Trump calls out Biden on religion

[farronwolf]

Ok, so on one end of the spectrum we have Poland and a few other countries which are primarily Catholic populace and abortion is illegal in most circumstances.

On the other end, we have Italy which is 80% Catholic, and has codified abortion as legal.

In the middle we have the majority of countries in the world which are made up of various different religions where abortion is legal for the most part, the US being in that group. Our country was built on religious freedom and independence… It is just the nature of the beast, and the explanation for why we have some of the problems we have as a nation.

Now every political cycle, and in too many discussions on this forum and anywhere else where politics is the topic, discussion seems to always end up at abortion. On one side we have, you must vote for x because they somehow will end legal abortion, and on the other side we have abortion should be left to the woman/family and doctor. These two sides will never, ever agree based on how I have seen most all discussions play out.

But in addition to the two sides never coming to agreement, we can pretty well be assured based on the reality of what is shown throughout the world, and our current mindset and laws in this country, abortion will never be made illegal again in the US. So what are we accomplishing. Nothing but to further divide people.

When doing negotiations, if you have two polar opposite sides and you start at the polar opposite positions with each side saying we must have this or we can’t even start discussion on anything else, you simply waste your time and nothing gets done.

A better approach is the start in the middle on things that are not completely foreign to both sides, find some agreement, do some negotiations on other matters so something can get done. Work you way out from the middle to the polar positions, so that by the time you get close to the poles, you have accomplished things, and have a better understanding of where the other side is coming from. You don’t have to agree, but you at least understand the other side better, and have actually made some progress from the middle working out.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

A better approach is the start in the middle on things that are not completely foreign to both sides, find some agreement, do some negotiations on other matters so something can get done. Work you way out from the middle to the polar positions, so that by the time you get close to the poles, you have accomplished things, and have a better understanding of where the other side is coming from. You don’t have to agree, but you at least understand the other side better, and have actually made some progress from the middle working out.

What you say actually makes a whole lot of sense.

I would start by engaging the pro-choice people, inviting them to join us in taking a very good look at fetuses at various stages of development, and say something along the lines of “now here, at this point, and at this point, and at this point, are you still good with a woman having the right to end this pregnancy? Why? Let’s be honest here, we’re all friends, we’re all just people, is there anything at all that is making you a little uncomfortable? At this point? Or at this one? Wonder why that would be? Okay, we’ll grant you, that little blob doesn’t look much like a person. It wouldn’t make me uncomfortable either, if my faith didn’t tell me that ‘blob’ is a human life. But what about this little guy here, let’s say, at five months? And let’s go back a month. What happened between then and now? You tell me.”

It would be a start.

 

[farronwolf]

Again, you focus on abortion, which for some is a non starter.

How about starting in the actual middle, like:

Infastructure
Clean water
Affordable housing
Hunger
Crime
Education - real education, not sports
Drug abuse - including prescription
Deficit Spending
Healthcare
Living wages
Immigration

These aren’t in any particular order, but they are things that would improve everyone’s lives and that if most reasonable politicians were sitting around the table drinking a beer without a camera in their faces could probably come up with some common ground and workable solutions.

When you are taking a test and come across a problem you are not exactly certain how to work, you don’t spend the whole time allotted for the test on that problem do you. No, you skip it for now and go on to work the other ones so instead of getting 80% of them wrong because you didn’t have time, you got 80% right because you skipped something that was keeping you from doing what you could work on.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Again, you focus on abortion, which for some is a non starter.

How about starting in the actual middle, like:

Infastructure
Clean water
Affordable housing
Hunger
Crime
Education - real education, not sports
Drug abuse - including prescription
Deficit Spending
Healthcare
Living wages
Immigration

These aren’t in any particular order, but they are things that would improve everyone’s lives and that if most reasonable politicians were sitting around the table drinking a beer without a camera in their faces could probably come up with some common ground and workable solutions.

When you are taking a test and come across a problem you are not exactly certain how to work, you don’t spend the whole time allotted for the test on that problem do you. No, you skip it for now and go on to work the other ones so instead of getting 80% of them wrong because you didn’t have time, you got 80% right because you skipped something that was keeping you from doing what you could work on.

That’s precisely what they want us to do — focus on all the other things where we might find some common ground, and just ignore abortion. They want us to be like all the other countries where abortion is legal and even paid for by the government, in some countries. In Canada, Harper had to promise that he wouldn’t raise abortion as an issue. The pro-choice people would dearly love to see the United States become like that. As long as I am a voter, a taxpayer, and a citizen, I am one American they’re not going to get that from.

 

[farronwolf]

I didn’t say we had to forget about abortion, I said we needed to start at the middle and work our way out.

Do you think the polar opposite approach has improved our country? Has it improved our attitudes as christians towards one another? Or, has it resulted in a bitterly divided country where no one wants to work with the other side on anything?

How did Clinton balance the budget with the republicans, they worked together.

Did Reagan and Tip O Neil work together and get things done, or did they dig their feet in the sand.

Look back at the begining of Trump’s term and see what actually happened on immigration. There was progress to be made until Steven Miller stepped in and used a polar opposite approach to nix what was in the works.

I believe it was you, yourself who admitted earlier in this thread that at best we might eliminate 11% of abortions. Yes that would be better than what we have now, but at what cost? Will it result in more hungry children, a worse educational system who knows. I don’t know, but if it further divides the country, things will certainly get worse in some other aspects.

If we can bring people closer together, solve some of the problems that cause women to seek abortions, improve lives so there is less suffering and eliminate 75% of abortions even if it remains legal, would that not be a better outcome?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I didn’t say we had to forget about abortion, I said we needed to start at the middle and work our way out.

Do you think the polar opposite approach has improved our country? Has it improved our attitudes as christians towards one another? Or, has it resulted in a bitterly divided country where no one wants to work with the other side on anything?

How did Clinton balance the budget with the republicans, they worked together.

Did Reagan and Tip O Neil work together and get things done, or did they dig their feet in the sand.

Look back at the begining of Trump’s term and see what actually happened on immigration. There was progress to be made until Steven Miller stepped in and used a polar opposite approach to nix what was in the works.

I believe it was you, yourself who admitted earlier in this thread that at best we might eliminate 11% of abortions. Yes that would be better than what we have now, but at what cost? Will it result in more hungry children, a worse educational system who knows. I don’t know, but if it further divides the country, things will certainly get worse in some other aspects.

If we can bring people closer together, solve some of the problems that cause women to seek abortions, improve lives so there is less suffering and eliminate 75% of abortions even if it remains legal, would that not be a better outcome?

I am all in favor of bipartisanship and “working across the aisle”. I have long thought that, when you strip away all the rhetoric, all of the talk about individual liberties, small government, government as problem-solver, providing for the general welfare, people pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, people having the right to be left alone, caring for those who cannot do for themselves, righting the wrongs of the past, and so on — the division is ultimately over abortion.

I would just want it to be crystal-clear to the pro-choice camp, that just because we are willing to work with you on other social issues, environmental concerns, questions of civil liberties, and so on, we have not forgotten about abortion, and we are not going to forget about abortion. Tell them “we’re working together, and we’d like to keep it that way, as we’re sure you would too”.

 

[Dovekin]

I would start by engaging the pro-choice people, inviting them to join us in taking a very good look at fetuses at various stages of development, and say something along the lines of “now here, at this point, and at this point, and at this point, are you still good with a woman having the right to end this pregnancy? Why?

How do you respond if they say “at this point, and this point, and at this point, the fetus is surrounded by the mother? Are you good with violating that boundary? Why?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

I would start by engaging the pro-choice people, inviting them to join us in taking a very good look at fetuses at various stages of development, and say something along the lines of “now here, at this point, and at this point, and at this point, are you still good with a woman having the right to end this pregnancy? Why?

How do you respond if they say “at this point, and this point, and at this point, the fetus is surrounded by the mother? Are you good with violating that boundary? Why?

Yes, I am good with “violating that boundary”, to preserve the life of the child.

Your proposal (if I am understanding it correctly) of “the child is subject to the wishes of its mother, even unto life itself and the potential taking of the same, as long as it is within the womb and either cannot or does not live independently of its mother” is novel and has no basis, of which I am aware, in Catholic teaching from the Didache onward. If this concept is consonant with the Catholic Faith, that would be news to me.

If a woman is a rational being, giving consent to the act that brings babies into being in the first place, she needs to be of the mindset that — even though it is rendered extremely unlikely by use of NFP, contraception (ignoring, for the sake of argument, that this too is a disordered, sinful act), perceived sterility, or what have you — unless she knows herself to be absolutely sterile, a child could be conceived. If she is not predisposed in her mind, in that unlikely event, to welcome this child, and to foster and preserve its life, then she should not perform the act. Unless a woman is raped (or taken advantage of in some other way, which is really a species of rape), she can always refuse, she can abstain. We are free agents with free will. No one ever died from practicing celibacy. (To anticipate the objection, it can be argued that celibate men are at greater risk for prostate cancer, but men do not get pregnant.)

And ditto for the men. If they are not of the mindset that I cited above, and if they are not predisposed to do the things that a father must do for that child, then they, too, need to abstain from that act. Again, we are free agents with free will. We are not animals responding to estrus. It is true that men sometimes have a physical discomfort from not being able to have sex, but that, too, has never been the death of any man yet.

 

[Dovekin]

My proposal is that the mother is subject to the wishes of the mother. I am not saying anything about the child, except that he is inaccessible to you. So setting aside the child, why do you think you can violate the mother?

As far as anything in Catholic teaching, I suspect you are right that you do not know of anything. I do not either. That does not mean there is nothing. What do you think of the martyrdom of St Felicity?

A woman is a rational human beings. Who gives you, or anyone, the right to violate her, to somehow cross the boundary that surrounds her child? The ultrasounds make the point that the baby is in the care of his mother at least as much as they make the case that the child is human. Why do you set that aside?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

As far as anything in Catholic teaching, I suspect you are right that you do not know of anything. I do not either. That does not mean there is nothing.

I invite the readers to produce something within Catholic teaching that would vindicate @Dovekin.

What do you think of the martyrdom of St Felicity?

I think the persecutors killed both Felicity and her child.

Or are you saying that Felicity should have gone through the motions of apostasizing, to save herself from martyrdom and thus save her child?

The answer is no. The end does not justify the means. Many women, out of fear, would do precisely that, and I have to think that Our Lord would have great mercy on them. But that wouldn’t justify it or make it right. Sin is sin no matter what. Venial sin is still sin, and is still to be avoided even at the cost of one’s life or worse:

The Church aims, not at making a show, but at doing a work. She regards this world, and all that is in it, as a mere shadow, as dust and ashes, compared with the value of one single soul. She holds that, unless she can, in her own way, do good to souls, it is no use her doing anything; she holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse - John Henry, Cardinal Newman

And this is from the same saint whose words are echoed in the Catechism — conscience as the “aboriginal vicar of Christ”.

My proposal is that the mother is subject to the wishes of the mother. I am not saying anything about the child, except that he is inaccessible to you. So setting aside the child, why do you think you can violate the mother?

Because the child’s right to life trumps the mother’s wishes.

A woman is a rational human beings. Who gives you, or anyone, the right to violate her, to somehow cross the boundary that surrounds her child? The ultrasounds make the point that the baby is in the care of his mother at least as much as they make the case that the child is human. Why do you set that aside?

Rational human beings sometimes kill people.

The ultrasounds make the point that the baby is in the care of his mother at least as much as they make the case that the child is human.

It’s not an “either/or”, it’s a “both/and”. A child is in the care of his mother after birth as well. Under ordinary circumstances, he is reliant upon his mother for nourishment. But if she is threatening to kill him, I am all in favor of CPS (or anybody) coming in and defending him.

 

[vz71]

So setting aside the child

One cannot simply set aside the child.

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

So setting aside the child

One cannot simply set aside the child.

Which is not what was meant in any ways. In context, I was asking about @HomeschoolDad about the mother. She seems to be neglected in his consideration of this issue. If you have a better way of expressing the question, I invite you to offer it.

His terse answers do answer the questions I wanted to ask, whether one agrees with him or not.

 

[Dovekin]

Dovekin:

The ultrasounds make the point that the baby is in the care of his mother at least as much as they make the case that the child is human.

It’s not an “either/or”, it’s a “both/and”. A child is in the care of his mother after birth as well. Under ordinary circumstances, he is reliant upon his mother for nourishment. But if she is threatening to kill him, I am all in favor of CPS (or anybody ) coming in and defending him.

It is a “both/and.” I think more consideration needs to be given to the greater violence of coming in during pregnancy as opposed to after birth.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Dovekin:

The ultrasounds make the point that the baby is in the care of his mother at least as much as they make the case that the child is human.

It’s not an “either/or”, it’s a “both/and”. A child is in the care of his mother after birth as well. Under ordinary circumstances, he is reliant upon his mother for nourishment. But if she is threatening to kill him, I am all in favor of CPS (or anybody ) coming in and defending him.

It is a “both/and.” I think more consideration needs to be given to the greater violence of coming in during pregnancy as opposed to after birth.

There couldn’t be any greater violence, than the mother arranging to have a doctor “go in” and kill her baby.

You do a very good job of articulating your position, but at the end of the day, the Church’s teachings do not allow for elective abortion under the rubric of the mother having more of a “say” about what goes on inside her body, than anyone outside of her body. All I can tell you, is that you might consider approaching the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), explain these arguments, and implore them to include these in the Catechism. Luther did no violence to the Faith in posting his 95 theses — that came later.

Just out of curiosity, do you defend the right of the mother to drink alcohol or smoke during pregnancy? (I mean habitually and in some quantity, not the occasional glass of wine or cigarette.) If allowing her to kill her baby is a choice she should have, then why not doing things short of fetal death, that may harm the fetus but not kill it? Could not the mother say “I have always been used to having a glass of wine — or two — every evening, and I smoke a few cigarettes every day, don’t you dare tell me I can’t do this now, it is my body, and whatever happens to my baby inside of me, that is my choice and you can’t interfere?”
[/QUOTE]

 

[Dovekin]

If allowing her to kill her baby is a choice she should have,

Again you mischaracterize my position. “to kill her baby” is a choice that she has. It is not something she should have. It is not something she should ever choose, but it is a choice that she has. You cannot cut her out of the conversation with remarks like “Because the child’s right to life trumps the mother’s wishes.” You do not have that choice.

Your obsession with seeing me as disagreeing is why conversations so rarely go anywhere. Your top line is abortion is murder, and nothing else needs to be discussed, discussion of anything else is a denial of abortion is murder. There is another side to the issue beyond the rationale that you are offering. I am trying to help you see it, but not having much luck.

 

[vz71]

Which is not what was meant in any ways. In context, I was asking about @HomeschoolDad about the mother. She seems to be neglected in his consideration of this issue.

I believe that it is precisely what was meant.

Perhaps it is articulating the position in the proper way that you see how heinous the abortion is.

One has to completely disregard the life of the unborn to believe murder to be an option.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

If allowing her to kill her baby is a choice she should have,

Again you mischaracterize my position. “to kill her baby” is a choice that she has. It is not something she should have . It is not something she should ever choose, but it is a choice that she has. You cannot cut her out of the conversation with remarks like “Because the child’s right to life trumps the mother’s wishes.” You do not have that choice.

Your obsession with seeing me as disagreeing is why conversations so rarely go anywhere. Your top line is abortion is murder , and nothing else needs to be discussed, discussion of anything else is a denial of abortion is murder . There is another side to the issue beyond the rationale that you are offering. I am trying to help you see it, but not having much luck.

I suppose, like everyone else, my reading comprehension always has room for improvement, but for all the world, it appeared to me that you were trying to vindicate the proposition that a woman should have this choice. My apologies for misreading. And be assured that I have no “obsession with seeing you as disagreeing”.

So let me backtrack and see if I understand:

• The mother does have this choice
• She should not have it
• And even having it, she should never make it
• But nevertheless, she does have this choice

Your saying “she should not have this choice” implies, to me anyway, that it would be licit to take it away from her. When we should not have things, then they are not ours by right, and removing these from us would seem to be a good thing. It seems actually to buttress the idea that laws could be enacted to try and take this choice away from her. (I said “try”. We cannot monitor every pregnant woman in the world to make sure she doesn’t sneak and get an abortion from some willing provider.)

Or are you saying “no, she shouldn’t have this choice, but in the very nature of things — the very nature of how a woman carries a child inside of her — the choice does exist, it cannot and should not be taken away from her, and even though we hope she doesn’t do it, if she does, that is her decision and her decision alone (unless she has a way to abort herself, she will need help), and it’s nothing we can or should prevent her from doing”.

I’m not trying to “sealion” you, or put words in your mouth, but these distinctions are so oblique, and really so rarefied for the casual reader, that they are not something that would occur in most people’s thinking process.

I would only add that the prevailing Catholic school of thought, is that once a woman has conceived, to put it in a homely fashion, the baby inside of her is kind of “the boss”, and her being answerable to it, trumps her own wishes to be pregnant or not to be pregnant (i.e., to change her mind about matters, because when she performed the coital act, that is when she made her “choice”). Put another way, she has entered into a contract of sorts, and while she does not need the baby for her survival, the baby needs her for its survival.

 

[Dovekin]

It is not something she should have

This was improperly phrased, and apparently grossly misunderstood. YOUR position is that the choice is something external to her, that it is something she should not have. My position is that she HAS the choice. No one has any power over whether she should or should not have the choice; she has the choice.

I knew that sentence would be a problem when I wrote it. I did not know you would base your whole response on your misunderstanding of it. Sorry about that.

I believe that it is precisely what was meant.

You are simply wrong. I know what I was saying, and it is not what you think. The situation includes both a child and a mother. The two ofyou write obsessively about the child as if that is beginning and end of the discussion. My remark was solely to raise consideration of the mother as part of the discussion.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Dovekin:

It is not something she should have

This was improperly phrased, and apparently grossly misunderstood. YOUR position is that the choice is something external to her, that it is something she should not have. My position is that she HAS the choice. No one has any power over whether she should or should not have the choice; she has the choice.

I think we have ground this down to about the finest point it can possibly be ground. I do not “mute” topics, least of all those that I have created myself, but at this point, it is beating a dead horse. You are an able debater and expositor, and if you wish to explain your position further, I’ll welcome it, but I don’t think there’s anything else I can add to the discussion. You seem to be maintaining that an aboriginal, intrinsic, a priori choice exists, due to the very nature of in utero maternity, and that it is inalienable, even if civil powers seek to outlaw it and punish the woman for exercising it. I maintain, as does the Church, that the unborn child has an inalienable right to life, even if civil law does not recognize that at all stages of pregnancy.

You have done a good job, and I thank you for the civil, respectful exchange. But again, I’ve said all I can say.

 

[vz71]

The situation includes both a child and a mother.

Yes it does.

The two ofyou write obsessively about the child as if that is beginning and end of the discussion.

No, life is the beginning and end.

My remark was solely to raise consideration of the mother as part of the discussion.

Murder is simply not a valid option.
Consideration is irrelevant given the option itself is invalid.