Why should abortion be rare?

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why it should not of course. And what is interesting is we have haven’t had anybody who is pro-abortion come to this thread
and explain it to us but have had people who are pro-life come to this thread and support this rationale
I can’t imagine that a pro-abortion person would feel comfortable posting on this forum.
 
I can’t imagine that a pro-abortion person would feel comfortable posting on this forum.
I can imagine that someone who is pro-abortion could feel comfortable about their view it all.

By the way I edited the post you replied to
 
Thank you for answering. I apologize for jumping to incorrect conclusions.

My record by the way is McGovern, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Dole, Bush.

Carter was last pro-life Democrat to gain the presidential nomination of the party.

As to why I voted for McGovern? "Those you are not liberal when they are young have no heart, those who reamain liberal as they mature have no mind:D "
No worries there…my voting record is Mondale (though Bill-the-Cat would have been my second choice), Dukakis, Perot, Dole, Bush, Bush. :o
 
I can imagine that someone who is pro-abortion could feel comfortable about their view it all.

By the way I edited the post you replied to
That’s the attitude that would make anyone with a different opinion stay far away.
 
No worries there…my voting record is Mondale (though Bill-the-Cat would have been my second choice), Dukakis, Perot, Dole, Bush, Bush. :o
Looks like we both saw the light at about the same age!
 
That’s the attitude that would make anyone with a different opinion stay far away.
We are obliged to tell the truth. And there are lots of pro-abortion people posting in these forums.

What is interesting to me is that people who adhere to the teachings of the Church get attacked more in these forums than people who support abortion, homosexuality and other social issues the church has spoken on.
 
We are obliged to tell the truth. And there are lots of pro-abortion people posting in these forums.

What is interesting to me is that people who adhere to the teachings of the Church get attacked more in these forums than people who support abortion, homosexuality and other social issues the church has spoken on.
I’ve been hammered here pretty well, and I’m a pro life, church law abiding homosexual. I can’t imagine what I would have been in for if I wasn’t!

I was thinking about voting for my cat this year, but she’s corrupted by my financial influence.
 
I’ve been hammered here pretty well, and I’m a pro life, church law abiding homosexual. I can’t imagine what I would have been in for if I wasn’t!

I was thinking about voting for my cat this year, but she’s corrupted by my financial influence.
My dog supports cat Abortions so he’s out:D
 
Actually, I’m kind of in trouble there-both my cats are spayed…
 
Both parties are both woefully inadequate, in my view.
Agreed. But one party is not only woefully inadequate it wants you and I to pay for the slaughter of the innocents. Seems like a no-brainer as to who we should support.
 
Agreed. But one party is not only woefully inadequate it wants you and I to pay for the slaughter of the innocents. Seems like a no-brainer as to who we should support.
True enough. Where’s the “diversity” or the “tolerance” on the other side? That’s all they ever harp about, and they are the most intolerant in the nation.
 
In case it hasn’t been pointed, the topic question is really kind of silly. One has a right to self-defense, correct? Don’t we hope that it will be rarely necessary to exercise the right to self-defense?

Just because something is said to be a right doesn’t necessarily imply that it ought not be common. That’s just fuzzy thinking.

Instead, the question ought to be: How is that abortion can be considered a right? How is that in this one instance people posit a right to kill a human? It certainly can’t be on the basis of self-defense, since an unborn child cannot be morally aggressive.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
I’m a pro-life volunteer. I just don’t see why it has to be “all-or-nothing” all the time, especially when we as Catholics are called to be consistent on this issue.
It is not “all-or-nothing”, rather it is “all” all the time. And it can be no other way because until such time as respect for innocent life is realized in every instance, it will not be enough.
Or why we can’t also put measures into play to protect kids and women AFTER birth as well as before.
Why can’t we? But we will still defend the innocent’s right to life, even if there some people who don’t want them. They have a right to life whether others want them or not. Both issues need to be addressed, but we don’t postpone saving all the babies we can in the mean time cause someone is illogically concerned that others don’t care about them after they are born. That is nonsense.
I guess it’s because I operate on a different definition of pro life.
There is only one true definition. All innocent life has a right to live and only God has the right to take that life. Today’s first reading from Ezekiel ought to be a warning to those who believe themselves high enough to be the arbiter’s of others lives.
 
In case it hasn’t been pointed, the topic question is really kind of silly. One has a right to self-defense, correct? Don’t we hope that it will be rarely necessary to exercise the right to self-defense?

Just because something is said to be a right doesn’t necessarily imply that it ought not be common. That’s just fuzzy thinking.

Instead, the question ought to be: How is that abortion can be considered a right? How is that in this one instance people posit a right to kill a human? It certainly can’t be on the basis of self-defense, since an unborn child cannot be morally aggressive.

– Mark L. Chance.
When people claim abortion should be legal, safe , and rare that is fuzzy thinking.

Bob is showing the inconsistency in such logic.

There is no reason for it to be rare if it is legitimate morally. Your analogy about self defense seems misplaced here as you point out the baby is no aggressor.

Why do pro aborts want it rare?
 
In case it hasn’t been pointed, the topic question is really kind of silly. One has a right to self-defense, correct? Don’t we hope that it will be rarely necessary to exercise the right to self-defense?
I’ve never heard anybody say the exercise of the right to self-defense should be rare.
Just because something is said to be a right doesn’t necessarily imply that it ought not be common. That’s just fuzzy thinking.
The fuzzy thinking is a claim that abortion is perfectly acceptable in this society but then on the other hand say it should be rare. The Democrat party, to their credit, have recognized this and dropped the “rare” from their platform
Instead, the question ought to be: How is that abortion can be considered a right? How is that in this one instance people posit a right to kill a human? It certainly can’t be on the basis of self-defense, since an unborn child cannot be morally aggressive.
If you want to start a thread on this the right ahead.
 
When people claim abortion should be legal, safe , and rare that is fuzzy thinking.

Bob is showing the inconsistency in such logic.

There is no reason for it to be rare if it is legitimate morally. Your analogy about self defense seems misplaced here as you point out the baby is no aggressor.

Why do pro aborts want it rare?
I think there is this misconception that people get abortion to avoid responsibilty. Look at this way I believe stealing and killing should be rare, would if you have to steal to survive because you dont have any money or food to support your family, or what if you have to kill someone who trying to rape or kill you? I dont equate abortion with killing of a human being its not the same thing. I dont know if this helps. I mean i guess it should be rare because it is considered a last resort Its hard for me because I dont really have a stake in the issue.
Of course it’s a strawman. Pro-life i adherents don’t vote against measures that would aid these women and children. They vote against measures that the opposition says will have this effect but pro-life adherents believe will make the problem worse. Whenever I see someone argue this point I wonder if they realize how very close they are coming to extorting the people of the United States. Basically they are saying unless you adopt the social programs I want you to these children will continue to die.

There has not been a penney in reduction to any social program in the last 16 years. Not one penny. And there is absolutely no correlation between poverty and the rate of abortion and between the availability of healthcare and abortion. The former Soviet union provided all of this and had the highest abortion rate in the world. During the most economic hard times this country ever faced, the Great Depression, portions are miniscule.

This thread has taken the usual route of abortion threads. First of acknowledgment of the evil of abortion and the n the abortion apologist step in telling us that it’s really the fault of those who oppose abortion that there are so many abortions and that it is inadequate social services that cause desperate women to kill her child. Both of these contentions are demonstrably false
Its hard to say in a certain sense your right. I mean one reason why young black women decide to have children at such a young age is because they feel the world is against them and they need someone to reciprocate that love. There is also the existential stereotypical welfare queen who has children and gets a check for each child she has from the government. Still, I would be interested to see what studies you have to empirically prove there is no relationship between poverty and abortion. If you think that the main reason why woman get abortion is because they are coerced by their spouses or family members why dont you meet with those family memembers and ask them why they support abortion.
Abortion is the original sin iof the Demcorat party. No matter how much one may admire the positions they take it can not wash away the blood of 50 million children.
Appeal to Emotion

I Know this is offtopic but you know what i find funny about this? The prolife community seems to be so concerned with preserving a life that it unintentionally seems callous towards civillians died in war or genocide like Darfur. Srry for the tanget but i just had to say it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top