There Is No Catholic Case For Biden

[QContinuum]

I saw your insult before you cowardly removed it. Calling me “you slime” only affirms to me that my words are hitting a very sensitive mark indeed. You don’t have any argument except to attack me.

 

[QContinuum]

It clearly wasn’t illegal there.

 

[WA_Catholic]

It is a hard truth to admit . Whether the baby had any say or not has zero to do with the facts. The mother is the one being made to provide resources of her own bodily labor. And let’s talk about responsibility. Perhaps if we men did not put their reproductive members into women’s reproductive tracts, then pregnancy would not occur either, would it?

The most assured way to prevent having something dropped from the vending machine is to avoid putting a coin into the slot of the machine in the first place, isn’t it?

Strangely, no one ever calls for such responsibility from men though. It’s assumed that if sex happened, it’s 100% the woman’s resonsbility.

Ever heard of child support?

He/she is there because a sperm was introduced into her tract during the small window of time when an egg was available. They merged and the zygote subsequently implanted as a blastocyst into the walls of her uterus via the trophoblast.

If she doesn’t not wish to provide resources at her own personal cost to sustain it, she should not be forced to do so. That is slavery.

This is very dumb. It is not slavery. When you have sex pregnancy is obviously a natural consequence. It does not give you the right to murder your own child.

Personal, insulting comment, and not an argument.

No just an accurate reflection of your comments.

Your advice is just that: advice. It should not be codified into law and forced upon all women, especially as many may not even even believe in God, and so do not recognize your personal beliefs as binding on their choices about when and with whom to have sex.

It should be enforced because abortion is murder of children. You don’t need to believe in God to commit murder.

 

[QContinuum]

No, they killed millions of Jews because they wanted to. Not because of the law. The law was changed to accomodate their excretable goals.

My point to o_mlly is if murder was a moral term as it is illegal, then we wouldn’t legally differentiate between killings. Genocide in Germany happened because they wanted to wipe out a whole group of people. They changed the law to accomodate that purpose.

Clearly, to us what they did was murder. But our terms didn’t match theirs, as apparently “murder” has subjective meanings.

 

[o_mlly]

Then it is a moral term without objective meaning. Because if abortion were murder, it would be illegal. And it isn’t.

You have the order of precedence backwards.

 

[QContinuum]

Ever heard of child support?

For fetuses? No. I haven’t seen men arrested and imprisoned for failing to provide 50% of the support for its sustenance.

This is very dumb. It is not slavery. When you have sex pregnancy is obviously a natural consequence. It does not give you the right to murder your own child.

Calling it dumb is just another personal attack. Regardless of how the fetus arrived at the uterus, it is requiring the work and resources of another person to sustain it. If you force that other person to do so, you are demanding them to provide labor with no renumeration, and effectively enslaving them by suborning them to another.

No just an accurate reflection of your comments.

No, your comments are insults, which are not arguments.

It should be enforced because abortion is murder of children. You don’t need to believe in God to commit murder.

So you are for forcing the enslavement of women under the gun of the law.

 

[QContinuum]

You have the order of precedence backwards.

Murder isn’t subjective? Then why is killing someone on the battefield in a war for resources acceptable but killing someone for a loaf of bread murder?

 

[QContinuum]

Really? I’m waiting for the first conversation on how men will be punished for failing to support fetuses alongside women. I’m waiting to hear how if a woman takes a drug and it causes a miscarriage, and she is accused of murder, a man is going to be held similarly responsible because he bought the Advil at Walgreens.

These conversations do not happen, because men do not want to take the responsibility for generating life.

 

[o_mlly]

Murder isn’t subjective? Then why is killing someone on the battefield in a war for resources acceptable but killing someone for a loaf of bread murder?

Both acts are murders, cp.

 

[WA_Catholic]

For fetuses? No. I haven’t seen men arrested and imprisoned for failing to provide 50% of the support for its sustenance.

The law can be changed you know. And I very much would be in favor of this. And when the child is born and not murdered, then yes the man also has to pay. Your point is moot.

Calling it dumb is just another personal attack. Regardless of how the fetus arrived at the uterus, it is requiring the work and resources of another person to sustain it. If you force that other person to do so, you are demanding them to provide labor with no renumeration, and effectively enslaving them by suborning them to another.

It cannot be slavery when willingly engage in the act that creates the person. That is not what slavery is and why I called it dumb. It was not a personal attack I was just baffled someone could call pregnancy slavery lol.

So you are for forcing the enslavement of women under the gun of the law.

No, I am for women who willingly engage in a procreative not to be able murder their own child.

 

[QContinuum]

A zygote or blastocyst is not equivelant to me to a born human. Or even a third trimester fetus. You can keep your emotional language.

If they are so stupid, you should be able to produce refutations rather than elemetary insults. If I were to flag these comments, I guarantee they would be removed by the mods for violations of CA’s policies on personal attacks. I don’t care to, because I think your comments rather reinforce the overall weakness of your responses.

I’m not the one resorting to emotionalism and terms like “stupid” and “dumb” and so forth. I’m being perfectly frank here. I already pointed out that by nature, women are only fertile 20% or so of the time. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable for her to have sexual relations without assuming that pregnancy must be accepted as a consequence. If she doesn’t want to continue a pregnancy, then she should not be made to.

If you force a woman to carry another being, enforcing her to act as a host and a siphon for the other’s resources, you are forcing her to provide resources, work, suffering, at her personal cost.

Forcing one person to provide resources, work, and so forth, is slavery.

 

[QContinuum]

The law can be changed you know. And I very much would be in favor of this. And when the child is born and not murdered, then yes the man also has to pay. Your point is moot.

It is not moot. Because again, just because the law may be changed, does not mean anyone here is calling for it to be done. All the calls for abortion law revolve around women’s enforced pregnancy and women being criminalized with doctors.

It cannot be slavery when willingly engage in the act that creates the person. That is not what slavery is and why I called it dumb. It was not a personal attack I was just baffled someone could call pregnancy slavery lol.

Understood. Well, to make my argument more clear - even if someone were to willingly walk onto a slave ship back in Africa, thinking it was a cruise to Caribbean resort, that does not make the actions of the enslavers just. It does not justify that person being forced into chains and made to work for the benefit of others.

For women, sex is 80% of the time not fertile. If they engage in sex, that is not de facto agreement to undertake pregnancy. They may choose to continue it. But if they don’t want to, forcing them to do so is a form of extracted labor from them.

 

[WA_Catholic]

It is not moot. Because again, just because the law may be changed, does not mean anyone here is calling for it to be done. All the calls for abortion law revolve around women’s enforced pregnancy and women being criminalized with doctors.

Well you see people wanting laws stopping abortion because it’s the slaughtering of a human being. However, take a poll of any Catholic on here and I bet over 90% would be in favor of the father supporting the pregnant mother financially. I myself just said I was in favor of such a law.

Understood. Well, to make my argument more clear - even if someone were to willingly walk onto a slave ship back in Africa, thinking it was a cruise to Caribbean resort, that does not make the actions of the enslavers just. It does not justify that person being forced into chains and made to work for the benefit of others.

This analogy does not work. When women engage in sex there is always the possibility that a human life is created and that you are now responsible for that life. There is no deception there.

For women, sex is 80% of the time not fertile. If they engage in sex, that is not de facto agreement to undertake pregnancy. They may choose to continue it. But if they don’t want to, forcing them to do so is a form of extracted labor from them.

This also a bad argument. Just because 20% of the time a woman can get pregnant doesn’t negate the fact that a woman can be pregnant and that she is now responsible for that life. When they choose to engage in sex, they assume the responsibility of a potential child’s life. Telling her she can’t murder her child is not slavery. It also is not labor it is simply living and giving up alcohol for nine months.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

It is a hard truth to admit . Whether the baby had any say or not has zero to do with the facts. The mother is the one being made to provide resources of her own bodily labor.

It is not a hard truth to admit because it is NOT the truth. A woman is gifted with the ability to carry life. That is a sacred and beautiful gift and as a woman speaking to a man, I find it extremely sad that you would de-value such a beautiful gift.

And let’s talk about responsibility. Perhaps if we men did not put their reproductive members into women’s reproductive tracts, then pregnancy would not occur either, would it?

choices made by two people

Strangely, no one ever calls for such responsibility from men though. It’s assumed that if sex happened, it’s 100% the woman’s resonsbility.

Wrong!! It is talked about a lot. Men are very often encouraged to step up and be men and care for their children and family

I will agree absolutely that men shoulder part of the responsibility of bringing that life into a woman and into the world and that will include that they actually carry a greater weight of responsibility in caring for the child and will answer to God in judgment, though so, so, so many times many women refuse to allow men to fulfill that responsibility. That is the truth to admit.

Men are supposed to care and provide for the family not see a child as an attacker.

He/she is there because a sperm was introduced into her tract during the small window of time when an egg was available. They merged and the zygote subsequently implanted as a blastocyst into the walls of her uterus via the trophoblast.

All happening because God gave us the gift of the reproductive system.

If she doesn’t not wish to provide resources at her own personal cost to sustain it, she should not be forced to do so. That is slavery.

That comment is evil and untrue. If anything the slave is the person who had no decision or no choice to be where he is and then is killed because he is there because of another person’s decision

Your advice is just that: advice. It should not be codified into law and forced upon all women, especially as many may not even even believe in God, and so do not recognize your personal beliefs as binding on their choices about when and with whom to have sex.

My advice is based on two things: Catholic teaching that everyone has a right to life, also according to natural law and the Declaration of Independence that states, “all men are created equal”, so you see caring for everyone’s rights doesn’t have to have anything to do with religion.

 

[Victoria33]

Demographics on abortion also are horrible for minorities, the demographics can be called racist; and I view those demographics as reflecting on abortion support.

Also, plenty of charities take up slack for supporting children vs. what one might assert.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Do you think there is a realistic chance of those abortions going to zero if a pro-life politician is elected?

MagdalenaRita:

Certainly a better chance than if pro abortion politicians are elected.

Based on what? Abortion has declined since the first few years after Roe v Wade no matter which party is in the Presidency.

It just stands to reason that if a party is not even trying to end abortion but rather pushing for less and less regulations and worse yet even encouraging abortion under the false title of “women’s healthcare”, they won’t go to zero because pro-abortion politicians aren’t letting it happen.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

It might, but that isn’t backed up by the facts. The number of abortions have declined since the 80s under both pro-life and pro-choice Presidents and Congresses.

Abortions more than likely have decreased since the 80’s due to increase and ease of access to contraceptives and the AIDS epidemic but abortions still happen. There is nothing that can show us what will happen in the future. That is yet to be seen but it is our responsibility to work to save lives and that will be extremely difficult under a pro-abortion/pro-death administration.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

That is partly true and it is only a very small beginning. People need to know abortion is wrong and why

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Really? I’m waiting for the first conversation on how men will be punished for failing to support fetuses alongside women. I’m waiting to hear how if a woman takes a drug and it causes a miscarriage, and she is accused of murder, a man is going to be held similarly responsible because he bought the Advil at Walgreens.

It seems like an accident so nobody is going to be arrested.

If you force a woman to carry another being, enforcing her to act as a host and a siphon for the other’s resources, you are forcing her to provide resources, work, suffering, at her personal cost.

Forcing one person to provide resources, work, and so forth, is slavery.

I don’t think pregnancy is legally defined as such.

For women, sex is 80% of the time not fertile. If they engage in sex, that is not de facto agreement to undertake pregnancy.

It’s her responsibility if she doesn’t want to get pregnant.

 

[pnewton]

It’s her responsibility if she doesn’t want to get pregnant.

As it takes two, I would say it is their responsibility. I have a different take on QContinuum’s point about support from the father of the unborn child. I think it totally reasonable that the pregnant woman, have child support to pay for the birth, or in the case of the state paying for it, the AG going after the father for reimbursement.

As pointed out above, the problem of abortion is a side product of the sexual revolution. It is reasonable to tie legal responsibility to behavior. Indiscriminate sexual activity, premarital sex, and extramarital affairs are sins that we may not be able to outlaw, but we should be able to hold those who engage in these responsible for the results of their behavior.

When I was young, the big political issue was no-fault divorce. That might have been the first case (I remember anyway) where there was a push to separate illicit sex from its consequences.