Catholic politicians must be held accountable for pro-abortion views

[thecolorsblend]

This is why discussion is so polarized and the two sides will never agree on anything. They can't step outside their own framework for a second to try to understand the other. Instead, just express the other in the most emotionally charged, insulting way possible.

Your tirade up there is flawed at its foundation. Time was that I expressed pro-choice attitudes. I became persuaded by the pro-life position over the course of about a year or so.

The undeniable facts of the matter are that life grows in a woman’s womb, it is human life and abortion destroys that human life.

Everything else is just meaningless details designed to excuse murder.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

To say anything more is not only absurd but would render Jesus and the apostles inconsistent and incompetent, as they did not physically overthrow systematic sins they opposed, but did regularly speak against it whenever presented the opportunity.

So actually doing something makes "Jesus and the apostles inconsistent and incompetent"

Well, that was a new reason for inaction. Very original. Should make a great defence on final judgement.

"I did not want to make Jesus look bad by actually saving children"

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

So actually doing something makes "Jesus and the apostles inconsistent and incompetent"

Well, that was a new reason for inaction. Very original. Should make a great defence on final judgement.

Except that is an acknowledgement that speaking against it is doing something...unless you want to reverse the argument and say Jesus and the apostles were in fact incompetent and inconsistent. It's a lose-lose for you. I already demonstrated your logic is worthless as it contradicts the methods of Christ and the apostles and human capability. Seeing as how your dodging of my response was constituted by an admission, essentially, you can bow out.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

as it contradicts the methods of Christ and the apostles and human capability.

"Those guys were just all talk and no action apart from all those miracles that we could not expect to perform today so I just hang out on these forums to do God`s work."

This is not entirely accurate.....

Cleansing of the Temple - Wikipedia

Seeing as how your dodging of my response

Dodging your response is similiar to not stepping on a dog`s poo. Most people do it automatically without needing to consider the relevant densities of the matter which in this case prove a close relative to original product steaming on the ground.

 

[Thir7ySev3n]

"Those guys were just all talk and no action apart from all those miracles that we could not expect to perform today so I just hang out on these forums to do God`s work."

This is not entirely accurate.....

Cleansing of the Temple - Wikipedia

What's hilarious is you use one exception Jesus made for a single instance of idolatry, yet neglect the countless times He merely spoke hotly against the same kind of sins, among others, and the countless examples of the apostles of the Lord engaging sinners with word, including against the idolatry in Acts 17. The location is what counted here. Try doing any of this in my or my father's house either.

Dodging your response is similiar to not stepping on a dog`s poo. Most people do it automatically without needing to consider the relevant densities of the matter which in this case prove a close relative to original product steaming on the ground.

The proceeding statements are what you are attempting to diminish with rhetoric but are unable to deny or oppose with any substance:

"This logic is just as stupid as saying if I protest against theft, I have to become a police officer. If I detest people dying in house-fires, I must become a fireman. If I'm against gluttony, I need to become a dietitian. If I'm against ungodly music, I need to become an author of hymns. If I abhor lies, I must become an investigator.

What you suggest is humanly impossible as I would have to occupy myself against everything I am against to be "consistent" by this embarrassingly inept view you espouse. Murderers are required not to murder and liars not to lie. I am not empowered to be a vigilante against every injustice I recognize as such, but I am enabled to convict and rebuke those who insist on engaging and promoting it."

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

What you suggest is humanly impossible

All things are possible with God

 

[FireDragon76]

It's not pro- abortion. It is pro- choice.

Yeah... life is good, but so is freedom. Both are equal goods. The ability to misuse freedom doesn't negate the value of freedom.

It is unwise for the Catholic hierarchy to attempt to control people, they should focus on supporting people, not dictating politics.

 

[FireDragon76]

On the issue of when a fetus becomes a baby: No consensus and that is part of the problem.

BBC - Ethics - Abortion: When is the foetus 'alive'?
Fetus as Human Being: Where is the Cut-off Point?
Why Science Can't Say When a Baby's Life Begins
Embryo vs. Fetus: What’s the Difference?

There are actually philosophical positions that also don't see human personhood in essentialist terms. Process philosophy and Buddhism come to mind as well. Which means that personhood is not so cut and dried.

As one gynecologist put it, life is not an event, it's a process. Life begins before conception.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Tell me the difference... let me guess.

Pro choice means that the woman... without the mans consent... can "CHOSE" to abort.. or not.

Tell me.... know any Pro choice that are Anti abortion? Huh?

Many.

Pro-Choice is about woman having the freedom to bring a child to term or have it aborted. And to have a safe environment for the procedure without legal consequences. For most it is a difficult decision with many factors and often, little support.

Pro-abortion is about seeing abortion as a moral good. I don't think anyone is "Pro-abortion" or as some here would like to word it, pro-murder.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Pro-abortion seems more appropriate to me given how much 'pro-choice' people desire the right of mothers to kill their unborn children.

It may be more appropriate since abortion is the controversial option. But until we can have a discussion about the the choice between mother's body and life in the womb we get nowhere.

Pro-choice people frame the argument as a woman's right to make a decision about HER body. Pro-life frames it as the right of the fetus and its body. we have to be able to discuss and we are not there as a society. we cant talk.

It seems disconcerting when we are told by Christian politicians that their faith doesn't impact them when they want to pass certain laws.

Well, it is not just faith. It is also philosophy of life. Yes, they do overlap.

Is it faith that tells us life begins at conception?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Your tirade up there is flawed at its foundation.

Tirade? a three sentence tirade?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Yeah... life is good, but so is freedom. Both are equal goods. The ability to misuse freedom doesn't negate the value of freedom.

It is unwise for the Catholic hierarchy to attempt to control people, they should focus on supporting people, not dictating politics.

The killing of unborn children is not merely a political issue but a moral and spiritual issue the church has every right to comment on and set standards for.

To make it a political issue alone is to misunderstand Christianity's objection to abortion.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It may be more appropriate since abortion is the controversial option. But until we can have a discussion about the the choice between mother's body and life in the womb we get nowhere.

Pro-choice people frame the argument as a woman's right to make a decision about HER body. Pro-life frames it as the right of the fetus and its body. we have to be able to discuss and we are not there as a society. we cant talk.




Well, it is not just faith. It is also philosophy of life. Yes, they do overlap.

Is it faith that tells us life begins at conception?

It would seem like your contention is that till we agree with the pro abortion framework we cannot have a discussion.

Sorry but neither side will concede on the matter of what is most important.

Now it isnt faith that tells us life begins at conception but it is faith that tells us life at Ny stage after conception has value and cannot be killed for convenience.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It would seem like your contention is that till we agree with the pro abortion framework we cannot have a discussion.

No. But we need to compare and contrast and explore frameworks before we can ever hope to understand each other and come to agreement....or at least a larger consensus.

I would ask a Pro-choice person,

"Why do you believe a woman's right has priority over the life within her?"
"Does a woman have any responsibility for the life she carries? Why or why not?"

 

[Lords Man]

It's not pro- abortion. It is pro- choice.

MURDER of the unborn is a Satanic CHOICE!!!!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

MURDER of the unborn is a Satanic CHOICE!!!!

Good luck trying to influence the opposition.

 

[ilovejcsog]

The argument that always gets me when this comes up is the generations that have been lost from abortions will not be here to support you when you get old. What will you do when more than a million lives won't be there to put into SS which is for your retirement? Hopefully the second coming will save you

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

No. But we need to compare and contrast and explore frameworks before we can ever hope to understand each other and come to agreement....or at least a larger consensus.

I would ask a Pro-choice person,

"Why do you believe a woman's right has priority over the life within her?"
"Does a woman have any responsibility for the life she carries? Why or why not?"

I can't speak for the Pro-abortion side, but how does the pro-life side not understand their position? They value the life of the child in the womb less than they value the choice of the woman to kill, for whatever reason, the child in the womb. In some cases they deny the humanity outright of the child.

The pro-life rejects this position because they value the life of the child in the womb more than the woman's choice. There is no right to choose to kill the life of the unborn.

I think we both more or less understand each other's frameworks but reject them. Christians support the life of the child in the womb.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I can't speak for the Pro-abortion side, but how does the pro-life side not understand their position? They value the life of the child in the womb less than they value the choice of the woman to kill, for whatever reason, the child in the womb. In some cases they deny the humanity outright of the child.

The pro-life rejects this position because they value the life of the child in the womb more than the woman's choice. There is no right to choose to kill the life of the unborn.

I think we both more or less understand each other's frameworks but reject them. Christians support the life of the child in the womb.

You are probabaly right but the discussion needs to continue, communication and trying to understand each other must continue.

There was a woman on the news to day wanting an abortion and the law was reaquiring two pelvic exams. I recall her saying, "I don't need these exams I know what I want."

I would want to ask her why she wants it, what dynamics are going on in her life. Now she may already have six kids or something.

All i know is my wife is pro-choice so it is a touchy subject. Still it is a good opportunity from time to time to challenge and understand her position. But it takes time and sensitivity. No "mudrer" "Baby killing" language will help.

 

[jkjk]

Are poor people or the genetically afflicted somehow less than other people? I can't imagine anyone would say so.

Some people argue this. Peter Singer, for instance.