field.

God bless you!

Fraternally,

JR

Hello JR:

I do not come here to convert anyone to my opinion. I don’t think I am right about anything.

One of the things I have done is to consider people’s statements to increase my own understanding. When people have made statements of fact, as you have on a couple of occasions, I have researched them. In one instance I found that your statement of a fully developed nervous system and brain at 4 weeks was in error. I think it is fair to post that. It was not a minor discrepancy. (The first primitive beginnings of a nervous system form after 3 weeks; the brain is not fully developed even at birth.)

You will undoubtedly have noticed that my position on abortion is ambiguous and even somewhat troubled. That is one reason for me to be here, to see what Catholics think. When I find opinions that I don’t feel hold water, I say so.

If this is a discussion forum I think I am in the right place. If doubt and dissent is unwelcome, I suppose I am not.

By the way, I think I have a stance on social responsibility that may be worth hearing for some participants. So if I have something I would like people to hear, that would be it.

Best,

Tor

 

[SFTor]

This is getting off topic. I am vehemently opposed to a nanny state for a variety of reasons. I suggest you read this thread in it’s entirety for a discussion on the matter.

I understand how you feel, and I agree it’s a whole other discussion. Let’s however not overlook that the two topics are connected.

Respectfully,

Tor

 

[JReducation]

Hello JR:

You will undoubtedly have noticed that my position on abortion is ambiguous and even somewhat troubled.

 

[SFTor]

Hello JR:

thank you for your kind words.

The situation is that I come from a very different background than most people here. I grew up in Norway. It is a liberal society. It allows abortion, but seeks to minimize the number of abortions through strong support of families and single mothers. In my mind I find the general social philosophy of the country caring, human, and consistent.

(Well, they gave the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore. I do think that was a bit of nonsense.)

During my years in the United States I have followed and engaged in the various social debates, and one area where I have spent some time in immersion is the debate about the “culture of death” vs the “culture of life” as it goes on in the United States.

What I often find in the “culture of life” is what is to me an apparently inconsistent mixture of attitudes. These people are mostly against abortion, mostly for the death penalty, and mostly against any kind of gun control, and very reluctant towards social programs to help the needy. And lastly, more supportive of the military and war.

Take the so-called liberals, aka the culture of death, and I find pretty much the opposite attitudes: mostly for abortion, mostly for gun control, mostly against the death penalty, and mostly for more social programs. And again, less supportive of the military and war.

It leaves me confused, and leads me to ask questions, as you have noticed. Mostly: how are the positions on each side internally consistent?

And if we admit that they are not, how is it that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers have gotten so good at holding conflicting ideas in their heads at the same time?

Best,

Tor

 

[SFTor]

I think it’s fair to state my position instead of only reacting with comments to other people’s positions:

I believe that women do not want to have abortions. There may be some women who make the decision lightly, but i believe it is a difficult, heart-wrenching and very personal decision for the vast majority.

Abortion is a solution to a problem. It may be a horrible solution, it may be the wrong solution, but it is done because it solves a problem.

These are some of the problems:

A woman may have been raped or subjected to incest. She may be pregnant from a partner on the other side of a social or ethnic divide, and may face social or family ostracism. She may be poor or destitute. She may be faced with domestic violence from the father. She may be married, and her husband is not the father. She may believe she is unfit to be a mother because she has a drug problem or is incapable to care for even herself. She can be deeply afraid of the future. She can be under family pressure to terminate the pregnancy for any number of reasons. The list goes on.

Many of these problems are not trivial, and it is not difficult to see how they could make a woman feel enormous pressure to terminate a pregnancy.

Perhaps some women use abortion as contraception. This could be so. I don’t know how many do. And I don’t think it’s right. Sexually active adults who are not seeking to have a child should use contraception for precisely this reason.

If we lived in a country with strong social networks and social programs to help those who are truly alone, there would be ways to reduce the number by providing help to pregnant women. This is the case in Norway (where I was born) where abortion numbers are declining, with a rising number of children carried to term.

Some people insist on abortion being illegal, while objecting to social programs to help pregnant and single mothers, or mothers who are under various forms of pressure in their lives (the “nanny state” argument). There is in my mind a certain one-sidedness to their stance.

“Solving” the aforementioned problems with an abortion is done in many cases because a woman cannot see another option. If we should choose to criminalize abortion without putting our money where our mouth is, and provide the kinds of help we know many women need, then we are, as far as I can tell, hypocrites.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Hi Tor(still awake…I have insomnia too)

Some people insist on abortion being illegal, while objecting to social programs to help pregnant and single mothers, or mothers who are under various forms of pressure in their lives (the “nanny state” argument). There is in my mind a certain one-sidedness to their stance

I can understand this line of thinking. The people that I know that are truly pro-life do all sorts of volunteer work for women who are in difficult situations. They offer counseling, they offer medical assistance. My own Ob/Gyn does work in a crisis pregnancy center. I know another woman who gave actual shelter in her home to a pregnant woman who had no other place to go.

I used to be “pro-choice” and feel the same way as you. But pro-life people do offer tangible solutions to pregnant women.

 

[SFTor]

Hi Tor(still awake…I have insomnia too)

I can understand this line of thinking. The people that I know that are truly pro-life do all sorts of volunteer work for women who are in difficult situations. They offer counseling, they offer medical assistance. My own Ob/Gyn does work in a crisis pregnancy center. I know another woman who gave actual shelter in her home to a pregnant woman who had no other place to go.

I used to be “pro-choice” and feel the same way as you. But pro-life people do offer tangible solutions to pregnant women.

Hi Sleepless Mary of the Gail:

I’m on the West Coast. I’m not officially sleepless for another two hours.

I honor everyone who does charitable work, and I believe it is very valuable. I also believe that the problem exists on a societal scale and needs solutions on the same scale. So there. I’m afraid it is at least partly a job for the guvmint, reviled as it may be.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

What do you think of some more government programs to support mothers with children, Deacon?

Where true need is present, I see nothing wrong with supporting mothers with children who need.it. Where I have problems morally and socially is those cases where a woman, unmarried has multiple children, by different fathers, and uses this as a source for welfare income. This totally removes the issue of personal responsibility, which is obviously also wrong.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B

 

[nannygirl]

Caesar:

I think society has a role to play in ensuring certain basic levels of well-being for mothers and their children. I think that is what a civilized society does. I grew up in Norway, and mothers received pretty generous support, especially during the early years of child rearing. Most industrialized societies provide such support with the exception of the United States.

Just in case I missed something: does this seem un-Christian to you?

And one last thing, Caesar. In case you haven’t noticed, we are the government.

Respectfully,

Tor

Shouldn’t fathers be the ones supporting their children? That would be the civilized thing to do.

 

[marietta]

nannygirl:

In a perfect world, all fathers would support, nurture, educate, and love their kids. We don’t live there.

Have you ever tried to pry money out of the account of a deadbeat dad? I have. Through telephone conversations, invoices, letters; through my attorney, through the courts. Multiple times. And not every deadbeat dad even has an “account”. Texas state government has become quite aggressive in its attempts to collect, jailing defaulters. Though I agree there should be a penalty for failure to support, how does it serve the kids if the father is sitting in jail?

Anyone have any suggestions? How do we compel fathers to support their children? And even deeper, *why must they be *compelled? Why do so many separated and divorced fathers feel their responsibilities toward their children end when their relationships with the mothers dissolve?

marietta

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why do so many separated and divorced fathers feel their responsibilities toward their children end when their relationships with the mothers dissolve?

This is a really good question. It is complex and it has complex answers. . . and, in a sense, no ‘definitive’ answer as the situations are different in individual cases.

One can argue that society plays a part (not the whole) in this. Some argue that because society has become so accepting of divorce that it makes it easier for men–and women–to divorce for grounds that would not have been accepted even 50 years ago. Some (not all) divorce because their ‘relationships dissolve’. . .but the relationships do not dissolve in a vacuum. We have brought up two generations now of people who think they are ‘entitled’ to have eternal happiness. At the first sign of not being ‘happy’, they leave what they consider the ‘reason’ for the unhappiness to pursue ‘what they’re entitled to’.

Again, with the acceptance of contraception/abortion, it is now considered the ‘woman’s problem.’ While we demand a changed role of women to foster an often false ‘equality’ --lauding the ‘working’ mothers and either ‘extolling’ the SAHM (provided she is ‘wealthy’ enough to ‘provide’ the children with all they want) or excoriating her (for not being ‘productive’ in society, for ‘sitting around’, etc.–it all depends on the situation)–when a marriage breaks up, the burden of care is almost automatically the woman’s. HIS standard of living will go up, hers will go down, in almost ALL cases. And that is if he provides. Many will not.

Some men think, “She has them, she can keep them. If I can’t see them 100%, I don’t have to do anything. Let HER do it” (punishing the woman.

Some think the same but rather than thinking they are punishing the wife, they think THEY (the husbands) are the ones being punished, and so they withhold what they can or run out because they don’t ‘have control’ over the family.

Some are reminded of their now -hated ex-wife in just looking at the children, and would rather stay away for good. I mean, their ‘feelings’ are more important than the children. A man’s got to look out for Number 1, y’know.

Some want to grasp the happiness ‘denied’ them. Kids are a millstone around the neck. They can ‘interfere’ with his looking for a new love. So adios.

These are just a few of the reasons. None of them, IMO, is a legitimate reason, but all of them exist, and have existed through time.

However it used to be that at least in our U.S. society in the last 100 years or so, that a man was considered ‘cowardly’ to abandon a family, and shiftless if he did not provide for them. Now. . .it is not so felt by many. And that does make a difference. Many men already feel emasculated and unimportant, and so they ‘live down’ to expectations, or try to ignore ‘old fashioned stuff’ and to concentrate on being hip, and ‘above that sort of thing’. They close their eyes to anything other than themselves, because they already feel bad about themselves and will try to seek any way to ‘inflate their esteem’. Right now, society encourages these poor men (and I do feel many are to be pitied) to be ‘manly’ by seizing what they want and ‘just doing it’. Society is complicit in this trend of male abandonment.

But in the end, the individual makes the choice, it is not made for him. And that choice is often tragically wrong, for him and for his family.

 

[mapleoak]

nannygirl:

In a perfect world, all fathers would support, nurture, educate, and love their kids. We don’t live there.

In a perfect world, children wouldn’t be conceived by people who do not wish to fulfill the obligations of the sacrament of Matrimony.

You sound like you are saying, “since we don’t live in a perfect world, we should help it become even more imperfect through legal murder.”

 

[Caesar517]

In a perfect world, children wouldn’t be conceived by people who do not wish to fulfill the obligations of the sacrament of Matrimony.

Much more accurate.

 

[aspawloski4th]

Aspawloski,

There’s a reason why we keep 11-year olds away from a lot of printed and filmed material in our society. Your mind at that time is considered too young and unformed to critically evaluate what you are seeing.

I’m not sure the experience has done you any favors.

Sincerely,

Tor

I was not your usual 11 yearold, I was a very tanacious and independent minded child. while my parents didnt steer me anywhere they knew what I was doinng the whole time. Im the oldest of 8 children> I can think of 2 siblings who this would of been much for at 11. if I would of been stopped by my parents I would of found a way sooner or later. Seing the truth never scared me. Sounds like to me you believe in a cookie cutter way of raisng childrem and maybe shouldn’t be, if you really believe what you said. Remember I had the smarts to embarass a speaker for planned parenthood on a broadcast that could be heard in the whole easter half if the United States, sounds like a kid who knew what he was doing to me. To this day that is still the proudest moment of my life.