Republicans trying to stop abortions

Status
Not open for further replies.

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟155,006.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
I realize there are pro-life Democrats and pro-choice Republicans as well, but it's not necessarily what I'm talking about. Saying pro-abortion is what it comes down to. There is a huge difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. Few people are going to say "hey, I think an abortion is the absolute best thing for a person in any situation." I realize there may be some that would, and is why I say few. I think you might be surprised how many democrats don't agree with abortion, and honestly do think that we should educate against it, but not legislate against it.

I always found this pro-life/pro-choice nomenclature to be mainly semantics. It may be good politics, but it really is more rhetoric than logic. When the rubber hits the road, pro-choices will support the choice of abortion. That is pro-abortion, pure and simple.

And by calling it pro-life, what gets watered down is that this is not about capital punishment or Darfur or saving the seals- it is about abortion being the cause of a death of the human fetus, and finding such a choice to be immoral, and deadly injurious to a society's most helpless members. as much as it is anti-abortion, it is anti-choice too, because some choices are jsut too horrific to be sanctioned.

As I expected, an overwhelming majority of Democrats voted against it. But the bill still passed thanks to the Republican majority. Here is the breakdown of votes.

Republicans:
Yeas= 210
Nays= 9
Not voted= 10

Democrats:
Yeas= 40
Nays= 152
Not voted= 10

You can go here and see the names of who voted for what. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll526.xml

By a ratio of almost 4 to 1 the Democrats seemed to have voted against educating the consuming public on this, and by a ratio of 20 to 1 Republicans voted for educating the public on abortion in all its implications.

Since this apparently was only about educating the public, and not legistlating against abortion or choice, it would seem that Democrat legislators may be pro-choice in theory, but they are not so keen on that choice being fully informed and receptive to all points of view.

In other words, pro-abortion is a better description of what is happening in this current Democratic that pro-choice.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,129
13,198
✟1,090,402.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
great. can't wait to see it.
Go back and look again.

Solomon said:


And by calling it pro-life, what gets watered down is that this is not about capital punishment or Darfur or saving the seals- it is about abortion being the cause of a death of the human fetus, and finding such a choice to be immoral, and deadly injurious to a society's most helpless members. as much as it is anti-abortion, it is anti-choice too, because some choices are jsut too horrific to be sanctioned.

There is a huge difference between Darfur and "saving the seals," and to compare the plight of a people who have been driven from their homes, seen their villages burned, tortured, raped, and murdered in genocide to "saving the seals" just shows how so many alleged 'pro-lifers' have tunnel vision.

Can I make the victims of Darfur more sympathetic to you by pointing out that some of those women who have been driven from their homes, tortured, raped, and murdered were expectant mothers? And, even if you can't find some sympathy to spare for them, perhaps you can shed a tear for their unborn children?

No, they are not seals.

Yes, they are worth saving.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟155,006.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Go back and look again.

Solomon said:



There is a huge difference between Darfur and "saving the seals," and to compare the plight of a people who have been driven from their homes, seen their villages burned, tortured, raped, and murdered in genocide to "saving the seals" just shows how so many alleged 'pro-lifers' have tunnel vision.

Can I make the victims of Darfur more sympathetic to you by pointing out that some of those women who have been driven from their homes, tortured, raped, and murdered were expectant mothers? And, even if you can't find some sympathy to spare for them, perhaps you can shed a tear for their unborn children?

No, they are not seals.

Yes, they are worth saving.
I have sympathy for the victims of similar Taliban types in Afghanistan and the vicitms of Saddam Hussein in Iraq too.
A fat lot of good that sympathy did.
Neo-conservatives lost in their bid in using might to make the third world a better place to live. The greater Arab community don't have a lot to say against what their brethren are doing in Darfur, so I guess it is just a cultural thing after all.
It's what they do It's who they be.
What makes us Christians so much better that we have a right to intervene? That is the lesson of the Iraq fiasco.
I would just hate to see the Americans turn tail and run out of Darfur too, that's all.

No, if we can't deal with our own genocide of abortion first, how can we have the moral authority to pontificate about somebody else's bad behavior?
Are you trying to turn Darfur into a diversion from the topic at hand, by the way?
Why?
In the light of 50-60 million deaths, I find that unconscienable. If it means so much to you,start another thread on it.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,129
13,198
✟1,090,402.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So Muslims murdering an entire race of people in cold blood is a "cultural thing...."

And women having abortions is not a "cultural thing?"

I think that they both have to do with cultures, considering that not everything about a culture is positive.

The cultural norm in the West is the idea that women can control their fertility, having the number of children they want to at the time when they want to.

The cultural norm in the West is that stay-at-home moms are out of fashion, and that women must be able and ready to contribute to the support of their families, and even to be the sole support of their families.

When women find they are unable to live up to this cultural norm, some, not all, may have abortions.

The solutions vary:

- encourage abstinence (or periodic abstinence for the married.)
- make safe methods of birth control available and affordable.
- make it easier for women who do have children at inconvenient or financially stressful times of life by providing convenient, inexpensive child care; flexible work hours or job sharing, telecommuting, etc.; educational grants or loans, etc.

At least TWO of the above three alternatives are necessary if we are serious about eliminating abortion. #3 is non-negotiable.
 
Upvote 0

D'Ann

Catholic... Faith, Hope and the greatest is LOVE
Oct 28, 2004
40,027
4,130
✟72,336.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And a conservative might respond that the same stats used by planned parenthood say that 54% of these women used contraception . Of those 27% used it in the proper manner as instructed. The rest were not sure about the nature of their use or were inconsistent. So 54% were using contraception, and 46% were not. The rate is higher in those using. That includes 27% using it properly. This of course is in the study but not on their site. Meanwhile 100% of teenages not having sex did not get pregnant.





Actually the stats say that do to irregular cycles they are not even sure they are pregnant. And many, as stated have:

prolonged fantasies that having a baby will result in a stable relationship with their partner

So the above does not wash since we have no percentages of how many are being refused in this situation and many are not going in the next few days.



Yes. Early or late: Abortion is wrong. This is not a morality where life changes it's value based on the state. Life is life. So yes. The conservative would respond that they are indeed responsible for less access to abortions and making sure parents are part of the process and their child's life.





Or perhaps all political parties could work together to improve the adoption and foster care system in this counrty.

That way if there is a moment of weakness and a child is the result, no life is taken and the many, many people who want a child but can not have one could have access to a fully functional federal adoption system that is supportive before, during and after adoption. A system that encourages and supports life at every stage, so a moment of weakness does not cost a life.




They might say that.

Responsible for use of the morning after pill that they were refused in the above point? That's a neat trick.

And how are the people having sex not responsible but someone else is? A conservative might ask.

Saying anyone is responsible for an abortion (in the above examples) except those who choose it, perform it or support and aid the creation of facilities seems like shifting responsibility.

I have truly and honestly have many dear and close friends who are liberal and I hope they would not make that argument. It is unproductive, provides no solutions to the crisis and not very good logic.

Go back and look again.

Solomon said:



There is a huge difference between Darfur and "saving the seals," and to compare the plight of a people who have been driven from their homes, seen their villages burned, tortured, raped, and murdered in genocide to "saving the seals" just shows how so many alleged 'pro-lifers' have tunnel vision.

Can I make the victims of Darfur more sympathetic to you by pointing out that some of those women who have been driven from their homes, tortured, raped, and murdered were expectant mothers? And, even if you can't find some sympathy to spare for them, perhaps you can shed a tear for their unborn children?

No, they are not seals.

Yes, they are worth saving.

Hi Fantine,

You responded to PeterTheRock. You have yet to respond to Davidnic's post to you.

God bless,

Debbie
 
Upvote 0

Virgil the Roman

Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .
Jan 14, 2006
11,413
1,299
Kentucky
✟64,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
So Muslims murdering an entire race of people in cold blood is a "cultural thing...."

And women having abortions is not a "cultural thing?"

I think that they both have to do with cultures, considering that not everything about a culture is positive.

The cultural norm in the West is the idea that women can control their fertility, having the number of children they want to at the time when they want to.

The cultural norm in the West is that stay-at-home moms are out of fashion, and that women must be able and ready to contribute to the support of their families, and even to be the sole support of their families.

When women find they are unable to live up to this cultural norm, some, not all, may have abortions.

The solutions vary:

- encourage abstinence (or periodic abstinence for the married.)
- make safe methods of birth control available and affordable.
- make it easier for women who do have children at inconvenient or financially stressful times of life by providing convenient, inexpensive child care; flexible work hours or job sharing, telecommuting, etc.; educational grants or loans, etc.

At least TWO of the above three alternatives are necessary if we are serious about eliminating abortion. #3 is non-negotiable.
I agree with the first and third solutions you wrote, however not the second one concerning contraception.
 
Upvote 0

GorrionGris

...but the greatest of these is Love
Nov 15, 2006
1,217
66
Gran Canaria, Spain
✟9,212.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Why would you feel hijacked by conservatives? It's the liberals who chose the evil path. Now I don't believe all liberals are evil and all conservatives are good but based on the platform of both parties it's the conservatives who have it right on faith and moral issues.
It is a question of principles. To put it shortly: I do not believe in capitalism. K?
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,129
13,198
✟1,090,402.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
My answer to Davidnc:

In western Europe and most of the industrialized world, abortion rates are 1/3 those of the United States. Even more interesting is the fact that most of those western European nations don't allow late term abortions:

In Germany, it is only legal after 12 weeks for life and health reasons.

Greece, 12 weeks, 19 weeks for rape or incest, up to 24 weeks for fetal abnormality.

Sweden: 18 weeks

Russia: 22 weeks

Poland: 12 weeks

There is ample precedent in other nations for shortening the period of time during which women can have abortions.

But then the question remains: Why do they have only 1/3 the number of abortions per capita as the US does?

One reason, I think, is that the educational systems are more demanding, and teens have less free time on their hands to get into trouble.

Another is that most Europeans are much more dependent on public transportation, and teens don't have the freedom to drive all over (and park) as they do here.

But I do believe that access to contraception and national health care also play a part in the lack of what could be termed unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.

I certainly don't expect people who are morally opposed to contraception to promote contraception. Nevertheless, statistics on rates of abortion in other industrialized nations would indicate that lack of contraception is a definite factor in the number of abortions that occur here.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=167
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,338
✟788,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
My answer to Davidnc:

In western Europe and most of the industrialized world, abortion rates are 1/3 those of the United States. Even more interesting is the fact that most of those western European nations don't allow late term abortions:

In Germany, it is only legal after 12 weeks for life and health reasons.

Greece, 12 weeks, 19 weeks for rape or incest, up to 24 weeks for fetal abnormality.

Sweden: 18 weeks

Russia: 22 weeks

Poland: 12 weeks

There is ample precedent in other nations for shortening the period of time during which women can have abortions.

But then the question remains: Why do they have only 1/3 the number of abortions per capita as the US does?

One reason, I think, is that the educational systems are more demanding, and teens have less free time on their hands to get into trouble.

Another is that most Europeans are much more dependent on public transportation, and teens don't have the freedom to drive all over (and park) as they do here.

One reason is the shorter amount of time makes for less abortions. I'd have to look to see how 5% in the US would translate per capita in the populations of each country, but it is a factor.

You make some good points about the teen lifestyle in the US compared to other places.

So greater parental involvement, Education reform (not even dealing with contraception), and a change in the permissive society that views liberty as "doing whatever you want to do" even at the cost of sacred rights is the key to reducing the number of abortions without laws. That is true. We don't disagree here. But until that change of society and heart comes about, we must have the laws that protect the most defenseless in our society.

That mindset, the one that places civil liberty above sacred right is the main problem in our society. This does not only have an impact on abortion, but the poor, corporate reform, our attitude toward third world nations through the world bank and many other issues.


But I do believe that access to contraception and national health care also play a part in the lack of what could be termed unplanned or unwanted pregnancies.

I certainly don't expect people who are morally opposed to contraception to promote contraception. Nevertheless, statistics on rates of abortion in other industrialized nations would indicate that lack of contraception is a definite factor in the number of abortions that occur here.

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=167

Of course contraception would lower the number of unwanted pregnancies and by extension abortions. But the exact same argument can be made that abstinence programs would do the same thing. Contraception is easier, but we are not called to the easiest method.

It is easier to build a wall across the border and repel immigration with force than to reform the immigration system into one that fairly grants access and aids those seeking a better life.

It is easier to allow corporations, through the world bank to exploit the poor of the world into perpetual poverty than to demand sweeping reform that raises the standard of living across the globe at a cost to our own economy and leisure items.

It is easier to promote contraception and abortion when people have a moment of weakness than to promote responsible abstinence and reform the adoption system into the worlds best system that values life from start to finish.

In all of these comparable life issues the stance of the Church is clear. It is the stance of Christ. The stance of the hard road.

The original point: That a liberal might view conservative policy as responsible for the number of late term abortions (due to lack of facilities and and contraception).

That is the point that shifts responsibility and offers no productive solutions. Yes, there would be less…but life and the culture of life would be damaged. But the responsibility for the acts themselves can not be removed from those who; have, promote and make possible abortions in any way. To make an argument that places the responsibility elsewhere is a effort at self deception.

The great problem that faces Catholics of both liberal and conservative political leanings is that no party fully meets with the views of the Church. So where must we make our decision? In the end, I see no option but to first and foremost focus on the issue that destroys the most vulnerable and defenseless in our society: Abortion. When doing that we must be constantly active to fight against the other issues that the Church holds to be part of the Sacred dignity of life. This last sentence is where many (not all) conservatives fall short.

But to do that we can not in any way, for any moment cease the defense of the unborn or aid in any way in their death and destruction. This is where many (not all) liberals fall short.

But it is life at it’s most defenseless that must be protected first and foremost, because when we remove the dignity of God’s image here, we remove it from the rest of our lives. And to support that dignity later, while aiding it desecration in the unborn is logically inconsistent.

So late term abortions (and abortion in general) are not the result of conservative policy that restricts the ability to discard a life. But the result of permissive society that removes parental involvement promotes a liberty of pleasure over the Sacred rights of all, an education system lacking on many levels and turns away from the difficult lasting solutions.

That last paragraph above, if it could be agreed to by all before playing a blame game is the first step to resolution. Identifying the problem.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PetertheRock

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2005
3,099
208
52
Falmouth Maine
✟4,316.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
The only honest way to measure tax increases is by percentage. Due to inflation, its impossible for any but a small handful of recent presidents to even compete for largest tax increase in history if you measure in dollars.
Which using your theory Jimmy Carter's gas prices which he was responsible for was still the worst in history. Of course Jimmy was the worst President in American history.
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,338
✟788,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
When women find they are unable to live up to this cultural norm, some, not all, may have abortions.

The solutions vary:

- encourage abstinence (or periodic abstinence for the married.)
- make safe methods of birth control available and affordable.
- make it easier for women who do have children at inconvenient or financially stressful times of life by providing convenient, inexpensive child care; flexible work hours or job sharing, telecommuting, etc.; educational grants or loans, etc.

At least TWO of the above three alternatives are necessary if we are serious about eliminating abortion. #3 is non-negotiable.

Point one and three we agree on. And in point three I would add the view of John Paul II that two parent working households should be a choice and not an economic necessity.

Point two is of course where we disagree. I just can not embrace a solution that will further the contraceptive mentality in the young. this is the mentality that has aided in the creation of a permissive culture and therefore can not be part of the solution to what it helped create.

If we correctly do point three and add laws and economic structure that helps the family then point two is unecessary.
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,129
13,198
✟1,090,402.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Davidnc: Of course contraception would lower the number of unwanted pregnancies and by extension abortions. But the exact same argument can be made that abstinence programs would do the same thing. Contraception is easier, but we are not called to the easiest method.

If we lived in a homogeneous society where an overwhelming majority of the population shared the same religious beliefs and moral values, abstinence programs would do the same thing.

(Or perhaps, depending on what beliefs were shared, abstinence programs would be a complete and total failure...)

What I see in America is one group of Americans who believe in abstinence before marriage and no artificial birth control and another group who, while not perhaps recommending premarital sexual activity or birth control for the unmarried, accept it, either wholeheartedly or with reservations.

The second group is larger than the first, and the first has no power to enact the reforms it wants to.....and so it chips away here and there. Birth control is legal, but it's not covered by medical insurance. Or parental permission is required. Or there are no Planned Parenthoods in rural areas or Bible Belt states.....

And what the chipping away does creates the worst of all scenarios---rampant abortion, much higher than in the relatively homogeneous secular humanist countries in Western Europe.

As American citizens, how much can we make peace with the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, that even religious people can have very different moral values from one another, and that our efforts to restrict something like birth control (which will almost certainly never be made illegal) are unleashing an even greater plague on our society?
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,338
✟788,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
If we lived in a homogeneous society where an overwhelming majority of the population shared the same religious beliefs and moral values, abstinence programs would do the same thing.

(Or perhaps, depending on what beliefs were shared, abstinence programs would be a complete and total failure...)

What I see in America is one group of Americans who believe in abstinence before marriage and no artificial birth control and another group who, while not perhaps recommending premarital sexual activity or birth control for the unmarried, accept it, either wholeheartedly or with reservations.

The second group is larger than the first, and the first has no power to enact the reforms it wants to.....and so it chips away here and there. Birth control is legal, but it's not covered by medical insurance. Or parental permission is required. Or there are no Planned Parenthoods in rural areas or Bible Belt states.....

And what the chipping away does creates the worst of all scenarios---rampant abortion, much higher than in the relatively homogeneous secular humanist countries in Western Europe.

As American citizens, how much can we make peace with the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, that even religious people can have very different moral values from one another, and that our efforts to restrict something like birth control (which will almost certainly never be made illegal) are unleashing an even greater plague on our society?

The thing is that although society may be pluralistic, the truth is not. The answer is not to turn our backs on enacting laws that protect the sacred rights of human beings simply because most people do not agree.

Again, it is not the laws chipping away at contraception that makes it worse. Abortion can not be set at the doorstep of any but those who have them, support them, help create opportunity and law that results in the direct taking of unborn life. To do otherwise is an illogical justification. There are many things outside contraception that can be done to limit and end abortion. Many of these things affirm and support life on total social level. But contraception given to the young as a blueprint to circumvent the body's natural functions creates a mindset that devalues life into a negoitable prospect.

The plauge that is unleashed is not one created by laws that restrict contraception, but one brought on by contraceptive mentality. The one that Pope Paul VI warned against in Humane Vitae:


Neither is it valid to argue, as a justification for sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive, that a lesser evil is to be preferred to a greater one, or that such intercourse would merge with procreative acts of past and future to form a single entity, and so be qualified by exactly the same moral goodness as these.

Though it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it (18)—in other words, to intend directly something which of its very nature contradicts the moral order, and which must therefore be judged unworthy of man, even though the intention is to protect or promote the welfare of an individual, of a family or of society in general.


and:


Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law.

Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.


So the culture we have is one in part caused by the contraceptive mentality. So contraception is not the solution to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmileBugMG
Upvote 0

Virgil the Roman

Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .
Jan 14, 2006
11,413
1,299
Kentucky
✟64,604.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
If we lived in a homogeneous society where an overwhelming majority of the population shared the same religious beliefs and moral values, abstinence programs would do the same thing.

(Or perhaps, depending on what beliefs were shared, abstinence programs would be a complete and total failure...)

What I see in America is one group of Americans who believe in abstinence before marriage and no artificial birth control and another group who, while not perhaps recommending premarital sexual activity or birth control for the unmarried, accept it, either wholeheartedly or with reservations.

The second group is larger than the first, and the first has no power to enact the reforms it wants to.....and so it chips away here and there. Birth control is legal, but it's not covered by medical insurance. Or parental permission is required. Or there are no Planned Parenthoods in rural areas or Bible Belt states.....

And what the chipping away does creates the worst of all scenarios---rampant abortion, much higher than in the relatively homogeneous secular humanist countries in Western Europe.

As American citizens, how much can we make peace with the fact that we live in a pluralistic society, that even religious people can have very different moral values from one another, and that our efforts to restrict something like birth control (which will almost certainly never be made illegal) are unleashing an even greater plague on our society?
Are you saying that as a Catholic, that I shouldn't work towards the restriction or banning of abortion, contraception, or birth control, as well as gay marriage, just because we live a "pluralistic" society where peoples' array of beliefs vary vastly, and thus forsake all that is moral repugnant and sinful to the Lord god? Should I just set aside all my beliefs in my effort to help this nation live according to the Lord's morals, and commands, because an Atheist or a Heathen may happen to disagree with my beliefs? I don't about you but such thought smacks of moral relativism, which I believe was condemned by atleast one pope within the past 150yrs. I will endeavor to find out which one it was. I don't about you, but just because we live a pluralistic society, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to educate and help non-christians learn the value of the morals we christians espouse, because it is the right thing to do---to do otherwise would not only be a moral travesty and failure, but a rejection of how God desires and wishes that we live our lives. I should hope I did not misread your post and mistakenly jump to an fallacious or aberant ascertion.

Deus Vobiscum,
sincerly,
Ravenonthecross
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟155,006.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
So Muslims murdering an entire race of people in cold blood is a "cultural thing...."

Yes, the killers believe that for infidels and [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]s, this is even the right and moral thing to do.


And women having abortions is not a "cultural thing?"


On no, it is a cultural thing.

It is the culture of death, spoken of by both the the late John Paul II and American President George Bush.
And if a fetus is nary but a blood clot, it is the right and moral thing to do as well, especially if the goal is to free a woman away from her biology.


I think that they both have to do with cultures, considering that not everything about a culture is positive.
Calling something positive or negative involves exercising moral judgment, doesn't it? Are we really ready to go there?

The cultural norm in the West is the idea that women can control their fertility, having the number of children they want to at the time when they want to.
As I have already stated on these threads, yes, for 50 to 60 million people it is not normally a case of life versus death, but of life versus inconvenience.
I could be wrong -maybe it is only 30 million.

The cultural norm in the West is that stay-at-home moms are out of fashion, and that women must be able and ready to contribute to the support of their families, and even to be the sole support of their families.
Forgive me, as a male, for having missed the importance of the fashion statment to the female psyche of this generation.
Me bad.


When women find they are unable to live up to this cultural norm, some, not all, may have abortions.
My recollection is that the some that have opted for the legal abortion option in America is in the range of 50 to 60 million abortions.
Maybe it is only 30 million. Out of a population of 300 million, of which the female half would be 150 million, this is definitely a part of the cultural norm.

The solutions vary:

- encourage abstinence (or periodic abstinence for the married.)
NFP, and fidelity to marital vows, in Catholic terms...

- make safe methods of birth control available and affordable
.
As if a rubber is outside of the budget of the typical American? For less that the price of a beer at a pub, anyone can buy enough condoms to satisfy even a large libido for the entire evening.

- make it easier for women who do have children at inconvenient or financially stressful times of life by providing convenient, inexpensive child care; flexible work hours or job sharing, telecommuting, etc.; educational grants or loans, etc.
For sure, children can be a major inconvenience-much more than 50-60 million decision on behalf of Americans have considered them to be worth.

For those women that consider the fetus to be tissue however, this is simply not a moral question anynmore than liposuction would be and, outside of morality of the thing, there would be no abortion problem per se. there is a problem with low birth rates, but this is a matter of an economic and cultural concern, rather than morality.

For those women, however, that do consider a fetus, or an embryo, to be a vital, human life, to the extent that they would even consider having an abortion anyway, they have become so morally compromised as to be make the question moot.

There is a fourth option of course, which is already playing itself out, and that would be that the ovaries of average American woman are rapidlly shrivelling with the advancement of years. Just as the murder and crime rates are now being solved with the declining numbers of young males prone to such behavior, so too will the abortion rate decline as the population of women of child-bearing years likewise shirvels and dies.
This is just the simple demographics of the matter.

Unless the young jihadi women and women of other cultures start to admire (and emulate) Western liberal society as much as American liberal society admires and values those of the jihadis, within the problem of the abortion rate lies its own solution.
The culture that choses to abort itself, whether by abortion or by birth control or by spending one's life force over the pages of ones favorite inappropriate contentographic site, etc., etc.;
the culture that chooses not to procreate, chooses its own death.

It is all very rational as to why Americans-and Canadians and Europeans, and Japanese and Australians, etc., etc. - would chose to abort the next generation. The wealth normally that is rolled over into sustaining that next generation is leading to an unprecedently luxurious lifestyle in these countries. To have children will certainly inconvenience this lifestyle.
Women especially in this society are enjoying a prestige a wealth and a sense of their own power unlike any other female segment of any society in any place or in any time in all of recorded history. Freed from their own biology, there is now such promise in creating wonderful pages for their own biography. As has never, ever been the case before, women are using this freedom.

Unfortunately though, that this freedom and this power and the prestige- (all very admirable things by the way)- have only come about with Babylonish harlot becoming so wonderfully drunk on the blood of the Innocents.

But as long as a fetus is merely a blood clot, as medical science prove to us, any question of morality really need not enter the picture. It's all just Economics 101- nothing that a little largesse from a big brother patriarchal government can solve, or a more generous student loan, or....
 
  • Like
Reactions: SmileBugMG
Upvote 0

Maynard Keenan

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2004
8,470
789
37
Louisville, KY
✟20,085.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
A valid point worthy of consideration. So how far back would be comparable to each other in your opinion?

Given a standard rate of 3% inflation, after two 8-year terms you have 60% inflation. Anything outside of one or maybe two 4-year terms is not comparable. Really the only way to look at taxation increases or decreases is to look at tax increases is in terms of percentages and not in terms of dollars.

In terms of percentages, FDR would be tops unless I am mistaken, with enormous tax increases to pay for WW2 and the New Deal.
 
Upvote 0

Davidnic

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Mar 3, 2006
33,112
11,338
✟788,967.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
increases is in terms of percentages and not in terms of dollars.

In terms of percentages, FDR would be tops unless I am mistaken, with enormous tax increases to pay for WW2 and the New Deal.

Well, personally for me, FDR gets cut some slack. The depression and WWII, the situation was dire. Plus, as I always say, I have don't have a problem with taxes. Just how they are spent.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Site Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,129
13,198
✟1,090,402.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Solomon:
It is the culture of death, spoken of by both the the late John Paul II and American President George Bush.

George Bush????????

Some would say he is a major general in the culture of death, waging unnecessary war.....

And, since he never got near qualifying to be a major general any other way, maybe that makes him happy....

Which brings me to my point: The "culture of death" you speak of should be redefined to include the death of the already born.


 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.