Why the focus on abortion?

[WillPhillips]

introduced in 1967.

Yes, that’s my point. It’s a “recent” development.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That’s likely true, but I’m not sure how far that extends.

 

[ATraveller]

Yes, that’s my point. It’s a “recent” development.

Because they reacted to something when legislators put it out there, which was “recent”. Had they not, the focus would had been on other things. But what do the UK or Canada have to do with segregation? Nothing because we’re not America. The events were independent of each other.

 

[WillPhillips]

But what do the UK or Canada have to do with segregation? Nothing because we’re not America

I’m not following. Im trying to make the point that the “fanaticism” pointed out by the OP is a relatively recent development in the Church (world-wide). And also that there are few honest attempts to understand opposing ethical systems.

 

[ATraveller]

I’m not following. Im trying to make the point that the “fanaticism” pointed out by the OP is a relatively recent development in the Church (world-wide). And also that there are few honest attempts to understand opposing ethical systems.

Because abortion on demand sanctioned by the State happened approximately the same time but independent of each other. Look at when most Western countries changed their laws, 1960’s and later. It’s a widespread change. Now, they’re foisting it on African countries, where they’re not wanted by the majority of people there and on Latin America too.

 

[catholic03]

Abortion is the murder of a defenseless, innocent, unbaptised, unborn human being. It is an abomination.

Governments of countries oppose poverty, famines, and genocide. However, the nature of abortion is that it is worse than poverty and famines, and is arguably a form of genocide. Thus, while governments worry about poverty and famines, they agree with and support abortion, worse than both of these things. Abortion is legalised genocide and must be opposed.

You clearly need some good catechesis if you day ‘Why the focus on abortion’.

 

[13pollitos]

Again, this is simply not true. In the US, prior to Roe, this was not a hot topic moral issue and abortions were practiced under common law (with little objection by Catholics).

This is untrue. Abortions held a massive social stigma as well as legal penalties. It wasn’t just Catholics opposed. Many (most) of the original Women’s Rights activists also objected to abortion.

The Suffragettes Would Not Agree With Feminists on Abortion | TIME

“ But would those early pioneers recognize the movement that claims to speak for the rights of women today?

On the issue of abortion, they would not. Many of today’s feminists see abortion as one of the touchstones of their movement. Yet many of the early leaders of the women’s suffrage movement in the U.S. believed that the rights of mother and child are inextricably linked and that the right to life and the right to vote are rooted in the inherent dignity of each human person.

The public statements of many early champions of women’s rights in the U.S. make clear their opposition. Elizabeth Cady Stanton referred to abortion as “infanticide” and wrotethat “when we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” Victoria Woodhull, the first female candidate for president, wrote: “Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth.” And Elizabeth Blackwell, the first woman to receive a medical degree in the U.S., wrote: “The gross perversion and destruction of motherhood by the abortionist filled me with indignation, and awakened active antagonism.”

Mrs. Pankhurst’s American counterpart, Susan B. Anthony, was a friend and heroine to many of these women. Along with Cady Stanton, she founded The Revolution newspaper, which served as a mouthpiece for the American women’s suffrage movement. Anthony funded the paper herself, refusing the capital that would have resulted from allowing advertisements for “restellism,” as abortion was then called. The Revolution published a piece, attributable to Anthony, that said abortion was a choice that would burden both a woman’s “conscience in life and soul in death” and also ultimately an exploitation of women”

 

[WillPhillips]

Abortion is the murder of a defenseless, innocent, unbaptised , unborn human being . It is an abomination.

Governments of countries oppose poverty, famines, and genocide. However, the nature of abortion is that it is worse than poverty and famines, and is arguably a form of genocide. Thus, while governments worry about poverty and famines, they agree with and support abortion, worse than both of these things. Abortion is legalised genocide and must be opposed.

You clearly need some good catechesis if you day ‘Why the focus on abortion’.

Your comment is a good example of my point about fundamentalist stances. Would you be able to describe an ethical defense (any) of abortion? (You can google if you need)

 

[catholic03]

There can be no defense of abortion any more than their can be a defense of the death penalty, euthanasia or any other form of murder, full stop.

Absolutely none at all.

 

[WillPhillips]

There can be no defense of abortion any more than their can be a defense of the death penalty, euthanasia or any other form of murder, full stop.

Absolutely none at all.

Could you describe an ethical argument stating otherwise? Do you think all people in favor of abortion rights are simply psychopaths?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

I think he means can you list the arguments people use to argue for abortion.

 

[WillPhillips]

I’m sorry but this is an opinion piece by a political action committee president. Abortion was simply not a political flash point until only recently (and was really never a major political focus of the Church).

 

[catholic03]

Sorry, here are common arguments:

1. If a women is raped or the child is the result of incest, then she has a ‘choice’ to abort it.
2. It is the women’s body and so she can ‘choose’.
3. The child is a ‘clump of cells’.

These arguments have no basis. They only are based off grave moral evil of relativism, that has led so many away from the Church. It comes from the evil one, whose name I shall not mention.

 

[ATraveller]

I’m sorry but this is an opinion piece by a political action committee president. Abortion was simply not a political flash point until only recently (and was really never a major political focus of the Church).

Why would Christians or anyone react to something that didn’t happen, in this case countries allowing abortion on demand? The laws on abortions prior to liberalization weren’t perfect but favourable to Christians. Why would we make noise about something that didn’t happen? It makes no sense to voice opposition to liberalisation when legislators didn’t even raise it prior to the 1960’s. It wasn’t thought to had been a possibility at the time. Well, they were wrong and it did happen and a lot faster than anticipated even when they realised the issue would be raised.

Let’s pretend a world had proper homes for everyone. Why would its voters campaign on stamping out homelessness when everyone’s housed properly?

 

[WillPhillips]

These arguments have no basis.

The basis is what I’m asking you about.

Sorry to harp on this, but you can EASILY go find out these answers.

I guess it’s just depressing to me to see all these responses with so little respect or even minimal attempts at understanding other people’s views (yes, real people who also think murder is wrong).

 

[Neithan]

Abortion is the most insidious evil in western societies, because it is state sanctioned homicide of an innocent. It’s one of the most destructive evils in the world population, with 40 million people yearly whose lives are ended early because of it, most of them female. The problem is that most people don’t seem to care, either because they think the world is overpopulated or because a woman who doesn’t want to give birth should not have to — and it’s not a new problem at all, it’s been around as long as we have.

Catholics who are passionate about it feel like they are shouting into the void; it’s horribly tragic and endlessly frustrating. I believe we should accept that this is a sin that some people are going to commit, whether it’s legal or not, and the best we can do is support women who feel like they have no other choice, that’s the primary issue. We can also promote politics that recognize it should not be legal, or at least not state sanctioned with public funding, but that’s the secondary issue.

 

[GEddie]

It has only been an international political issue for approximately fifty years, since entire countries got into protecting it, as opposed to just not penalizing it.

The mass media that has made international activism on a world scale possible, has only also been around for “decades.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[catholic03]

Amazing description. Insidious is exactly what it is.

How could any husband, or father, or brother want a doctor to reach into their wife/daughter/sister’s body and kill an innocent child. Imagine how much guilt a mother who repented of the sin of abortion would feel knowing that their child may be in limbo until the second coming.

How joyful new life is! We must celebrate it and not stamp it out.

I say this as a male teenager who is surrounded by people who support this insidious and surreptitious act against the 5th and 6th commandments.

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on us.

 

[13pollitos]

I’m sorry but this is an opinion piece by a political action committee president. Abortion was simply not a political flash point until only recently (and was really never a major political focus of the Church).

Are you seeking news stories or what exactly?

Are you saying that the Women’s movement didn’t speak against abortion?

Why would there need to be a huge push against something that was for the most part considered wrong (morally and legally) by the majority of Americans? Until recently, every denomination spoke out against birth control even.

 

[WillPhillips]

The laws on abortions prior to liberalization weren’t perfect but favourable to Christians.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your history but again, not true. Did you know abortions were allowed and widely practiced in the US prior to late 1800s. Newspaper adds advertising abortion pills were common (and big business). Early attempts to regulate abortions weren’t even focused on moral or religious issues but on poisoning. Take a read of the link I posted above about the reaction to Roe.