Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[Loudmouth]

I said there was nothing specifically wrong with that. It's the effects of that, taken by the immoral, which are often negatives.

It's not a villification of single mothers. It's a villification of the ethically immoral.

You are calling them leeches on the system who are abusing US taxpayers.

 

[KitKatMatt]

The logic. This is the starting point of life : the fetus is alive ,he grows, he moves ... This is even known in medecine

The scientific definition of life also applies to gametes and tissue cells. That's what makes this whole thing confusing, because we have no taboo against menstrual cycles or exfoliating.

 

[jesusmylife7]

That's nice for you, but I don't believe that. What does that have to do with my legal rights?

Think about it. Where does the life begin? When is he alive ? When does he begin to grow as doctors say? It is from the 1st second he's created, the fact that he's alive is enough.
And what does your legal rights have to do with killing a person?! This isn't a right. Your rights are to not become pregnant before . But once you carry a person , it isn't your right anymore, it's his right to live

 

[Loudmouth]

Think about it. Where does the life begin? When is he alive ? When does he begin to grow as doctors say? It is from the 1st second he's created, the facts that he's alive is enough.
And what does your legal rights have to do with killing a person?! This isn't a right. Your rights are to not become pregnant before . But once you carry a person , it isn't your right anymore, it's his right to live

The legal definition of a person is someone who has been born. You keep forgetting that.

 

[jesusmylife7]

The legal definition of a person is someone who has been born. You keep forgetting that.

No. You're forgetting that this is what you & the law are defining , but it isn't necessarily the truth.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. You're forgetting that this is what you & the law are defining , but it isn't necessarily the truth.

If we are talking about legal rights, then we must also use the legal definition of what a person is. The legal definition requires a live birth.

 

[jesusmylife7]

The legal definition of a person is someone who has been born. You keep forgetting that.

& the legal definition should come from moral facts & not the opposite, you can't think as the law says: the law is the result of thinking. Law isn't the origin

 

[Vicomte13]

Apparently not. The conservatives think that spending 1% of the defense budget helping mothers will somehow bankrupt the country. I kid you not.

You shall not kill is the commandment of God.
God did not make an exception that said "Unless you want to carve a nation out of land", or "Unless you need to kill in order to establish your rulership over people."

World War II was just, insofar as we were attacked. The way we fought it, with mass bombings of civilians, was not, but the cause itself was just.

By contrast, the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Indian Wars, the Spanish-American War and the Iraq war were unjust.

The Vietnam war was not fought justly.

Since 1960, we have added trillions to the national debt fighting a series of unjust wars, and losing them to boot. We are behaving as an imperial nation, pursuing power for economic and power's sake, and killing people all over the world. These killings are not in fact in self-defense, and the "collateral damage" of innocent people is murder, because we have no business launching into these wars in the first place.

Nuclear weapons keep the peace, but huge conventional forces have been a temptation for us since the end of the Cold War. Instead of using the outbreak of peace with Russia as the opportunity to beat our swords into ploughshares and end the mad spending on the means of warfare, we doubled down to lap our former adversaries and possess armed forces stronger (for the moment) than the rest of the world combined.

And for what? The Russians and Chinese (and French and British) have sufficient nuclear arsenals that we could not invade them even if we wanted to. There was, and there still is, no credible military threat. Islamic radicalism is a real threat, but that cannot be dealt with by armies. In fact, using armies to squash ants has only inflamed the situation, making it worse and worse.

For us to have the sort of social safety net and human development structure we require now, and certainly we WOULD require if we stopped murdering babies, we have to remember that "You shall not kill', besides meaning that we can't murder babies for convenience, also means that we can't murder foreigners either simply because they are our adversaries. We need to slash the armed forces substantially, bring them home from the lost forever wars, put what we still keep on the Southern Border (forget the wall, use the army), and save trillions over time. Some of those trillions balance the budget. Some of them pay down debt. And some of them will go to proper, robust human capital improvement programs.

Of course this means completely giving up dreams of hegemony and empire. And it means accepting the necessary role of government in providing a social safety net and human capital improvements.

And that is a lot to demand of the American Right, who love the military and hate government. It is a price we have to pay to save the babies. The Left, for their part, have to give up on killing babies. They never will, so they will have to be shouted down by superior numbers and "oppressed" (in their eyes) by laws against abortion they do not accept.

 

[jesusmylife7]

If we are talking about legal rights, then we must also use the legal definition of what a person is. The legal definition requires a live birth.

Yes. Which means legal rights shouldn't be considered in such case, because we all know law doesn't & can't affect every single thing in this life, law isn't the base of the life , it is the result of the need for common regulations & to organize most of the encountered cases

 

[ananda]

You are calling them leeches on the system who are abusing US taxpayers.

I am calling "leeches" on those who are "leeches" on the system. I am not calling single mothers "leeches".

 

[Cearbhall]

Think about it. Where does the life begin? When is he alive ? When does he begin to grow as doctors say? It is from the 1st second he's created, the fact that he's alive is enough.

But it's not. I don't believe it's enough. An embryo is alive, yes, obviously. I'm still pro-choice.

 

[Vicomte13]

Do you really think that WIC is going to bankrupt the country? Seriously?

Sorry, but you just demonstrated that you can't be taken seriously.

What on earth are you talking about? I said nothing of the kind.

You seem to be suggesting that merely giving poor women and children food stamps is somehow sufficient. It is not. People need stability. That means housing, health care, good educations and stable food supply. If we just barely keep people alive at the margins we are not doing our Christian duties to them, and what is more, we are guaranteeing that we will have more dysfunction in future generations.

No. To cut off the cycle of dependency, we actually have to provide STABILITY, long term, so that the children of marginal people are THEMSELVES not marginalized by poverty. We have to provide what we would call a "middle class lifestyle" - good nutrition and health care, and clean and safe housing, and good schools. And that means that parents that some consider "deadbeats" or "immoral", or whatever, are in fact going to get a free ride because where the child is, the parents are.

When you properly raise up the children, they are far less likely to bring forward the crime and marginalization to the next generation.

WIC alone does not cut it. We must do a lot more than that.

And that means tax hikes, especially on the wealthy, and it means a rethink of our whole national "security" (really "imperial") military posture. To afford to do it right, we have to get out of the business of empire.

All of this is pretty darned near the opposite of the straw man you set up and knocked down.

I did not demonstrate that I cannot be taken seriously, but you sure demonstrated a major reading comprehension problem (if you actually READ what you commented on - I'm betting you did not and just assumed a bunch of positions).

 

[Vicomte13]

What scripture specifically states that ensoulment takes place at conception?

 

[Kylie]

Of course I do. Law is determined by power.

An attitude that has caused so much suffering. If you really believe this, I feel bad for you. Might does not make right.

 

[Belk]

No, the nature of the conflict is a matter of life and death, not a matter of debating skills. In the short term, you win: we have abortion on demand. In the long run, you die, and then you discover you're still alive, and judged by a set of standards that are fixed by the judge, and not debatable with him. Your standard results in the infliction of death and is horrendously evil. So, you "win" the debate with another set of men - by main force - and because you "won" and got your way, you lose everything.

This is why there cannot really be a debate. You're arguing with gravity. Some things are so. God is one of them, he has an opinion, and he doesn't debate it with anybody. In the long run you are much better off learning what that opinion is and conforming yourself to it, because the final exam is graded on His criteria, not yours, and it's pass/fail.

He already told the world the right answer on this subject: don't kill babies. You're arguing for death - the death of babies here, and your own death on the other side. It's dumb and you should stop it. You don't "win" anything when you shout down the right side in a discussion of morality. You lose bigger.

Long term politically, the oligarchic right and the vote-pandering left have decided to replace the imploding US white population with cheap Hispanic labor and voters. Contraception and abortion opened up a gaping demographic hole in the white population, and rather than pay for scarcer labor, the Right has successfully agitated for importing vast numbers of Latinos to fill the labor gap very cheaply. The Democrat Left has connived at the same thing for different reasons: Hispanics are poor and support social welfare, and therefore vote Democrat in heavy numbers.

If you look at Latin America, you discover that the only nation down there that has abortion on demand is Communist Cuba. Latin America is Catholic, and all Latin nations except Cuba are FAR more restrictive of abortion than America is.

So, in the long run, the Democrats "win", in the sense that they will have imported a new electorate. But los Estados Unidos Norte Americanos will have far more restrictive abortion laws than the current USA, because Latinos outlaw abortion in all of their countries and do not like the practice.

So, in the long run, I win. I win because the compromise I am willing to make: a very heavily taxed social welfare state to PAY FOR those 2 million additional, currently aborted, children per year, half of them of the very poor, is what we are headed towards with a Latino Democrat party that, like Latin culture, is likely to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal.

I am happy to trade money and empire to preserve life. That's Catholic. And the American future is Catholic, thanks to immigration.

So in the long long run, when facing God, when it comes to the matter of life, I win and you lose. And in the long run politically, thanks to immigration trends, I win temporally as well. The fact that you and your ilk manage to shout me down in a "debate" is of no consequences. The borders are open and you are importing millions of me's. And God is and has said what I told you.

So you "win" like Eve "won". You grabbed the forbidden fruit and ate it. It tasted good, for a moment. That moment didn't last. Reality closed in, and with it, the inevitable calamity that comes from doing evil. Supporting abortion is doing evil. You should learn something from our grandmother and not emulate her.

Managed to find that scripture where God says not to abort yet? Ipsie dixit just lacks... flavor somehow.

 

[Vicomte13]

Might does not make right.

Human might does not.
God's might defines what right IS.

 

[Vicomte13]

Managed to find that scripture where God says not to abort yet? Ipsie dixit just lacks... flavor somehow.

Yes. The table of descendence, Genesis 5, gives names and life spans of the pre-Flood patriarchs, one after another. In each case, the life is measured from the time that his father BEGAT him, not the date of his birth. The male participation in begetting occurs at one specific instance: conception, and none other. And that is the moment when God begins to measure the lives of patriarch after patriarch.

Likewise, Jesus' existence begins when the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary.

This fits with what God says to Jeremiah also: when you were in the womb, I knew you.

And of course when John the Baptist, in his mother's womb, came into the presence of Jesus, still in his mother's womb, John leapt for joy.

So, God very clearly describes human life as beginning at conception from Genesis through the Gospels.

It also fits hand in glove with the law God gives to the Hebrews in Exodus, that if two men fight and one strike a pregnant woman to deliver, that if there is no harm he pays a fine, but if there is harm, then life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc.

So, God speaks of people as people in the womb, all the way back to their begetting by their father, which is conception.

And therefore when God says "You shall not kill" that covers the abortion case just as much as it covers suicide and the various different ways of killing. Men are forbidden from killing other men, God gave only two exceptions: as punishment ordained by God, or (implicitly) in self-defense. Abortion is not one of the exceptions.

 

[Vicomte13]

Then there won't be a compromise.

Of course there will not be. It is good versus evil. God and Satan. They don't compromise. And so neither will we.

 

[Vicomte13]

Sorry, my post had a typo.

What scripture specifically states that ensoulment takes place at conception?

The table of descendence, Genesis 5, gives names and life spans of the pre-Flood patriarchs, one after another. In each case, the life is measured from the time that his father BEGAT him, not the date of his birth. The male participation in begetting occurs at one specific instance: conception, and none other. And that is the moment when God begins to measure the lives of patriarch after patriarch.

Likewise, Jesus' existence begins when the Holy Spirit overshadows Mary.

 

[Kylie]

Human might does not.
God's might defines what right IS.

Unsupported claim.

And right NEVER comes from strength. Any person who has to say, "This is right, and if you disagree, I'll bash you up," is a monster.