Should the government formulate anti-abortion laws?

[AlanFromWichita]

You are correct. It is semantics. I think you are getting hung up on the “all human life.” Taken strictly, that would mean no killing is allowed…at all, including self-defense, just war, etc. The Church does not teach this. However, you are free to believe and follow that maxim, if you like, in your personal life - complete pacifism.

EDIT ADD: BTW…you best rid yourself of fear if you are going to be a complete pacifist.

I think you summed it up well. Personally, I appreciate having a strong army because freedom isn’t free, and the whole purpose of an army is to kill people and break things. That’s why I’m working all this out with you folks; I don’t have a complete answer.

Alan

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think you summed it up well. Personally, I appreciate having a strong army because freedom isn’t free, and the whole purpose of an army is to kill people and break things. That’s why I’m working all this out with you folks; I don’t have a complete answer.

Alan

And the answer is the Church recognizes individual and collective self-defense as a right and even a duty (in the case of those obligated to protect others.) And while the Church sets forth standards (such as the Just War standard), it leaves the application of those standards to the prudential judgement of those charged with the responsibility for acting and protecting.

 

[hasikelee]

Why you save the rest of the people here time and just admit you are playing devil’s advocate at every turn because you don’t unilaterally oppose abortion? You aren’t truly seeking answers, but trying to prove your point, which is a wrong point to begin with.

Since it is obvious from your message history you aren’t going to change your opinion, however wrong it is, these threads really become a major waste of time.

I think ribo made a great point! I totally agree with him. It is great to see him oppose Roe v. Wade. Lots of people tend to stop before that point.

Ribozyme, do you lobby as well, or just debate?

 

[ribozyme]

I think ribo made a great point! I totally agree with him. It is great to see him oppose Roe v. Wade. Lots of people tend to stop before that point.

Ribozyme, do you lobby as well, or just debate?

I was being sarcastic in some of my posts. I wonder if an extreme antipathy towards the state can be reconciled with advocating the criminalization of abortion and I wanted to show how that is an inconsistent position. I think I should take a posting break and do something productive such as reading this…

Of course the former… but what if I dislike the notion of socialized assistance for the disabled and poor? Private charities are superior. I also loathe socialized law enforcement that prevents murder and theft and socialized medicine that provides the poor with a high quality of care too.

Why you save the rest of the people here time and just admit you are playing devil’s advocate at every turn because you don’t unilaterally oppose abortion? You aren’t truly seeking answers, but trying to prove your point, which is a wrong point to begin with.

Since it is obvious from your message history you aren’t going to change your opinion, however wrong it is, these threads really become a major waste of time.

That post was sarcasm… my response to that post was an acknowledge that I agreed with the magnanimous notion of the government providing support for those who cannot help themselves although my response was inebriated with sarcasm directed against people who do not support welfare programs.

We have to remember that not every birth is an unequivocal blessing as the children might have some conditions that pose challenges to parents. Some parents are unable to deal with these challenges as evidenced in this study. (www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/65500197/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0)

I maybe “tendentious” in some of my own opinions, but I have to realize that we are different people who rely on different modules in our morality.

Haidt argues that human morality is a cultural construction built on top of - and constrained by - a small set of evolved psychological systems. He presents evidence that political liberals rely primarily on two of these systems, involving emotional sensitivities to harm and fairness. Conservatives, however, construct their moral understandings on those two systems plus three others, which involve emotional sensitivities to in-group boundaries, authority and spiritual purity.

   "We all start off with the same evolved moral capacities," says Haidt, "but then we each learn only a subset of the available human virtues and values. We often end up demonizing people with different political ideologies because of our inability to appreciate the moral motives operating on the other side of a conflict. We are surrounded by moral conflicts, on the personal level, the national level and the international level. The recent scientific advances in moral psychology can help explain why these conflicts are so passionate and so intractable. An understanding of moral psychology can also point to some new ways to bridge these divides, to appeal to hearts and minds on both sides of a conflict."

ascribe.org/cgi-bin/behold.pl?ascribeid=20070516.140730&time=11%2000%

I count myself as a utilitarian, and utilitarianism does not rely on authority, purity, and in-group boundaries. In contrast, the moral systems prevalent here rely on those modules. These moral system will lead to different conclusions.

 

[hasikelee]

I was being sarcastic in some of my posts. I wonder if an extreme antipathy towards the state can be reconciled with advocating the criminalization of abortion and I wanted to show how that is an inconsistent position. I think I should take a posting break and do something productive such as reading this…

I know ribozyme, my post dealt with your sarcasm. In suggesting that the United States government shouldn’t be legislating morality, you are consistent with your own statements only if you completely oppose Roe v. Wade.

Good luck with your reading!