Why the focus on abortion?

[Sbee0]

Annie:

Science tells us that once conception occurs, a human exists, thus we believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, which is totally wrong.

That is simply incorrect. When a conception occurs, a new being STARTS to develop. That is all.

False.

As many arguments rationalizing the prochoice position are.

Carry on.

 

[Sbee0]

Economist:

Annie:

Science tells us that once conception occurs, a human exists, thus we believe that abortion is the taking of a human life, which is totally wrong.

That is simply incorrect. When a conception occurs, a new being STARTS to develop. That is all.

What is incorrect? Don’t force your values on us!
And don’t be a science denier. Do you also believe in 6 day creationism?

Fact is:
Unique human dna at conception, species homo sapiens, distinct from the mother or father.
Same potential for growth as you or I

Which of those facts are you going to dispute without being a superstitious science denier?

Now, you are going to reflex to “not a person”, which in that case you should run and hide because neither are you or I are persons either, by your own criteria.

I say personhood begins at conception.

To date not one pro choicer has given me a credible and logical argument that I am wrong.

Not one.

I wonder why?

 

[MamaJewel]

Sorry, men have to deal with the results of these “accidents” for the next 18+ years by law. Do you want that to change? If one uses the power of the sexual faculties then one has already consented to the results of the union. We expect it of men and should expect it of women.

This is a joke, right?

Trust me when I say what is expected of men is expected from women as well, plus a million more costs for the woman.

Men get to throw money at it and the courts in the US place the same requirement on the women. Even if a woman doesn’t have a J-O-B, she is imputed at minimum wage toward her share of child support.

She is also expected to take a beat down because she chose to give birth. I know so many women, a good number who didn’t want to have a child, but couldn’t go through with an abortion, who had the child they birthed dumped on them literally by the biological father and the family court system.

Too many men refuse to do their fair share with their progeny. Mothers in society are expected to be the go-to caregiver at all times when the father doesn’t feel like or can’t do do his part (within marriage and out of wedlock).

I know single working mothers who had judges get rude with them for taking the father to court for being in arrears for child support (some for several thousand dollars in arrears when ordered support is not more than $200 to $300 per month). Those nasty judges shut up and then threatened the father with jail time once the mother explained that he’s not paying, but they were being denied SNAP (food stamps) because with the ordered child support (that they aren’t actually receiving) put the family over the monthly income threshold by $8 or $20 a month.

I also know a few single women whose children have disabilities that have to juggle the extra work that comes with those circumstances. Mothers in these situations have to juggle earning a living and all of the extras that come with a caring for a sick child (ie. doctors appointments, emergency department visits, hospitalizations, etc). Some of these women are afraid to take the fathers back to court to enforce visitation or child support, because they are very concerned that the fathers will give a sob story and that they will be punished as the single mom.

Oh, and consent to sexual intercourse is consent to sexual intercourse. No human being has the right to be inside of another human being without consent. And consent can be revoked at any point during the process.

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

Annie:

So let’s look at this.

Let’s don’t. Before a new analogy is entertained, let’s solve the old one.

I do not assert that the unborn have more rights than do their mothers, only that they do have the right not to be killed.

Actually, that is exactly what you do. The zygote, blastocyst, fetus is an intruder into the woman’s body. The woman is “supposed” to have her life interrupted if she does not want to accommodate the intruder. That means losing her right to self-determination, just to allow the gestation of the zygote.

But the question is even more problematic. Let’s analyze this scenario.

There is an accident, and someone (person “A”) is responsible for the accident. Not criminally responsible, because the accident was just an unlucky set of circumstances. The other party (person “B”) cannot survive unless they are connected and the bodily resources of person “A” are used to sustain person “B” for nine months. At the end of nine months they will be separated and person “A” will only be financially responsible for person “B”’-s life, for about 14 - 18 years. No sane court would accept this solution. The loss of person “B”-s life may be regrettable, but it does not justify the interruption of the life of person “A”.

Hmmm. Not sure “intruder” is the right word. “a person who intrudes, especially into a building with criminal intent.” I suppose you could use that word if the woman was forced without her consent.

Otherwise I guess you call sex “an unlucky set of circumstances”?

Ultimately, I think what would be ideal is if people had to sign some kind of legal document before they had relations, indicating what would happen to any child conceived through such an “unlucky set of circumstances”.

 

[margaret42]

I guess one reason is that without people, no other issue matters?

 

[Loud-living-dogma]

I feel like there need to be billboards, especially aimed at young people, explaining the consequences of sex. Raising a child for the next 18 years (minimum), the costs involved, time and effort needed to get lawyers, go to court for custody / support issues, etc.

I just think that our culture send the message to young people that there are no consequences, but often there are very important and overwhelming consequences.

Something like DUI consequence billboards:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“Having a baby at 18: you can’t afford it”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[EXdrinker]

No, it was not a joke. The post to which I was replying was saying that a woman only consents to the enjoyment of the sexual act and if she accidentally becomes pregnant she should not have to live with the results of that unintended consequence and thus be able to kill the baby. I merely pointed out that, as a society, we expect men to deal with the result of the act, as it is implied when performing it that one is responsible for what comes from it.

 

[virgo]

I guess one reason is that without people, no other issue matters?

I can see that argument, however—what about environmental stewardship? By your logic, the environment should come first, because without a viable earth, no other issues will matter?

 

[margaret42]

No, the environment doesn’t matter at all if the issue of life doesn’t come first

 

[TrumpTrain]

As a lifelong Catholic, I have many causes that I’m passionate about. And although I’m pro-life, I’m not an activist, and I don’t feel particularly strongly about abortion. I mean, it’s bad (obviously), but it doesn’t keep me up at night

Really!! So a holocaust with numbers beyond Hitlers wildest dreams in your own back yard does not keep you up at night?

If Hitlerian concentration camps and ovens were operating in your home town would that keep you up? Because that’s exactly what Planned Parenthood is: They murder millions of innocent human beings, and either sell the parts or throw them in trash cans.

I recommend that you rethink this issue.The child in the womb is a human being. That is a scientific fact. When that child is killed, a human being is killed. That is a scientific fact.

In a just world all the people who facilitate this holocaust would be hung in the town square just like Mussolini was.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Justice by many historical thinkers means to give every human being his or just due as best as possible.
Many widespread injustices, whereby a large part of the populace becomes duped into injustice toward human beings uses crafty rhetoric to claim they are subhuman or not human for justification. And always exalts the right to use one’s autonomy over these other human beings at one’s own discretion, in the face of self evident Creator given inalienable truths.
Christ fulfilled The Law and The Prophets. The Bible and good science verifies The Laws of Nature that a human being begins at the moment of conception. So, since the Church teaches this; and a grave moral sin damages someones soul & conscience because by nature they are in the image and likeness of God, by faith & reason we know the person formed a lack of interior peace. (Of course, someone from Jesus Christ’s impartial point of view willing participates in the child’s death by them giving their self over to a reprobate will there is no remedy, like Rachel’s Vineyard counseling.) The contributing factors are of course the father and/or mother consenting to the death of the child, the medical staff performing the killing; but also, Jesus Christ taught to diligently share the Kingdom of God; He spoke to ruling classes; ‘clergy,’ pious, ‘sinners’ & ‘tax collectors,’ and every group of people. The ruling classes had religious and civil authority under Herod.
When we fail in informing consciences, creatively, compassionately, with complete concern for the other’s welfare & their dignity & value in anything; and from Jesus Christ’s Impartial view, this lack of informing consciences; does in providence not prevent because the persons being informed would have made a decision not to perform a grave moral; this is also a contributing factor to a culture of death; which humankind’s ‘legalization’ gives an ‘air of acceptability.’
We’ve never had a perfect world. Yet, atrocities like institutional slavery lasting longer by less than due diligence in bringing the change abolitionists petitioned for year after year.
Many rail at the darkness of bias & distortions in the educational, media, medical, arts & entertainment venues. Yet, they justify the widespread practical silence in proportion to the dire magnitude at the pulpit by rarely speaking of it. Offering solutions at the community level; explaining the status quo gets legislated & adjudicated in direct proportion over time by ‘We The People’s’ consent; and things of that nature; in a positive diligent build one another up way does reflect ways to counter the bias. Also, giving reports of efforts to go to the ‘high ways and hedgerows’ of our communities; like public squares, even the child killing facilities themselves; giving reports of sidewalk counseling helping hearts & minds and saving babies lives.
I’ve heard the justifications of a more passive response; but they all fallsshort of raising the awareness necessary to help souls, and end the atrocity.
Peace.

 

[Lea101]

Oh, and consent to sexual intercourse is consent to sexual intercourse.

I don’t doubt that people believe this. But our point is that consent to sexual intercourse should also be accompanied by consent to the natural and biological consequence of sex.

No human being has the right to be inside of another human being without consent.

If you’re talking about rape, yes. If you’re talking about pregnancy, you might as well say no child has the right to be inside of his/her mother without consent. Since that’s literally the only time one is inside the other like that.

And consent can be revoked at any point during the process.

And instead of saying this, you might as well say ‘and the mother can kill her child if she simply changes her mind’.

You would still be gravely wrong, of course. Since we’re talking about the basic care needed for a life. If you’re truly interested in a clear and simple rebuttal in your argument, which is considered the Violinist Argument, watch this

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

And consent can be revoked at any point during the process.

Do you agree with a parent kicking their teenage child out of the house?

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if every Parish had a published pamphlet with as many as possible of the objective Beauty, Goodness, and Truth self evident inalienably given by our Creator to oppose the playing at heart strings false logic arguments of pro child killing factions which exalt autonomy over the God given intrinsic value, dignity, and sacredness of the child. And make sure to include this for elderly, and sick, also.
~
The Gospel of Life needs much raising awareness for the impressionable in today’s ambiguous narrative. And prudently, intermittently, creatively in proportion to the dire need of today actually speak of these solemn things hurting consciences from the pulpits. Every single idea, manifested in action that forms ‘emotionally highs’ and other attractive things to a person, that disagrees with God’s Ideas, objectively hurts a person. In the economy of Salvation; passivity never helped an individual, nor society ills hurting the common good. (i.e. slavery, then oppression by lack of equal opportunity & oppression was objectively lengthened by lack of listening to abolitionists, and equal rights workers. Creative Grace filled clarity in sustained more visible compassionate assertiveness in narrative in all venues is certainly needed to counter the clever biases in the societal narrative as a whole.) Every disciple has just concerns for the common good, and the good of individuals that expressions of Godliness up hold the dignity of every human person reacting to hearing these expressions.
Now since, a person’s reaction hearing a prudent objective compassionate narrative depends largely on that person’s self disposition; over caution is passivity. So the lack of informing that conscience who needs a ‘seed’ of knowledge or maybe upon hearing it within a time frame ‘see the light,’ because of the narrative would be a sin of omission.
~
Sustained, intermittent narratives help with healing. Virtual silence exacerbates the problem.
~
We all need informed consistent often reminders to be prepared.
(cont…)

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

The Gospel of Life, is intimately linked to the right to life, and building a culture of life and charity.
“And in fine, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, being lovers of the brotherhood, merciful, modest, humble: Not rendering evil for evil, nor railing for railing, but contrariwise, blessing: for unto this are you called, that you may inherit a blessing.
For he that will love life and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil, and his lips that they speak no guile.
Let him decline from evil and do good: Let him seek after peace and pursue it:
Because the eyes of the Lord are upon the just, and his ears unto their prayers but the countenance of the Lord upon them that do evil things.
And who is he that can hurt you, if you be zealous of good?
But if also you suffer any thing for justice’ sake, blessed are ye. And be not afraid of their fear: and be not troubled. But sanctify the Lord Christ in your hearts, being ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a reason of that hope which is in you. But with modesty and fear, having a good conscience: that whereas they speak evil of you, they may be ashamed who falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.”

• 1 Peter 3:8-16

 

[runningdude]

So—why the almost fanatical obsession in our faith community? Maybe I’m just imagining it? Are there any other topics that Catholics should maybe focus on? Why the constant coverage of it on Catholic radio (preaching to the choir!) and not a host of other worthwhile topics?

This is a deliberate false narrative designed to make Pro-life advocates look insane, but cover for the increasingly maniacal promotion of abortion by secular society in recent decades.

There are states that actually using “liberal” abortion laws to attract business and industry:

Abortion laws: Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont encourages women-owned businesses in anti-abortion states like Alabama, Georgia and Missouri to move to his state - CBS News

Several states are competing to offer the most comprehensive abortion coverage:

Gov. J.B. Pritzker signs abortion rights law making procedure a ‘fundamental right’ for women in Illinois – Chicago Tribune

Meanwhile, Catholics who simply believe that an unborn child has a right to life are portrayed anti-women fanatics:

Planned Parenthood's Leana Wen: Abortion Bans Are Tools of Misogyny and Oppression

So, don’t fall for the narrative that Catholics are “obsessed” with abortion. The response, if anything, is quite measured considering the degree of moral torpidity afoot.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

Your examples of pervasive biases are well appreciated, God Bless you and yours.
Peace.

 

[MamaJewel]

No, it was not a joke. The post to which I was replying was saying that a woman only consents to the enjoyment of the sexual act and if she accidentally becomes pregnant she should not have to live with the results of that unintended consequence and thus be able to kill the baby. I merely pointed out that, as a society, we expect men to deal with the result of the act, as it is implied when performing it that one is responsible for what comes from it.

A woman has to deal (meaning psychologically) with a pregnancy from the moment she recognizes she is pregnant, so there truly is not a moment that a woman has to live with the results of an unintended pregnancy, regardless if there is a positive outcome (live birth). And society expects a woman to physically alter her lifestyle, if necessary, to grow the human being within her. She’s expected to reduce stress, eat healthy, exercise, take a prenatal vitamin, attend prenatal appointments, and maybe even quit her job if it’s too dangerous for pregnancy. This is long before a father is expected to pay the first dime toward child support.

Once a live birth occurs, support can be ordered if the couple was married or if a DNA test determines paternity. And, yes, a father is expected to pay child support, but by law, so is the mother. So in that regard, society does not expect any more of the father than it does of the mother.

On the other hand, law and society expect the mother to be the default parent. The states aren’t to keen on letting the mother just sign her rights to the child away. She is expected to be there, paying financially toward the child, as well as doing all the other things society expects of moms. So there is a greater burden on women, before and after birth. (I’m not saying that I agree with this perspective, either. I’ve known some women that the state should have allowed to terminate parental rights when they didn’t want to serve in the role as mom.)

But it is disturbing when we act like men are held more responsible by having to pay support if a woman chooses to bring a pregnancy to term. Pregnancy poses substantial risks to a woman’s life and well-being. Abortion poses risks as well. Men don’t face such risks and there is nothing wrong with expecting them to pay their fair share towards child support. I think it bolsters the idea of a need for abortion when we try to say that men pay for women’s choice. If a man doesn’t want to be a father he can have a vasectomy and reverse it later if he changes his mind. Much safer than a tubal for a woman and way easier to reverse.

 

[MamaJewel]

I don’t doubt that people believe this. But our point is that consent to sexual intercourse should also be accompanied by consent to the natural and biological consequence of sex.

I used to believe as you did. Then I took an anatomy and physiology class that laid out what pregnancy does with the human body. I could no longer say that consent to sex extends to the natural and biological consequence of intercourse. Literally, a successful pregnancy must maintain the presence of the embryo/zygote within the uterus as a type of none-self. Pregnancy is a complex, extraordinary natural event that keeps the allogeneic fetus hidden from the immune system of the pregnant body. While pregnancy is natural, it isn’t exactly a safe process because nature quite often breaks down. The goal of pregnancy is to bring a new human into the world, but unfortunately, the process doesn’t discriminate. Pregnancy will kill a healthy fetus and mother in favor of a fetus that has no chance at life. After A&P, I viewed the natural position as too flawed.

If you’re talking about pregnancy, you might as well say no child has the right to be inside of his/her mother without consent. Since that’s literally the only time one is inside the other like that.

I absolutely believe that no human being has the right to be inside of another human being without consent. Full stop. Period.

Like I told my mom 2 weeks ago, “I don’t have a right to anything inside of your body now and I didn’t have a right to the inside of your body then. But thanks mom, for having me.” Boy was she peeved.

Also, I am familiar with the violinist argument and it doesn’t compare to pregnancy. Pregnancy literally hides a foreign body within another human body. We wouldn’t expect the donor in the violinist story to provide life support if doing so would put the donor at the same risks as pregnancy. We’d say that it would be up to the donor to continue the life support.

 

[IsaiahSpirit]

I absolutely believe that no human being has the right to be inside of another human being without consent. Full stop. Period.

~
You give a lot of faulty ethical & emotional hardships of ‘with child’ reasons not to be self giving for another human being’s life. Even if the preponderance of science confirms, the unique DNA; immediate growth, cell respiration, and on defines a human being at the moment of conception; it is seen as ethical to preserve life in times of doubt. For example, CPR & other first responder medial intervension. We all began life the same way, tiny and invisible.
~
Can you answer definitively when consciousness begins? We know by Near Death Experience accounts whereby two or three witnesses verify that a person with no signs of life; dead my medical standards; are aware of objects & conversions far from the room they are in at the time of their death. Science calls consciousness ‘the hard problem.’ You cannot definitively argue that their is not a human conscious in need of the mother, who wants to live past birth.
~
Just a caring concerned word of knowledge. We all leave this life and enter into the afterlife. Someone who forms an inner disposition irrevocably opposed to The Gospel, cannot by the nature of the substance of their own being; be able to live in the Presence of God. But since God created you, your existence is irrevocable however your free will decides your inner disposition to be. Please, please, please contemplate this example, "And He took the bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body, given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” - Jesus Christ, Luke 22:19 Extremely very rarely does pregnancy threaten the life of the mother, especially today with much better maternal care. The Church does teach that treating a blighted ovum, cancer, ectopic pregnancy and other mortal conditions; treating the condition does not have the intent of killing the child; and treating these conditions are permissible, even though they often result in the death of the child.
~
Peace: indescribable well being with God be with you,
my heartfelt prayers & concerns for you, yours.