H
halogirl
Guest
Totally agree. But historically that’s what folk have done when you totally outlaw it
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.
G
Genesis315
Guest
Public authority exists to serve the common good. So the question is, what serves the common good more, tolerating or restricting abortion? (it can never be actively supported or encouraged)
The common good is defined as follows:
CCC
Restricting preserves the right to life and provides those born at least the opportunity to reach their temporal and spiritual fulfillment.
Therefore, suppressing it will better serve the common good.
The common good is defined as follows:
CCC
By definition, abortion causes a group of individuals to not be able to reach their fulfillment. The same individuals are deprived of peace and security and their fundamental right to life. It also destroys inflicts spiritual harm on those participating in it.1924 The common good comprises “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (GS 26 1).
1925 The common good consists of three essential elements: respect for and promotion of the fundamental rights of the person; prosperity, or the development of the spiritual and temporal goods of society; the peace and security of the group and of its members.
Restricting preserves the right to life and provides those born at least the opportunity to reach their temporal and spiritual fulfillment.
Therefore, suppressing it will better serve the common good.
E
Entwhistler
Guest
That is disgusting. Heaven help us.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
The culture of death does not stop after getting to a certain point. It gets to one point (which has been argued for as some sort of compassionate act) then after that has been achieved as law the push to get to the next step (increasingly extreme) down the line. And so it goes. Sadly it is not inconcievable, in the future that abortion and euthanasia may be considered by secular society as a moral good and a moral duty by citizens for the good of society.
Last edited:
S
somecanadian
Guest
I’m so late to this game but I didn’t want to start a new thread and I thought this could fit into this discussion.
When debating pro-choice advocates I’ve noticed they appeal to ideology, not scientific fact.
They argue a fetus isn’t human, despite the fact it has human DNA distinct from the mother.
If you point this out they respond with: OH NO! I guess when I cut my hair or clip my nails I’m killing babies!
Then they argue a fetus is just a clump of cells, despite the fact it has a beating heart at 4 weeks (what other clumps of cells has it’s own heartbeat???).
If you point this out, they just ignore it and scream: You can’t be pro-life if you hate black babies! What???
Then they argue that a baby is a parasite and has no right to live since it relies solely on the mother, despite the fact ALL babies OUTSIDE the womb rely solely on other adults to care for them.
If you point this out, they argue that the adults caring for those babies CHOOSE to, therefore it’s different.
They argue that up until birth the mother has a right to end the life of the ‘baby’ because it’s HER womb, HER right, despite the fact the baby has it’s own body, it’s own heartbeat, it’s own distinct DNA and it’s own humanity.
If you point this out, they argue that since the baby isn’t cognitive it’s not really alive.
Is the pro-choice position really pro-science? Because from all I’ve seen it ignores science completely and relies entirely on ideology.
Should abortion be made illegal? Based on all we know about human development, knowing that a fetus is how human life begins… KNOWING that we don’t KNOW when cognitive thought begins… yes. It absolutely should be illegal.
And in this I am relying entirely on science, not ideologies or religious beliefs because I think it can be scientifically proven that a fetus is alive, human and we cannot determine at what point ‘personhood’ beings (scientifically) so obviously we must protect the origin of human life.
When debating pro-choice advocates I’ve noticed they appeal to ideology, not scientific fact.
They argue a fetus isn’t human, despite the fact it has human DNA distinct from the mother.
If you point this out they respond with: OH NO! I guess when I cut my hair or clip my nails I’m killing babies!
Then they argue a fetus is just a clump of cells, despite the fact it has a beating heart at 4 weeks (what other clumps of cells has it’s own heartbeat???).
If you point this out, they just ignore it and scream: You can’t be pro-life if you hate black babies! What???
Then they argue that a baby is a parasite and has no right to live since it relies solely on the mother, despite the fact ALL babies OUTSIDE the womb rely solely on other adults to care for them.
If you point this out, they argue that the adults caring for those babies CHOOSE to, therefore it’s different.
They argue that up until birth the mother has a right to end the life of the ‘baby’ because it’s HER womb, HER right, despite the fact the baby has it’s own body, it’s own heartbeat, it’s own distinct DNA and it’s own humanity.
If you point this out, they argue that since the baby isn’t cognitive it’s not really alive.
Is the pro-choice position really pro-science? Because from all I’ve seen it ignores science completely and relies entirely on ideology.
Should abortion be made illegal? Based on all we know about human development, knowing that a fetus is how human life begins… KNOWING that we don’t KNOW when cognitive thought begins… yes. It absolutely should be illegal.
And in this I am relying entirely on science, not ideologies or religious beliefs because I think it can be scientifically proven that a fetus is alive, human and we cannot determine at what point ‘personhood’ beings (scientifically) so obviously we must protect the origin of human life.
A
adamhovey1988
Guest
Yes, abortion should be illegal, including in cases of rape and incest. The child doesn’t stop being a child because of how they were conceived. Personally, I think it’s a cop-out when people call themselves pro-life, and then they put those caveats in it. Either abortion is always wrong, or it’s never wrong. I’m going with always
- Status
- Not open for further replies.