Seeking history yes. But I guess I was making the point that the “fanaticism” mentioned by the OP is only relatively recent and (imo) a mostly politically motivated development, and I’m bummed to see so many Catholics “fanatically” calling other well-meaning people “murderers” (without even trying to understand their ethics).
The problem is the link isn’t complete. It’s selective. There were voices that called for restrictions on moral grounds along with secular ones. If one becomes dominant, it doesn’t mean the other(s) was/were absent. It was a practice that was frowned upon among a variety of religious groups regardless of legality.
There are debates on abortion here you know.
This is only partially true. Abortion was not something society as a whole thought was good. It had a huge stigma attached and was used as a way to control women. Which is why women fought against it. It has already been linked about early feminists not allowing ads for abortion in their publications. The objections were not about poisoning. The original pro life activists were the abolitionists and women’s suffrage activist (same people).
To be able to accuse, judge and condemn someone and at the same time feel morally superior, that you are saving innocent lives, doing God’s work etc is quite gratifying. No other pass time can give as much satisfaction and at the same time earn ‘brownie points’ in heaven. You can condemn gay and trans people, but you can not claim to save anyone’s life (maybe their soul) and there is a sneaking suspicion that you should be minding your own business. Being anti-choice has all the advantages and no such disadvantage and no cost at all. So it is best to be pro-life and constantly talk about it - God surely approves!
Also back then and even at the time of Roe the technology and photo imaging to help us understand the unborn child and its stages in development like we do today, just did not exist. We understand now that the unborn child is alive, is human, can feel pain, and a distinct life from its mother. Hence, all the more reason to defend the unborn child from the act of abortion.WillPhillips:
This is only partially true. Abortion was not something society as a whole thought was good. It had a huge stigma attached and was used as a way to control women. Which is why women fought against it. It has already been linked about early feminists not allowing ads for abortion in their publications. The objections were not about poisoning. The original pro life activists were the abolitionists and women’s suffrage activist (same people).
Abortion (pre-Reformation) - Wikiquote
Abortion (1500-1900) - Wikiquote
Abortion in early America - PubMed
“During the colonial period, the legality of abortion varied from colony to colony and reflected the attitude of the European country which controlled the specific colony. In the British colonies abortions were legal if they were performed prior to quickening. In the French colonies abortions were frequently performed despite the fact that they were considered to be illegal. In the Spanish and Portuguese colonies abortion was illegal. From 1776 until the mid-1800s abortion was viewed as socially unacceptable; however, abortions were not illegal in most states. During the 1860s a number of states passed anti-abortion laws. Most of these laws were ambiguous and difficult to enforce. After 1860 stronger anti-abortion laws were passed and these laws were more vigorously enforced.”
If one believes as many prochoicers do, that the unborn child is not alive, that it is a potential human but not a human, that it is not that different from any clump of cells like a tumor, and being not a human yet is thus not worthy of the right to life - then there are no ethical or moral qualms about abortion. The reverse of course is true for pro lifers.13pollitos:
Seeking history yes. But I guess I was making the point that the “fanaticism” mentioned by the OP is only relatively recent and (imo) a mostly politically motivated development, and I’m bummed to see so many Catholics “fanatically” calling other well-meaning people “murderers” (without even trying to understand their ethics).
At one time we had abortion clinic bombings and abortion doctors killed by the “pro life” (more accurately antiabortion) fanatics. Those days, thank the Lord above, are over. So it seems to me that in many ways we are less “fanatical” and immensely more authentic in our pro life beliefs. No pro lifers today think those tactics were anything but a stain on our credibility and I can remember meeting several people in the 1980’s who found those tactics “regrettable but understandable.”
Yep. I believe the Kavanaugh fiasco also happened for only 1 reason…and so will any future SCOTUS nominees by any GOP president. It’s all about protecting abortion rights by any and I mean ANY means necessary.Sbee0:
At one time we had abortion clinic bombings and abortion doctors killed by the “pro life” (more accurately antiabortion) fanatics. Those days, thank the Lord above, are over. So it seems to me that in many ways we are less “fanatical” and immensely more authentic in our pro life beliefs. No pro lifers today think those tactics were anything but a stain on our credibility and I can remember meeting several people in the 1980’s who found those tactics “regrettable but understandable.”
Today we are much more likely to see a pro choice activist who assaults (physically or verbally), bullies, steals from, or in other ways behaves in unbecoming ways towards the opposition. They do appear to be more fanatical at this point in history.
Not all states in the US have the death penalty, but the ones that do usually have priests and lay Catholics (sometimes others join us) gather on “execution nights” to pray outside the prison.
Abortion is the pivotal issue. If abortion continues we will destroy ourselves and all other issues will be meaningless.