Can we reach a compromise regarding abortion?

[Vicomte13]

Interesting, then, that Scripture never states that abortion is wrong. Interesting taht it never states exactly when human life begins. Interesting that our Jewish friends believe that human life begins with the first breath. Interesting that abortion was permitted under the Common Law until the time of quickening.

Scripture forbids abortion: You shall not kill.

Scripture measures lives from the begetting by the father, which is conception.

Jews have believed many things. Where they departed from what God revealed in Torah, Jesus rebuked them. God destroyed the Temple and made the Church, and the Holy Spirit - which tore the curtain of the Temple in two from top to bottom when it left as Jesus died - dwells now in the Church. And God said that Jesus is the way - none comes to the Father except through him. Jesus completed the law. The Temple is gone forever. So, the fact that rabbis, imams, swamis and atheists all have an opinion about when life begins is interesting, but has no authority. Scripture and Church are where the authority lies.

There is no independent moral authority in the Common Law at all. It is a thousand years younger than the youngest book of Scripture and the Church. English Common Law was the pragmatic product of French law blended with Saxon tradition is by Norman rulers. It has developed politically since then. It was not revealed by God, and is therefore irrelevant to the subject.

 

[Vicomte13]

And, once again, nobody in this thread is talking about killing babies. Wish you could figure that out.

Abortion is killing babies, nothing less.

 

[jesusmylife7]

Abortion is killing babies, nothing less.

100%.

 

[jesusmylife7]

Interesting, then, that Scripture never states that abortion is wrong. Interesting taht it never states exactly when human life begins. Interesting that our Jewish friends believe that human life begins with the first breath. Interesting that abortion was permitted under the Common Law until the time of quickening.



And, once again, nobody in this thread is talking about killing babies. Wish you could figure that out.



See how long that lasts. The Roman Catholics are not the largest growing faith in America, the largest growth is among those who are religiously unaffiliated.



Exactly who is shouting you down here. This debate is open to all.



Incorrect

A fetus is a soul , even if it's been 1 second since he was created. So it's the same as killing a baby or even an adult. It is killing a person who can't react with you to tell you :"i wanna live.God gave me that life"

 

[Loudmouth]

Unfortunately, we are also witnessing a neo-liberal movement that feels it is necessary to elevate single mothers who seek assistance in raising their children.

Elevate them? We want to support them so they don't have to turn to abortions to solve their problems. What is so horrible about that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Indeed, that is what we HAVE to have. We have to legislate that. That means higher taxes, heavier government and more wealth redistribution. It means that we will no longer have the excess cash to spend on foreign military adventures. It means very serious constraints on the ability of some to become fabulously wealthy, because we have to care for ALL at a level that is decent. It means universal quality education, so that all of those children have a chance. It means universal health insurance, because sickness falls randomly but especially on those too poor to get reasonable preventative care. It means heavier taxes.

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.

"The Federal costs of WIC in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 totaled $6.7 billion, $4.6 billion of which were food costs. Food costs averaged $41.44 per month per participant."
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic-food-package-cost-report-fiscal-year-2010

The US Government spends 600 billion on its defense budget. Can anyone seriously believe that this is going to bankrupt the country?

 

[Cearbhall]

Elevate them? We want to support them so they don't have to turn to abortions to solve their problems.

Doesn't everyone? Or are there seriously people who are so messed up that they want to eliminate all viable courses of action without offering alternatives?

 

[Loudmouth]

Doesn't everyone?

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

 

[Vicomte13]

100%.

And that's why there's no compromise possible on the matter of the killing.

It's also why the argument "They'll do it anyway" is irrelevant.

Other forms of murder besides abortion are illegal, and always have been, but murders happen anyway. Shall we, then, legalize the non-abortion forms of murder because "They'll do it anyway"? Of course not.

The place where we can compromise is on our economic and nationalist aspirations. Abortion murders about 2 million Americans per year, and more than half of them are very poor.

If we outlaw abortion, most of those babies will be born (the abortion rates when it was illegal were much lower than after legalization), and over half of them will be born poor and be on welfare. They will live in crappy housing in crappy, crime-infested neighborhoods, and they will stretch our weak and frayed social safety net past the breaking point. It is INEVITABLE.

And THEREFORE we are going to have to raise taxes, particularly on the rich (who pay a lower proportion of their wealth in taxes than the middle and working class do) to bring the aggregate amount of gross wealth paid by all classes to the same level. We're going to have to raise taxes and cut military spending in order to close the gap for all of these babies.

It's the way it is, and we should be honest about it up front. THAT is where the compromise can come: on matters of national military projection and on taxes. We're going to have to accept some sort of government-funded universal health insurance (without abortion funds, of course). We're going to have to accept the expansion of food stamps and the improvement of public schools.

Saving babies is going to be expensive and cost us very dearly. It's not simply a matter of decreeing that abortion shall end. End abortion, and the ranks of the poor will expand rapidly. We have to have a safety net in place to support them that is much better than we have now.

 

[Loudmouth]

And that's why there's no compromise possible on the matter of the killing.

Then there won't be a compromise.

 

[Cearbhall]

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

Let's hope the conservatives get on birth control and all adopt these kids instead...oh wait.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

A fetus is a soul , even if it's been 1 second since he was created. So it's the same as killing a baby or even an adult. It is killing a person who can't react with you to tell you :"i wanna live.God gave me that life"

What scripture specifically states that ensoulment takes place at conception?

 

[Loudmouth]

Let's hope the conservatives get on birth control and all adopt these kids instead...oh wait.

At least they can get some helpful information to kids about sex education . . . oh wait.

 

[ananda]

Elevate them? We want to support them so they don't have to turn to abortions to solve their problems. What is so horrible about that?

Nothing specifically wrong with that. It's just that there are effects of that policy which can be reprehensible.

If the people were all moral, ethical, and disposed towards community, selflessness, and love, I'd agree that such programs would be a positive. Unfortunately, in my experience, most people do not tend to be that way, and abuse such programs for their own benefit, which also lead to other negative results.

 

[Cearbhall]

A fetus is a soul , even if it's been 1 second since he was created.

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

 

[Loudmouth]

Nothing specifically wrong with that. It's just that there are effects of that policy which can be reprehensible.

What is reprehensible about getting $100 or so to a struggling mother who needs to buy diapers and formula?

If the people were all moral, ethical, and disposed towards community, selflessness, and love, I'd agree that such programs would be a positive. Unfortunately, in my experience, most people do not tend to be that way, and abuse such programs for their own benefit, which also lead to other negative results.

And this is what I mean about the vilification of single mothers.

 

[jesusmylife7]

What soul specifically states that ensoulment takes place at conception?

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

 

[Cearbhall]

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

Medicine does not state that ensoulment occurs at conception, however.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

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

Sorry, my post had a typo.

What scripture specifically states that ensoulment takes place at conception?

 

[ananda]

What is reprehensible about getting $100 or so to a struggling mother who needs to buy diapers and formula?

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

And this is what I mean about the vilification of single mothers.

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