What if We Stopped Trying to Make Abortion Illegal?

[limerick]

Yah, so courageous to concede and appease that side seeing they have the prevailing influence and power in politics, national media,etc. Your are a real dare devil.

The courageous one is the old man who sits alone on a corner in front of thousands of people and holds a sign or prays his rosary in front of a clinic. The courageous ones are those who forget their anxieties and take a stand in public when hardly anybody does. Despite the anxiety of being scoffed at and ridiculed, still standing with a group of maybe 4 people in front of thousands to stand for whats right that is courage. Meanwhile thousands sit and say nothing because they would be embarrassed to do the same thing.

What is your courage? Making a unconventional comment for a catholic forum. While I agree with some of the strategic propositions you made, not fighting while thousands of children are legally murdered or while it is still legal to murder them is cowardly.

**Whatcha so mad about, bobbyva? And who you mad at, bobbyva?

Limerick
**

 

[LutheranDK]

**Whatcha so mad about, bobbyva? And who you mad at, bobbyva?

Limerick
**

I can’t answer for bobbyva, but:
Don’t you think that genocide is something to be angry about?
And don’t you think it’s ok to be angry at those committing genocide?

 

[limerick]

I can’t answer for bobbyva, but:
Don’t you think that genocide is something to be angry about?
And don’t you think it’s ok to be angry at those committing genocide?

**I understand that genocide makes people angry and I believe it’s all right to be angry at those committing genocide.

Limerick**

 

[limerick]

“Personal experiences” means jack shite in a general debate, because “personal experiences” cannot be taken as representative.

Personal experiences “cannot be taken as representative” of what?

Limerick

 

[LutheranDK]

**I understand that genocide makes people angry and I believe it’s all right to be angry at those committing genocide.

Limerick**

And there, you have the answers to your question to bobbyva

 

[LutheranDK]

Personal experiences “cannot be taken as representative” of what?

Limerick

Of whatever issue is discussed.
Same deal as with the classic “white-black swans”-example:

I have only ever seen white swans, which means that it is my “personal experience”, that swans are white. There are no black swans, and I should know, because I have “personal experience”.

How valid do you find this line of reasoning.

 

[awantz]

Of whatever issue is discussed.
Same deal as with the classic “white-black swans”-example:

I have only ever seen white swans, which means that it is my “personal experience”, that swans are white. There are no black swans, and I should know, because I have “personal experience”.

How valid do you find this line of reasoning.

I think it depends on the situation as to whether or not personal experience can be used.

 

[zookeeper]

I support almost all of what OP proposes, (not all because the arguments are so fuzzy and her hypotheses don’t bear weight in many cases, her naievete about reasons men rape, for instance).

But I offer this reflection on the logical inconsistency in the argument.

Let us substitute “rape” or “murder” for abortion in the debate.

Let us work to make “rape” unnecessary rather than making it illegal, educate men on constructive channels for their anger, rather than making them criminals for giving into compelling urges. It’s illegal but plenty of people will always do it, so making it illegal does not work.

Let us work to make “murder” unnecessary, rather than making it illegal, because plenty of people still buy guns or pick up kitchen knives or make homemade bombs to commit murder, and making it illegal does not stop it, so why criminalize the murderer, why not look to the reasons he murders and rehabilitate him?

This line of thinking ignores the reasons laws are passed in the first place. The law is to protect the victim, in the first case, and society in the second. The law establishes the parameter of what is allowed, and what is forbidden, in order to protect the rights of all members of society INCLUDING and especially the most helpless and innocent who cannot take any steps to protect themselves. The specific laws, in this country, also exist to extend constitution protection of natural rights – those derived from the condition of human existence, not by gift of the government – in cases where there have been attempts to infringe upon those rights, and where specific language has become necessary. Slavery is of course the most important example of how that played out in legal history.

Let us work on making Capital Punishment illegal. To me, this is where our faith’s statement of “all life is sacred” falls apart, and PJPII started to address that. All life is sacred, unless we deem you dangerous and choose to lethally inject you for the sake of mankind. But if you are unborn and a medical danger to the mother (rare, but it does happen), we will protect you. It’s a weak link in our argument.

I agree with the OP mostly. I agree with the SCOTUS decision on RoeVWade. We have inalienable rights endowed by our Creator, yes, but what a tangled web we weave when we forget that the right to life is followed by the right to liberty. There are many circumstances when the government asks and expects us to give up our right to life (military), or even demands it (execution) so the idea that the right to life is inarguable and unable to be compromised doesn’t make sense. Now the right to liberty is the real issue, and carries with it responsibility and restrictions, so as not to take away someone else’s rights, as in the issue of slavery. So where does the personal liberty line stop, and the government’s interest in our liberty begin? I wouldn’t want some legislators somewhere telling a woman she must carry a pregnancy regardless of the circumstances any sooner than I would want them telling me I can’t have children or can only have 1 or 2.

I do think there should be restrictive laws for abortion, to protect women from making rash decisions under emotional strain. Yes, laws are put into place to protect the victim- but sometimes the very first victim is the woman. I think some parts of society tend to be more concerned about the nine months in the womb and not the lifetime afterwards, or even the several months before conception. The very fact that the majority of society does not believe in unrestricted abortion shows- in general- a respect for life and the desire to do what is right and protect all victims. So I think it stands to reason that the OP is right in thinking that if the greater effort is placed on addressing the societal gaps around the causes and effects of unplanned pregnancy, the greater portion of society faced with this decision will choose not to abort.

 

[limerick]

Let us work on making Capital Punishment illegal. To me, this is where our faith’s statement of “all life is sacred” falls apart, and PJPII started to address that. All life is sacred, unless we deem you dangerous and choose to lethally inject you for the sake of mankind. But if you are unborn and a medical danger to the mother (rare, but it does happen), we will protect you. It’s a weak link in our argument.

I agree with the OP mostly. I agree with the SCOTUS decision on RoeVWade. We have inalienable rights endowed by our Creator, yes, but what a tangled web we weave when we forget that the right to life is followed by the right to liberty. There are many circumstances when the government asks and expects us to give up our right to life (military), or even demands it (execution) so the idea that the right to life is inarguable and unable to be compromised doesn’t make sense. Now the right to liberty is the real issue, and carries with it responsibility and restrictions, so as not to take away someone else’s rights, as in the issue of slavery. So where does the personal liberty line stop, and the government’s interest in our liberty begin? I wouldn’t want some legislators somewhere telling a woman she must carry a pregnancy regardless of the circumstances any sooner than I would want them telling me I can’t have children or can only have 1 or 2.

I do think there should be restrictive laws for abortion, to protect women from making rash decisions under emotional strain. Yes, laws are put into place to protect the victim- but sometimes the very first victim is the woman. I think some parts of society tend to be more concerned about the nine months in the womb and not the lifetime afterwards, or even the several months before conception. The very fact that the majority of society does not believe in unrestricted abortion shows- in general- a respect for life and the desire to do what is right and protect all victims. So I think it stands to reason that the OP is right in thinking that if the greater effort is placed on addressing the societal gaps around the causes and effects of unplanned pregnancy, the greater portion of society faced with this decision will choose not to abort.

This is a thoughtful, reasonable post. I couldn’t agree more about the importance of addressing the “societal gaps around the causes and effects of unplanned pregnancy”. I have referred to this as a starting point over and over many times in other threads and it has never really been seized upon as a progressive idea: modeling loving, caring behavior within a marriage so the children have an example to follow; sex education beyond the basics of “abstinence only”; a concerted effort on the part of each parent to encourage freedom of communication regardless of the topic; I’ve even suggested that parents take kids to open AA meetings so they can hear first-hand how alcoholism drove folks - men and women - down the road of rash decisions, irresponsible behaviors, delusional and convenient “love”. There’s a lot that can be done before kids reach reproductive age. They need to understand how to handle their money - women so often get linked to men who hold the purse strings, thinking it will “make their lives easier”. It’s the old velvet handcuffs syndrome. Next thing you know these women have no say in anything in the relationship. Boys and girls need to understand personal boundaries and how to enforce them. Little girls can grow up to be self-defense experts if they start early - and don’t think there’s no room for self-defense out there.

This may be a whole new thread. I’d love to hear some ideas as to how to step up children’s preparation for life and sexuality.

Limerick

 

[djeter]

Hope you are all still monitoring the situation between the Boston Archdiocese and its health care agency Caritas Christi and its partnership with the Centene Corporation in the Massachusetts Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program starting July 1.

They keep stopping and starting the main thread because so many are upset and angry. I really just want people to read and understand the situation then send the Archdiocese a note telling them you are praying for Caritas Christi to follow Catholic Teachings.

The latest update is here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/14/caritas-christi-update/

And the original posts here:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/06/08/a-significant-defeat-for-the-pro-life-movement-inflicted-by-the-catholic-church-in-boston/

Thanks

DJ

 

[fix]

Let us work on making Capital Punishment illegal. To me, this is where our faith’s statement of “all life is sacred” falls apart, and PJPII started to address that. All life is sacred, unless we deem you dangerous and choose to lethally inject you for the sake of mankind. But if you are unborn and a medical danger to the mother (rare, but it does happen), we will protect you. It’s a weak link in our argument.

This does not make much sense though. The state has the authority to take a life, we as individuals do not. That is Catholic teaching. The state derives its authority from God. Protecting society is vastly different from killing an innocent person. Any medical danger is not from an innocent life, but from some form of pathology. Treat the pathology, do not kill the baby.

I agree with the OP mostly. I agree with the SCOTUS decision on RoeVWade. We have inalienable rights endowed by our Creator, yes, but what a tangled web we weave when we forget that the right to life is followed by the right to liberty. There are many circumstances when the government asks and expects us to give up our right to life (military), or even demands it (execution) so the idea that the right to life is inarguable and unable to be compromised doesn’t make sense.

The right to life is fundamental to all other rights. The state has no authority to allow innocents to be intentionally killed. They allow it today but that is unjust. The examples you give are not the same as killing an innocent person with intent.

Now the right to liberty is the real issue, and carries with it responsibility and restrictions, so as not to take away someone else’s rights, as in the issue of slavery. So where does the personal liberty line stop, and the government’s interest in our liberty begin? I wouldn’t want some legislators somewhere telling a woman she must carry a pregnancy regardless of the circumstances any sooner than I would want them telling me I can’t have children or can only have 1 or 2.

So, you are ok with the baby having no right to life?

I do think there should be restrictive laws for abortion, to protect women from making rash decisions under emotional strain. Yes, laws are put into place to protect the victim- but sometimes the very first victim is the woman. I think some parts of society tend to be more concerned about the nine months in the womb and not the lifetime afterwards, or even the several months before conception. The very fact that the majority of society does not believe in unrestricted abortion shows- in general- a respect for life and the desire to do what is right and protect all victims. So I think it stands to reason that the OP is right in thinking that if the greater effort is placed on addressing the societal gaps around the causes and effects of unplanned pregnancy, the greater portion of society faced with this decision will choose not to abort.

What about the innocent baby?

 

[fix]

**
This may be a whole new thread. I’d love to hear some ideas as to how to step up children’s preparation for life and sexuality.

Limerick**

Raise them in the Catholic faith. Live the faith.

 

[jamesneiman]

To quote Father Corapi: “You cannot be both Catholic and Pro Choice…period”.

To quote Pope John Paul II: “Abortion is murder.”

Those of you calling yourselves Catholics who are willing to allow abortion under any circumstances whatsoever are not living your faith and you are committing a grave sin by leading others into scandal. I know many priests who believe that if you hold such beliefs that you are, by definition, not in communion with Catholics, and therefore should not receive communion but rather should go to confession. I will pray for those of you holding to such beliefs.

 

[limerick]

Raise them in the Catholic faith. Live the faith.

**All other ignorant heathens be damned?

Limerick **

 

[fix]

**All other ignorant heathens be damned?

Limerick **

Nope.

 

[bobbyva2001]

**Whatcha so mad about, bobbyva? And who you mad at, bobbyva?

Limerick
**

Mad? Passionate not mad. Kind of like the one eluding guilt by justifying their wrong and responding to every post in a 9 page thread.

 

[jamesneiman]

Faith in God, who is the Life, the Truth, and who is Love, leads inexorably and logically to the definitive conclusion that the Author of Life, whose 5th Commandment (not a Suggestion people) is Do Not Kill, who has graced us with the gift of creating life, did not intend that we should use such a gift to create life only to abort it. It must be emphasized here that WE DO NOT CREATE LIFE - only God can do that, thus we have no right to destroy it either. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Intefering in God’s work is arrogance beyond belief. For those of you willing to tolerate abortion, who are you to interfere in God’s process of creating life? Belief in God is an act of faith, but the idea that one must keep His Commandments is a purely logical and sane determination based on that original act of faith.

 

[limerick]

Mad? Passionate not mad. Kind of like the one eluding guilt by justifying their wrong and responding to every post in a 9 page thread.

**
Gawrsh, you sound mighty mad to me, bobbyva. And are ya referring to me and all the responses on page 9? Go back. There were several I didn’t hit that time around. Should I? Whaddya think, bobbyva?

Limerick**

 

[Ridgerunner]

What if we stopped trying to make abortion illegal?

Simple. We become complicit in the killing of innocents that we did nothing to stop.

 

[jamesneiman]

Faith in God, who is the Life, the Truth, and who is Love, leads inexorably and logically to the definitive conclusion that the Author of Life, whose 5th Commandment (not a Suggestion people) is Do Not Kill, who has graced us with the gift of creating life, did not intend that we should use such a gift to create life only to abort it. It must be emphasized here that WE DO NOT CREATE LIFE - only God can do that, thus we have no right to destroy it either. I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Intefering in God’s work is arrogance beyond belief. For those of you willing to tolerate abortion, who are you to interfere in God’s process of creating life? Belief in God is an act of faith, but the idea that one must keep His Commandments is a purely logical and sane determination based on that original act of faith.