Will voting for conservatives change abortion Laws?

[Rolltide]

You mean morally unfit according to your Catholic belief system. But since you cannot provide genuine evidence that a foetus is a person I don’t see what relevance your moral beliefs have in respect of the legal process.

Man’s laws are written, as much as possible, to create the minimum number of laws and the least intrusive laws as is possible without society collapsing. They are written with the intent of giving us a high degree of freedom. As such, they are written to the lowest possible standard. In other words, they tend to portray the bare minimum of acceptable behavior that we can get away with.

God’s laws are entirely different. They are written with the purpose of illustrating what life would be like in utopia. In other words, in an utterly ideal world, how would people behave? As such, they are written to the highest possible standard. They are also, by definition, unachievable, but they give us a goal to strive for with our actions on earth.

In the world that we live in, virtually all people live somewhere BETWEEN these two sets of rules. Most of us behave far better than the bare minimum that society expects, but at the same time, we fall short of God’s law.

This is where abortion comes in. You are correct that the Catholic Church cannot prove that a fetus is a person (or at what point an embryo / fetus receives a human soul or becomes fully human). NO ONE can, since it is a metaphysical argument that cannot be solved by science at this time. HOWEVER, since the Catholic Church places its highest protection and regard on human life, it MUST assume that from the moment of conception, the zygote / embryo / fetus are fully human, defenseless and worthy of being protected like any other human, because it must defend the HIGHEST possible standard. Until it can be proven that a fetus does NOT have a soul (up to a certain point), it must be protected. It is better to play it safe, because the alternative if they are wrong is to potentially condemn millions of innocent human children to death through abortion, which would be an unspeakable horror.

I should add that this is not a uniquely Catholic or Christian argument, but one that can be defended through secular philosophy as well.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Will voting for conservatives change abortion Laws and gay marriage Laws? If not, why vote for them? And why vote for them over other parties that can create a better society for the poor, despite abortion and gay marriage?

Right question to ask.

The evidence clearly points in the direction that voting for conservatives will NOT change abortion laws, at least not on the all-important federal level. See my old posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10029934&postcount=79

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10029945&postcount=80

 

[Linux]

Until it can be proven that a fetus does NOT have a soul (up to a certain point), it must be protected. It is better to play it safe, because the alternative if they are wrong is to potentially condemn millions of innocent human children to death through abortion, which would be an unspeakable horror.

I should add that this is not a uniquely Catholic or Christian argument, but one that can be defended through secular philosophy as well.

Its not the responsibility of the state to prove or approve the Catholic definition of a person, and neither is it responsible for anything that is not self-evident or cannot be defended with genuine evidence.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Finally.

Indeed.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Right question to ask.

The evidence clearly points in the direction that voting for conservatives will NOT change abortion laws, at least not on the all-important federal level. See my old posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10029934&postcount=79

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10029945&postcount=80

I should add: If you want to vote GOP for reasons other than abortion, fine, but from the arguments in my cited posts it should be clear that voting GOP just because of the abortion issue (single-issue voting) is plain stupid and delusional – at least when it comes to voting on the nation-wide level (the state level may be a different matter).

 

[Linux]

Right question to ask.

The evidence clearly points in the direction that voting for conservatives will NOT change abortion laws, at least not on the all-important federal level. See my old posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10029934&postcount=79

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10029945&postcount=80

I have read your posts and I have to agree. Voting for somebody merely because they say they are pro-life is not a good enough reason to be a republican, and it is not a good enough reason to think that abortion laws will change. To me all I see is one party guilt tripping Catholics in-order to gain the catholic vote so that they can justify polices that really are not to the benefit of the economic climate or the common good.

Gullibility comes to mind here.

 

[Al_Moritz]

To me all I see is one party guilt tripping Catholics in-order to gain the catholic vote.

Precisely (and add guilt tripping evangelicals as well). That is their cynical strategy of vote-baiting. They don’t care about abortion when push comes to shove (some individual honest politicians notwithstanding), they just want power.

Gullibility comes to mind here.

Indeed.

 

[Rolltide]

Its not the responsibility of the state to prove or approve the Catholic definition of a person, and neither is it responsible for anything that is not self-evident or cannot be defended with genuine evidence.

Correct. which is why you must take the most conservative position out of an abundance of caution. Even for doctors, the first rule is “do no harm”. Until it can be proven that a fetus is NOT a person, it must be assumed so. This is in no way a religious or Catholic definition, although the Catholic Church naturally agrees with it.

 

[Linux]

Correct. which is why you must take the most conservative position out of an abundance of caution. Even for doctors, the first rule is “do no harm”. Until it can be proven that a fetus is NOT a person, it must be assumed so.

Until there is reason to think that a foetus is a person there is no reason to assume that it is a person. If somebody says they believe a cow has a personal soul, I don’t see why the state should put a ban on cow eating just because it does not comply with somebodies belief. People shouting murderer outside the butchers is not going to change anything, since the burden of proof lies with the believer, not the State.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Right question to ask.

The evidence clearly points in the direction that voting for conservatives will NOT change abortion laws, at least not on the all-important federal level. See my old posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10029934&postcount=79

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10029945&postcount=80

Do you think that the elected supreme court judges prior to 1973 position on abortion was looked at before they were nominated by democrat and republican presidents? Presidents from neither party could of forseen that abortion would become legal. It is not the direct fault of republican presidents that Roe v wade was made legal if the judges they nominated position on abortion was not assesed

Republican platform has become increasingly pro life as time as gone by. Opposite of what has happened to the democrat platform which used to have a pro life platform but has not been changed for a pro abortion platform

Ruth Ginsburg was approved by 96 - 3, not 97 - 0

Judges appointed by republican presidents are far more likely to uphold pro life regulations. Republican legislators are more likely to enact regulations of abortion. Republican executive branch administrators and officials are more likely to regulate rather than subsidise abortion

I have researched and not been able to confirm the claims regarding donations, NRTL, senate republicans republicans for pro abortion judges. There are no sources given in article

George Bush was not 100% pro life, but he passed many abortion restriction laws during his time as president and the rate abortion declined by 8.1% during his presidency. All those abortion restriction laws have been rescinded by Obama

 

[Rolltide]

Until there is reason to think that a foetus is a person there is no reason to assume that it is a person. If somebody says they believe a cow has a personal soul, I don’t see why the state should put a ban on cow eating just because it does not comply with somebodies belief. People shouting murderer outside the butchers is not going to change anything, since the burden of proof lies with the believer, not the State.

I completely fail to follow your logic. Until you can prove to me that something which is created inside a human being, which contains human DNA and will develop into a human is NOT a human, I literally cannot fathom how anyone could come to any other conclusion than it IS a human (until proven otherwise). Otherwise, it’s infanticide repackaged. If you take an 9 month, or an 8 month, or a 7 month old fetus out of the womb, is it not a baby that can survive? What does being in the womb have to do with anything? If that is true, then when is the magic day at which killing the fetus becomes ok? 4 months? 3 months? 2 months? Not at all? There is no philosophical way to know, so the logical and moral thing to do is err on the side of caution.

With regard to cows or other animals having a soul and vegetarianism, I think you will find a great many secular people (PETA, for example) would disagree with your assessment and argue that the state SHOULD enforce a ban on eating cow. It’s not a religious issue, but a philosophical one.

 

[MidnightSun12]

Its not the responsibility of the state to prove or approve the Catholic definition of a person, and neither is it responsible for anything that is not self-evident or cannot be defended with genuine evidence.

Do you realize that a supporter of Nazi Germany (who rejected the Catholic position that Jewish people were human beings) could have made this exact same argument towards a Catholic who wanted to shut down the death camps?

 

[DaveBj]

Until there is reason to think that a foetus is a person there is no reason to assume that it is a person. If somebody says they believe a cow has a personal soul, I don’t see why the state should put a ban on cow eating just because it does not comply with somebodies belief. People shouting murderer outside the butchers is not going to change anything, since the burden of proof lies with the believer, not the State.

By that logic, if you’re ever arrested for a crime, until there is a reason to think you are innocent, there is no reason to assume that you are innocent.

Uh-huh. Pull the other leg.

 

[Linux]

By that logic, if you’re ever arrested for a crime, until there is a reason to think you are innocent, there is no reason to assume that you are innocent.

Uh-huh. Pull the other leg.

People are arrested for a crime for good reason

 

[Linux]

will develop into a human

 

[Linux]

Do you realize that a supporter of Nazi Germany (who rejected the Catholic position that Jewish people were human beings) could have made this exact same argument towards a Catholic who wanted to shut down the death camps?

The legitimacy of an argument can change if the the context is changed.

 

[Linux]

With regard to cows or other animals having a soul and vegetarianism, I think you will find a great many secular people (PETA, for example) would disagree with your assessment and argue that the state SHOULD enforce a ban on eating cow. It’s not a religious issue, but a philosophical one.

Without evidence, a ban on eating cows will never happen. Until you prove that a foetus has a personal soul, the abortion laws will not change.

 

[Rolltide]

Without evidence, a ban on eating cows will never happen. Until you prove that a foetus has a personal soul, the abortion laws will not change.

Nonsense. There are all sorts of unjust laws in various nations, and they get overturned all the time. When a majority of people realize that, they will change. Many people argued for slavery based on the fact that it could not be proven that Africans or Native Americans had souls, and yet those laws were overturned, despite the fact that you cannot prove that ANYONE has a soul, because it’s in the realm of metaphysics. I’d like to see someone argue that they didn’t have a soul today though.

I wonder if anyone in India would agree that a government can’t ban eating cows…

 

[Rolltide]

Linux,
Prove to me that an infant is a human being.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linux
**
Wasting time and money better spent evangelising is not good in Gods eyes. Legalism is not the most important thing. Angry people shouting your evil your a murderer, is not change. Evangelising people to the truth with love is more important than trying to coerce a change that is not legally possible. **

Unfortunately, that sappy philosophy doesn’t work.

It didn’t work in Nazi Germany. The Germans had to be crushed to stop their holocaust of the Jews. The reason Nazism triumphed in Germany, at least for a time, is that good men did nothing to stop it.

In America the same is happening. We have the killing of the unborn by the millions every year, and all the Democrats can say is …

It’s your God given right to kill your children!

The Democrats have lost their souls to the Devil. The Republicans are not far behind.