The pro-life common sense clincher

[fix]

Thank you for that perspective. I’ve been trying to say the same thing on this forum for a couple years now. Persuasion to not have an abortion is not achieved by smart slogans or angry rhetoric but by helping people to a place where they appreciate that ALL life is worth living: theirs, the unborn, everyone’s. Demonizing people, some of whom don’t even appreciate the value of* their own lives*, is certainly not the way to do it. Neither is a “big stick of the law” approach likely to get very much achieved. Some keep looking for a quick fix nevertheless.

Too many straw men here. The Church does more, than anyone, in terms of helping the poor. The dismissal of changing the law seems to be based more on a misunderstanding of freedom and rights then about complaining more needs to be done for unwed mothers.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

fix
*
For good, and ill, people form their consciences by looking to things like the civil law. Eclecticism, aside, people think that if it is legal it must be acceptable. *

You have a point here. Most people are lazy intellectually and would like other people to think out their values for them. Even when the natural law kicks in and they confront something as horrendous as abortion, they prefer to let someone else (the Courts for example) shoulder the responsibility of making controversial decisions. After all, for most people an abortion only concerns some anonymous Jane Doe’s baby. Because they have never seen an abortion, and certainly don’t intend to see one, they can wear blinders that hide reality from them.

On the other hand, if the government tried to reinstitute the draft during war time, you can imagine how many citizens would suddenly get interested and militantly oppose the “killing of our teen age children.”

Part of the great tragedy of legalized abortion is that these babies have no one to defend them … at least 50 million children have not been defended from the butcher’s knife since roe v Wade. Billions of dollars have been made by the merchants of death. The whole industry seems very much to me like an extension of organized crime.

apnews.myway.com/article/20100224/D9E28RNO0.html

 

[Worthy5]

Charlemagne II;6330921]fix

they prefer to let someone else (the Courts for example) shoulder the responsibility of making controversial decisions.

That is what the authority of the courts are for--------or do you think otherwise?

 

[Username202020]

What if (and I knw this isnt the case in the majority of abortions, but it is something that troubles me) the mother’s life is at risk by having the baby, or even both lives are at risk?

I’m not sure how I feel about potential life and souls vs. the present, which I think is really what a lot of pro-choice people differ on opinions in from pro-lifers - If I don’t believe the potential life is as important as an already developed life, then I’m looking at first an unconscious grouping of cells, or a foetus which is human, certainly, but has only developed to the point of an animal, or not even that at early stages.

According to the Baltimore Catechism, “one must not take an innocent life, even in the case of a baby endangering the life of another.”

No comment. Just posting a direct quote from my Catechism.

 

[seekerz]

seekerz

Thank you for that perspective. I’ve been trying to say the same thing on this forum for a couple years now. Persuasion to not have an abortion is not achieved by smart slogans or angry rhetoric but by helping people to a place where they appreciate that ALL life is worth living: theirs, the unborn, everyone’s. Demonizing people, some of whom don’t even appreciate the value of their own lives, is certainly not the way to do it. Neither is a “big stick of the law” approach likely to get very much achieved. Some keep looking for a quick fix nevertheless.

It is really **depressing to me **that so many Catholics are pro-choice; that so many Catholics will march against war and the death penalty, but will not move their tongues against the butchers of babies. Are they getting this pro-choice view from inside the Church or from outside the Church or from both?

English philosopher Edmund Burke said, “The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.”

---

Did something in my post depress you? You know what depresses me? The knee-jerk ability of too many Catholics to label as pro-choice, everyone who doesn’t see the issue of abortion exactly their way. Labelling produces enemies out of thin air and digs the opposition deeper into their trenches but if it feels good, by all means…

 

[seekerz]

Too many straw men here. The Church does more, than anyone, in terms of helping the poor. The dismissal of changing the law seems to be based more on a misunderstanding of freedom and rights then about complaining more needs to be done for unwed mothers.

Straw men indeed, who refuse to see the multiple types of poverty that exist in our society. Mother Teresa saw the non-financial type and was saddened by it.

I suppose these days political/legal action can fix anything, spiritual malaise, moral decay, family breakdown…Just get the government to appoint pro-life judges - then have them keep their noses out of our lives!

 

[exoflare]

I like how you criticize strawmen, right before using one yourself.

I suppose these days political/legal action can fix anything, spiritual malaise, moral decay, family breakdown…Just get the government to appoint pro-life judges - then have them keep their noses out of our lives!

 

[seekerz]

I like how you criticize strawmen, right before using one yourself.

Straw: haven’t you heard? Its green (ecologically speaking), cool, chic and endlessly recyclable!

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Worthy5

*That is what the authority of the courts are for--------or do you think otherwise? *

The responsibility of the courts is to insure Justice. That’s why they are called Justices.

What JUstice have they given to 50 million slaughtered babies since Roe v Wade?

Not much, I’d say.

The Supreme Court is not like the Catholic Church, It can err, and it can err hugely. And our consitutional system allows the people to change the Court, and thereby correct the error. The authority of the courts is subservient to the authority of the people, who created the courts. But the people cannot change the courts if they are satisfied to let the Courts carry on with business as usual.

The best way to let that happen is for good men to do nothing. Some posters in this forum, including Catholics, seem willing to let pro-choice prevail; seem willing to argue that we mustn’t presume to judge. That is the job of the judges.

It’s a good thing for us the Founders didn’t take that attitude toward King George. They saw the error of England’s way of governing … and they were man enough to change the government.

The slaughter of the babies will never stop until men and women are man and woman enough to cry … “Enough!”

 

[seekerz]

Worthy5

*That is what the authority of the courts are for--------or do you think otherwise? *

The responsibility of the courts is to insure Justice. That’s why they are called Justices.

What JUstice have they given to 50 million slaughtered babies since Roe v Wade?

Not much, I’d say.

The Supreme Court is not like the Catholic Church, It can err, and it can err hugely. And our consitutional system allows the people to change the Court, and thereby correct the error. The authority of the courts is subservient to the authority of the people, who created the courts. But the people cannot change the courts if they are satisfied to let the Courts carry on with business as usual.

The best way to let that happen is for good men to do nothing. Some posters in this forum, including Catholics, seem willing to let pro-choice prevail; seem willing to argue that we mustn’t presume to judge. That is the job of the judges.

It’s a good thing for us the Founders didn’t take that attitude toward King George. They saw the error of England’s way of governing … and they were man enough to change the government.

The slaughter of the babies will never stop until men and women are man and woman enough to cry … “Enough!”

But when will that cry come? Could it possibly be when those who don’t know the value of life learn it from those of us who do…

This is very much a values issue but not in the conventional way of thinking. At every level that abortion is accepted, promoted, tolerated or proposed as a way out, there is someone who fails to appreciate the value of life - often someone in authority: a doctor, a clinic staffer, some parents, a politician, a judge…

They may give a million reasons: women’s rights, rape, health of mother, financial hardhip…to justify their stance, but what they are actually doing is according more value to some aspect of life than to life itself (baby’s or mother’s). In a society where too many measure their worth by how much they can earn, accumulate or afford to spend, it isn’t difficult to see why.

An appreciation of life’s value, similar (but not equivalent) to the appreciation of fine art, has to be cultivated through instruction and exposure. There is no instant fix.

The law may point to what is right but only through persuasion will someone accept that it is so and comply. With a private medical issue such as this, compliance is key to actually abolishing the practice.

 

[seekerz]

Worthy5

*That is what the authority of the courts are for--------or do you think otherwise? *

The responsibility of the courts is to insure Justice. That’s why they are called Justices.

What JUstice have they given to 50 million slaughtered babies since Roe v Wade?

Not much, I’d say.

The Supreme Court is not like the Catholic Church, It can err, and it can err hugely. And our consitutional system allows the people to change the Court, and thereby correct the error. The authority of the courts is subservient to the authority of the people, who created the courts. But the people cannot change the courts if they are satisfied to let the Courts carry on with business as usual.

The best way to let that happen is for good men to do nothing. Some posters in this forum, including Catholics, seem willing to let pro-choice prevail; seem willing to argue that we mustn’t presume to judge. That is the job of the judges.

It’s a good thing for us the Founders didn’t take that attitude toward King George. They saw the error of England’s way of governing … and they were man enough to change the government.

The slaughter of the babies will never stop until men and women are man and woman enough to cry … “Enough!”

But when will that cry come? Could it possibly be when those who don’t know the value of life learn it from those of us who do…

This is very much a values issue. At every level that abortion is accepted, promoted, tolerated or proposed as a way out, there is someone who fails to appreciate the value of life - often someone in authority: a doctor, a clinic staffer, some parents, a politician, a judge…

They may give a million reasons: uncertainty about when life begins, women’s rights, financial hardship etc…to justify their stance, but what they are actually doing is according more value to some aspect of life than to life itself (baby’s or mother’s). In a society where too many measure their worth by how much they can earn, accumulate or afford to spend, it isn’t difficult to see why.

An appreciation of life’s value, similar (but not equivalent) to the appreciation of fine art, has to be cultivated through instruction and exposure. There is no instant fix.

The law may point to what is right but with a private medical issue such as this, compliance is key to actually abolishing the practice. On the other hand, one who appreciates the value of life does not need a law forbidding its destruction.

 

[exoflare]

The bottom line is that all those who make excuses for why laws against abortion don’t matter should ask themselves whether they think all other murder laws in place don’t matter. Anyone who would object to a repeal of any and all anti-homicide laws currently on the books, and yet is indifferent to the enaction of anti-abortion laws, is a hypocrite. At least they are if they agree that human life begins at conception.

Could you imagine how ridiculous it would sound if all of this phony nuance and obfuscation was being applied to any other type of murder, besides abortion? What would be your reaction if they suddenly legalized every other possible kind of manslaughter and wanton bloodshed you could possibly think of, and somebody told you that it didn’t matter anyway because:

“one who appreciates the value of life does not need a law forbidding its destruction”

 

[seekerz]

The bottom line is that all those who make excuses for why laws against abortion don’t matter should ask themselves whether they think all other murder laws in place don’t matter. Anyone who would object to a repeal of any and all anti-homicide laws currently on the books, and yet is indifferent to the enaction of anti-abortion laws, is a hypocrite. At least they are if they agree that human life begins at conception.

Could you imagine how ridiculous it would sound if all of this phony nuance and obfuscation was being applied to any other type of murder, besides abortion? What would be your reaction if they suddenly legalized every other possible kind of manslaughter and wanton bloodshed you could possibly think of, and somebody told you that it didn’t matter anyway because:

“one who appreciates the value of life does not need a law forbidding its destruction”

I’m not saying the law isn’t needed for society, but not for those who truly value life. What does that have to do with removing any existing laws? There exists no law against abortion at this time. Whether or not one is instituted, if people respect life they won’t have abortions. What’s the problem with the truth?

Abortion is different not because morality is different when the victim is unborn but because the law (and significant public opinion) is. I will never tire of pointing out that even pro-life people are split into those who would outlaw absolutely all abortion and those who would allow exemptions for rape/incest/mother’s health…exemptions such as exist in countries where there might as well be no legal restrictions for all the good they do. A law against abortion is desirable - it is far from a magic bullet.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Did something in my post depress you? You know what depresses me? The knee-jerk ability of too many Catholics to label as pro-choice, everyone who doesn’t see the issue of abortion exactly their way. Labelling produces enemies out of thin air and digs the opposition deeper into their trenches but if it feels good, by all means…

I agree totally:thumbsup:

 

[Spirithound]

So 20 or 21 people die instead of just one?

Doing nothing seems to be the least acceptable answer. More acceptable: get in the line of fire, and negotiate until you no longer can. Also acceptable: take the gun and shoot as many of the bandits as possible. Starting with the leader.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doing nothing seems to be the least acceptable answer. More acceptable: get in the line of fire, and negotiate until you no longer can. Also acceptable: take the gun and shoot as many of the bandits as possible. Starting with the leader.

You’re missing the point of the exercise.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Pretty hard to teach people that killing is wrong when the state endorses it. The law is a teacher.

Is the law meant to have a moral content?
Can we and should we try to make people moral through laws? That’s the sharia approach. Should we make adultery illegal? If not, why not?

Hart the most notable positivist jurist, stated that there is no necessary moral content to the law. The decision whether or not to break the law isn’t necessarily a moral decision.

 

[Spirithound]

You’re missing the point of the exercise.

Can you elaborate on that? You know we’re both interested in formal arguments, not rhetoric, and especially not silly comebacks.

Isn’t the point of a thought experiment to come up with an answer (and thereby lay out one’s moral system)? Or is it the case that in your world there are no answers? Are you upset that I am proffering the teaching of Cardinal Newman as truth? I can try to find a similar quote from St. Thomas Aquinas if you’d like (actually, I’ll do this anyways).

Or are you inappreciative of the fact that I am taking a path which will almost certainly guarantee my death? This life is much less important than the next, you know.

Or have I violated the constraints of the thought experiment? I haven’t, you know. You can specify the likely outcome of my choice, but as a free agent, it is still my choice to make.

Peace

 

[Spirithound]

Is the law meant to have a moral content?
Can we and should we try to make people moral through laws? That’s the sharia approach. Should we make adultery illegal? If not, why not?

Yes, at least part of the law must be based in morality. It might not be my morality, but it is a morality.

The entire goal of the law is that people follow it. Insofar as the law constitutes a morality, and people follow it, they are being moral. That is not only the sharia approach. Adultery used to be illegal, and it should be again. It breaks a contract. Or is marriage no longer a legal contract?

 

[BobCatholic]

Well unlike other human beings, the foetus is not totally autonomous so it automatically impinges on the human rights of the mother.

Children are not totally autonomous post birth but yet we declare they have at least the right to life. Your argument can be used to support infanticide and murdering of children. Not sure if you’re going in that direction in your beliefs.

Also, the child cannot impinge on the human rights of the mother for the child did not choose to be in the womb - the mother made that decision for the child. I’m assuming you know where babies come from.

Are all human rights absolute? NO. Because my exercise of my human rights may infringe your human rights.

That’s false. At least one human right is absolute: the right to life.

If you are dead, you don’t have any other human rights. Period.

The dead have no right to speak, have no right to marry (not yet - but give the sextremists time), have no right to own property, and so on and so on.

No right to life = No rights period. The right to life is the basis of all other rights. When that right is gone, so are the others.

Abortion is the ultimate infringement of human rights against another - namely the rights of the child.