D
DaddyLarry
Guest
I agree. However, abortion on demand advocates will simply say that only a clump of cells is destroyed and that children aren’t being killed. They are experts at disinformation.
- Status
W
Worthy5
Guest
exoflare;6377191]
God Bless
No.
No, where do you see that. In the process of outlining a strand of the Pro-choice position, it may appear as arguing what the law should be (of course that is what it is now), several post, even on this page, acknowledged that the Pro-life position is a reasonable position to maintain. The title of the OP—is the pro-life “clincher”—laying out the Pro-choice position disputes such " clincher" exist.
No, the only one with a red herring–is you. The current law, pro-choice, specifically Roe v Wade, is a legitmate place to go to understand why a " pro-life clincher" does not exist.
God Bless
E
exoflare
Guest
You mentioned it at the end of page 55. Anyway if you’re going to keep contradicting yourself like this then there’s no point going on and on about it. If nothing else, this thread has been a real eye-opener for me to see just what kind of serious mental gymnastics pro-aborts are willing to go through to rationalize their beliefs.
W
Worthy5
Guest
This was stated " That has been discussed—the " pro-life" position when discussed is working on the assumption that if abortion is moral wrong then it should be outlawed----thus the legal issue is raised. God Bless "
This poster is not certain why you think the distinction you made previously matters. As far as " mental gymnastics", this is true—analysis of legal arguments does get complicated given the indeterminate nature of language and the multiple policy goals a society has. Thanks for your patience. God Bless
F
fix
Guest
Let’s sum up.
The pro abort position seems to say:
The pro abort position seems to say:
- The civil law allows it so it is acceptable.
- Judges interpret the law so their rulings are neither right or wrong, in any sense, as their rulings simply exist.
- As long as the legal procedures are followed, any ruling that currently stands is lawful and consistent with “justice” no matter whether it contradicts right reason, objective moral truth, logic, etc.
- Being lawful is all that matters.
- How the ruling affects persons, as in no protection from being killed, is a matter for another branch of government. The judge is simply a technician that applies the law, based on their private understanding of whatever so-called legal principles they claim adhere to, regardless of how manifestly unjust their conclusion may be.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
fix
*Seems such rationalizations have occured before in history. *
Certainly with the problem of slavery. The courts upheld slavery, rather than declare it unconstitutional. Now they uphold abortion, rather than declare it a violation of the “right to life,” which certainly transcends all other rights, and whihout which all other rights would be meaningless.
*Seems such rationalizations have occured before in history. *
Certainly with the problem of slavery. The courts upheld slavery, rather than declare it unconstitutional. Now they uphold abortion, rather than declare it a violation of the “right to life,” which certainly transcends all other rights, and whihout which all other rights would be meaningless.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
I have several questions to ask of the pro-choice party.
Is the unborn child a human? Yes or no?
Has the unborn child committed a crime? Yes or no?
Is it right to execute a human who has committed no crime? Yes or no?
Why do pro-choice people defend the convenience of the mother before the life of a human child?
Why are pro-choice people not appalled at the demand for the right to kill our children?
Why are pro-choice people not appalled and sadened by the death of more than 50 million babies in the womb?
Why do pro-choice people shrug their shoulders when abortionists are referred to as butchers? Why do they insist that the State protect these butchers from prosecution? Why do they support the existence of a multi-billion dollar business that specializes in killing unborn children?
Why do pro-choice people pretend to be friends to a woman who will lose her soul as well as her unborn child?
Why is it that no pro-choice person will say it is common sense that we should kill our children if we want to?
And if they will not say that, why do they still defend abortion?
I need some answers.
Is the unborn child a human? Yes or no?
Has the unborn child committed a crime? Yes or no?
Is it right to execute a human who has committed no crime? Yes or no?
Why do pro-choice people defend the convenience of the mother before the life of a human child?
Why are pro-choice people not appalled at the demand for the right to kill our children?
Why are pro-choice people not appalled and sadened by the death of more than 50 million babies in the womb?
Why do pro-choice people shrug their shoulders when abortionists are referred to as butchers? Why do they insist that the State protect these butchers from prosecution? Why do they support the existence of a multi-billion dollar business that specializes in killing unborn children?
Why do pro-choice people pretend to be friends to a woman who will lose her soul as well as her unborn child?
Why is it that no pro-choice person will say it is common sense that we should kill our children if we want to?
And if they will not say that, why do they still defend abortion?
I need some answers.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
*I need some answers. *
And apparently am never going to get them!
And apparently am never going to get them!
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Perhaps you really can’t comprehend what I’ve been posting. Maybe it’s beyond your capacity - I really don’t know because I keep posting it over and over and over. So, please excuse my upper-case letters because I don’t know how else to try to get through to you at this point:
(And my apologies to everyone else):
**ONE “SUPREME” COURT IN ONE COUNTRY ON THIS EARTH DOES NOT DETERMINE THE MORALITY OF AN ACT WHICH IS CARRIED OUT WORLDWIDE.
ALSO, THE AMERICAN SUPREME COURT IS A COURT COMPOSED OF FALLIBLE HUMAN BEINGS. THEY WERE WRONG IN ROE V. WADE. THEY WILL BE WRONG AGAIN.
UNIVERSAL LAW, AKA GOD’S LAW, REQUIRES US TO RESPECT AND PROTECT THE SANCTITY AND VALUE OF EVERY** HUMAN LIFE FROM CONCEPTION TO DEATH.
Again, I apologize to everyone for my upper-case letters, font size, bolding and italics. I’m sorry but I am getting sick and tired of these semantic games which go around in circles and never get anywhere and I am extremely sick and tired of people who think that a court (composed of fallible human beings) in one country can decide Truth.
These semantic games are like a jar of Cheese Whiz - you can let it sit out in the 120 degree weather in the desert in the middle of nowhere and your descendents can come back ten millenia later and that jar of Cheese Whiz will still be there and the Cheese Whiz will not have changed one tiny bit. Sheesh!
Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
W
Worthy5
Guest
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Worthy5
*
It is not an issue of right or wrong, but rather a decision on a legal issue----determining what the exact nature of the role govt is to have in solving the problem. *
Killing a child is not both a moral and a legal matter?
*
It is not an issue of right or wrong, but rather a decision on a legal issue----determining what the exact nature of the role govt is to have in solving the problem. *
Killing a child is not both a moral and a legal matter?
W
Worthy5
Guest
Yes it is a moral and a legal " matter". But it is not a moral issue. An issue is something up for a debate, a matter in dispute. What is the moral issue? There is none–abortion is wrong. The issue of law is about the role govt is to play in addressing that problem. That is the issue.
God Bless
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Truth is at issue here just as much as your obsession with law. The thread has changed course but it’s not up for you to decide how it changes course. And as long as you harp on the law I can point out that your “law” is pathetic, self-defeating, and just goes to show how morally relativistic the “civilized” Western world is. I don’t think you can comprehend that one country’s court cannot determine law for the rest of the world. Or maybe you’re just trolling here.
My concern is not about one court in one country. My concern is the entire world. The American Supreme Court has limited jurisdiction in one country. The rest of the world doesn’t have to agree with your Supreme Court. CAF is a worldwide forum. Some of us here aren’t from the USA.
My point is also that man-made laws do not hold up under God’s law. You say that “truth is not at issue here–but rather an issue of law.” I would say “Truth is at issue here–but all you want to discuss is an issue of American law.”
What about all the other countries in the world?
What about God’s law?
And if all you are able to discuss is American Supreme Court law, then I suggest you broaden your horizons a bit and try to move on up to the next level of morality - the universal level. Catholics are required to not adhere to immoral laws. American Catholics have the right and the obligation to do whatever they can to overturn immoral laws and to stand up against those laws whenever they can. That is all part of being part of the Church Militant.
Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
No. The issue of law is about how to get lawmakers and voters to understand that universal law has jurisdiction. Unfortunately, way too many people believe that man-made law is the highest determinant of authority and morality.Yes it is a moral and a legal " matter". But it is not a moral issue. An issue is something up for a debate, a matter in dispute. What is the moral issue? There is none–abortion is wrong. The issue of law is about the role govt is to play in addressing that problem. That is the issue.
God Bless
Are you one of them?
Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Gee, I though that someone would have answered you by now. What happened to all the “pro-choicers?” I am very interested in seeing the responses to your questions.
Ave Maria! Ora pro nobis.
W
Worthy5
Guest
God Bless, my friend.
E
exoflare
Guest
It would be pretty different if someone tasted it!
Seriously though, I don’t know why you guys continue trying to reason with this guy anymore. Once somebody has proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are being purely disingenuous and disregarding of all basic logic it’s pretty pointless to continue essentially talking to yourself, in hopes that their attitude will eventually change somehow.
I’ve long suspected most pro-aborts are exactly like this, but I have a really good friend who tells me he’s pretty sure most of them are actually reasonable people who are just genuinely ignorant instead. If he’s right… well, all I have to say is those people never seem to show up here…
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
LittleSoldier
*Gee, I though that someone would have answered you by now. *
It’s clear to me why they haven’t. They can’t. How can you openly and fearlessly challenge common sense?
*Gee, I though that someone would have answered you by now. *
It’s clear to me why they haven’t. They can’t. How can you openly and fearlessly challenge common sense?
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
That’s a logical fallacy
Maybe people have just got fed up with being browbeaten by slogans???
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Doc Keele
Maybe people have just got fed up with being browbeaten by slogans???
More likely fed up with not being able to answer difficult questions???
I might promise not to invoke common sense if you would promise to honor it.
We do not kill our children. What is irrational about that?
Maybe people have just got fed up with being browbeaten by slogans???
More likely fed up with not being able to answer difficult questions???
I might promise not to invoke common sense if you would promise to honor it.
We do not kill our children. What is irrational about that?
- Status