Rate of Abortion is highest in countries where it is illegal

[Joshua G.]

One reason it should be illegal - it makes the whole nation responsible. Are we culpable as a nation for letting it be legal? And to what degree...say if we knowingly chose reps for our states or country that prefer choice?

If someone wants an abortion bad enough - it becomes their grievous fault not shared by the voters who accept the leaders that represent them.

I wonder about this often. But then I also wonder about choosing presidents who one believes has started unjust wars. You know what I mean? I get that's a landmine of a statement but my point is that if one truly believes it is unjust/ built on fabricated reasons (regardless of if it's true) and they vote for the president in spite of that, are they guilty of something as well?

That's why although I can't understand how any pro-life person can vote for a politician who supports pro-choice, I don't judge their pro-choice-ness because they could make an even better case against someone against the Iraq war voting for Bush despite the war and because of pro-choice. Democracy is complicated.

That's also why I tend as of the past couple elections to vote third party or write-in.

I think it's important in this issue that we separate the person's beliefs from the political choices they (sometimes feel they are forced to) make so that we can know who our allies are. I believe i have more an ally in someone who hates abortion and does not view it as a human right but (oddly) believes it should be kept legal for statistical purposes and truly cares about the women and children in these situations than the guy holding a sign of an aborted fetus outside a Planned Parenthood and shouting murder at people or even the person (who I realize I have been) who is an armchair pro-lifer who has a lot of beliefs but no action (according to their abilities) to back it up.

That doesn't mean I don't strongly disagree with their political perspective, but if we are on the same page with understanding of human rights and the fact that we need to help these people, then we can help.

 

[Joshua G.]

AND not to bring faith and religion into a Catholic forum....
BUT - in the OT - the prophets and priests wanted only Law of God abiding leaders - because it was their fault for leaders who did not follow God's laws.

In so doing - if the leader messed up - the ppl paid for it. It caused divisions and problems.

So - if the OT is as allegorical as all that - and it is indeed - then maybe the scriptures SHOULD be telling us something.

I agree but that is so difficult to know. It can turn into who can say the right thing in the best way.

I mean, I suppose that means we can't vote for Romney if he wins because he's Mormon but you can vote for Newt because he's Catholic, or at least says he is?

I do let my faith guide me, but at the same time, there is only so much I can truly know and the non-Christian may very well be more Godly than the "Christian".

I'm not questioning your reasoning here. I get it. I am just pointing out that it is very difficult to put that into actual practice. That's based a lot on gut mixed with fact.

 

[Joshua G.]

Who says we are not ready for it? Malta and Chile have no issue with it. Nor does Vatican City.

Malta and Chilehave never had abortion. They are not addicted to it like we are.

We are going to have a MAJOR period of detox should it be overturned and it won't pretty (or easy to see).

Substance abuse is totally different than legally sanctioned MURDER.

I don't think you are understanding the nuance of my argument. If you did you would get that you and I probably very much on the same page, morally and even politically.

You cannot call yourself pro-life if you don't want Roe v Wade overturned.

Are you still talking to me? I rarely use this line because it is usually rhetoric and condescending but here it is neither: please read my entire posts and carefully, because if you're talking to me then I honestly mean you have not read my entire post.

Roe v Wade is what legalized and legitimized abortion, so how could you not want something like that to be gone from society.

Antigone.... are reading this? Am I taking crazy pills? Did YOU get that I want RvW overtunred? help me out here!

A person with any good ethical discernment would not want Roe V Wade as law in their country. Without Roe v Wade overturned pro-abortion groups like planned-parenthood and NARAL will always have the upper-hand since they have the law and the courts behind them as weight. This is why when you see any pro-life law put into place, it is usually immediately struck down because of what Roe. V Wade did to the constitution.

Without getting rid of Roe v Wade, pro-life groups will not have any weight behind them in the courts. And before we can even touch Roe v Wade we must get through Doe v Bolton. Doe v Bolton is what made abortion widespread when it redefined the health of the mother. In my view Doe v Bolton is a much bigger deal than Roe v Wade

Well, I dont understand why your concern is aimed at me but I didn't know about Dole v Boston so thanks for that.

It doesn't matter what people think or what women want. Its about whether it is ethical or not.

It does matter what women want. It is about what is ethical. It's both.

 

[MikeK]

Malta and Chilehave never had abortion. They are not addicted to it like we are.

Right, we haven't had a whole lot of success in this country making popular things that were legal illegal. We've been succesful at putting lots of people into prisons, and that's not nothing I guess, but we're not real good at stopping popular behaviors that we don't like.

 

[Joshua G.]

How to put toothpaste back in the tube

 

[Antigone]

Antigone.... are reading this? Am I taking crazy pills? Did YOU get that I want RvW overtunred? help me out here!

Yes, you did say something like that. In the same post where you said the church should start performing gay marriage and that we should all stop making such a big deal of this Jesus fella because he probably never existed anyway.

 

[underheaven]

Gee, I don't know.

When was the last time a pro-life organization used its lobbying weight to lean on legislators to back a tax hike or fund an organization the would help single mothers, increase infant/child assistance, or even raise a tax to increase child care help as a pro-life issue ?

Like,


never.

So lets not false all over our dichotomies. Because, I am sorry to say, I have never seen the pro-life movement back anything as a pro-life cause if it would actually cost its members any money.

I agree with you, and not only money ,but be really Christian,instead of
whited sepulchres : actually be a good neighbour.

 

[Joshua G.]

First, the principle is the issue. Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal, or criminally illegal. There are lots of things to be taken into consideration besides the immorality of the issue.

Second - it doesn't seem that you are thinking seriously about the eternal consequences. In the case of abortion, an baby dies and a mother is spiritually wounded through her own act, though maybe she will repent. Baby goes to Heaven, mom, it depends.

In the case of preaching false religious belief, the crime is inducing apostasy and encouraging others to reject the Holy Spirit - probably about the most serious crime possible from an eternal perspective.

That's why for a long time, it was subject to the death penalty.

And yet, despite that, Christians generally today support some form of religious freedom. We even get our knickers in a twist when Islamic countries react harshly in legal terms to those who try to convert Muslims.

All of which is to say, we have an act regarded as highly immoral and with dire eternal consequences for the people targeted, as well as the perpetrator - arguably more dire in the long term than aborted babies.

Deciding on the most appropriate course of action against immoral acts is never as simple as "it is immoral so make it illegal". It might be the best thing to do, but it isn't always.

But this isn't just a religious issue anymore than being against the death penalty is a religious issue.

This isn't about belief in the Trinity or coveting your neighbors wife. This is taking away a human life. It's a human rights issue.

Maybe I was misunderstanding your point.

 

[Joshua G.]

Gee, I don't know.

When was the last time a pro-life organization used its lobbying weight to lean on legislators to back a tax hike or fund an organization the would help single mothers, increase infant/child assistance, or even raise a tax to increase child care help as a pro-life issue ?

Like,


never.

So lets not false all over our dichotomies. Because, I am sorry to say, I have never seen the pro-life movement back anything as a pro-life cause if it would actually cost its members any money.

I'm not going to stand behind anything and everything any lobbying group does or does not do, including one that fights for a worthy cause from my point of view.

That said, I might be wrong, but I think Right to Life's goal I believe is first and foremost to deal with the legality of abortion, not to deal with all issues regarding abortion. I don't think they claim to be an end all or the one solution to the problem of abortion. Just one (politically important) cog.

Now, you may think it, then, an honest approach to have another pro-life group lobbying specifically for government programs to support young mothers and children.

The problem is that I believe if a program is federally funded and deals with helping pregnant women, they may be legally obligated to offer information regarding access to abortions.

Public School Counselors, for example, have to provide this information to young girls if requested regardless of their beliefs (perhaps that is state by state? At least in my state they do.). So, this is just one example of why supporting government program gets sticky for pro-life people.

now, if one who is prolife doesn't have any problem with supporting places that otherwise do good things for women in spite of the fact that they offer information or access to abortions in other sectors of their service, then what need is there for a specifically pro-life lobbying group? I'm sure there are plenty of liberal lobbying groups doing just that and, if not, why not? But I am sure there are. And if we are talking about programs like head start then we have the NEA for that etc...

Pro-life focuses on fighting for issues that are not otherwise represented adn that does make sense.

Otherwise, following your line of logic, I suppose we could say that the NEA should be fighting for more money to be given to WIC since early nutrition is a key factor in a child's academic success when they enter school later down the road.

Everything can be tied to everything, but lobbies have to focus on the issues that they are uniquely fighting for.

 

[WarriorAngel]

I wonder about this often. But then I also wonder about choosing presidents who one believes has started unjust wars. You know what I mean?

I dont know what is just or unjust war so i use a litmus test - if a nation is proactively defensive because being put into that position it is hardly unjust. imho.


The crux of EVERYTHING is in fact believing the Our Father. Deeply.
IE - wanting to BE like it is in Heaven.
That would mean - wanting our leaders to fear God and establish rules that are both moral and acceptable for the sake of the entire nation.

Sure Obama scoffs at the Bible...but it is historically accurate as well as a moral gauge.
Time and again ppl suffered because of lawlessness against God.
You dont want war - get rid f the scourge in the nation - and that is abortion.

War is God's way of letting evil consume mankind who are time and time again unfaithful to Him...and of course unfaithfulness historically was rationalized by those who were lawless. It still did not change God's punishments. Excuses never count...it is the actual of it - with God.

I get that's a landmine of a statement but my point is that if one truly believes it is unjust/ built on fabricated reasons (regardless of if it's true) and they vote for the president in spite of that, are they guilty of something as well?

That's why although I can't understand how any pro-life person can vote for a politician who supports pro-choice, I don't judge their pro-choice-ness because they could make an even better case against someone against the Iraq war voting for Bush despite the war and because of pro-choice. Democracy is complicated.

That's also why I tend as of the past couple elections to vote third party or write-in.

I think it's important in this issue that we separate the person's beliefs from the political choices they (sometimes feel they are forced to) make so that we can know who our allies are. I believe i have more an ally in someone who hates abortion and does not view it as a human right but (oddly) believes it should be kept legal for statistical purposes and truly cares about the women and children in these situations than the guy holding a sign of an aborted fetus outside a Planned Parenthood and shouting murder at people or even the person (who I realize I have been) who is an armchair pro-lifer who has a lot of beliefs but no action (according to their abilities) to back it up.

That doesn't mean I don't strongly disagree with their political perspective, but if we are on the same page with understanding of human rights and the fact that we need to help these people, then we can help.

Get rid of abortion and other lawlessness [gay marriages - pedophilia rights et al] - the nation will be strong in God and He does not ignore the faithful.

It sounds so - what? Cultist - like how the prophets came and came and came and came and came to repeat repeat repeat to the ppl - TURN back to God to avoid punishment.

So here we have 2000 years since the Resurrection and ppl are of the same ilk as they have always been. Scoff at His laws and even find it ludicrous to follow them in light that nothing has happened to assert we are doing it wrong...and God forgives...etc.

He forgives - but only the repentant.

Our country and many others are fodder - when He finally has had enough of our sorry butts.

 

[WarriorAngel]

First, the principle is the issue. Just because something is immoral doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Why is that? Why is morality bad?
I mean if it is murder - it is murder. And why is murder ok?

 

[Joshua G.]

Unjust war is a war wherein the pretenses are completely fabricated for selfish gains. I'm not using the Catholic definition. I'm just saying that if it were true and one were convinced, such a war would seem as wrong as supporting abortion.

 

[Joshua G.]

The crux of EVERYTHING is in fact believing the Our Father. Deeply.
IE - wanting to BE like it is in Heaven.
That would mean - wanting our leaders to fear God and establish rules that are both moral and acceptable for the sake of the entire nation.

That's ideal. But politics doesn't seem that obvious to me. Personally I viewed the war very differently from some. I am utterly convinced that it was built on lies and that these women and children and so many men on both sides died for a selfish cause that was kept from us. (I hope I am wrong, but based on what I have read and seen, I really don't think I am). I don't expect or even care to convince you. My point is to show you why I could not in good conscience vote for a second term Bush and instead voted for a third party. But I can see how others might vote for Bush despite their beliefs against the war for the moral reason of not allowing abortion rights to further in the Supreme Court. I can also see why someone might vote for a pro-choice president despite his or her stance on abortion in order to stop more unjust wars coming about. Even if I don't agree with either vote, I wouldn't judge the person's faith or morals based purely on who they vote for but rather WHY they vote for them.

Sure Obama scoffs at the Bible...but it is historically accurate as well as a moral gauge.
Time and again ppl suffered because of lawlessness against God.
You dont want war

Well, no one wants war, but I was referring to wars based on lies.

- get rid f the scourge in the nation - and that is abortion.

But why is that war more important an unjust war. Keep in mind WA, I know you don't believe the Iraq war to be unjust so for you there isn't anything to weigh. But let's say you did. What moral basis then do you have for voting for the war-mongerer or the abortion supporter? Why are unborn babies more important than Iraqi children or your neighbor's father who died in battle?

War is God's way of letting evil consume mankind who are time and time again unfaithful to Him...and of course unfaithfulness historically was rationalized by those who were lawless. It still did not change God's punishments. Excuses never count...it is the actual of it - with God.

Okay. I wasn't giving excuses. I am asking a very nuanced question.

My point is that I don't think the choice is always that clear. In some ways Obama is not exemplary of Church values and in other ways I think he is. I would say the same about Bush. I don't knwo anything about Romney or Newt or whoever. It's just not that easy.

Get rid of abortion and other lawlessness [gay marriages - pedophilia rights et al] - the nation will be strong in God and He does not ignore the faithful.

I don't agree that abortion will cease or even necessarily decrease if we make it illegal. We won't get rid of it through Washington. But I agree that it is important to do. You and I are on the same page.

It sounds so - what? Cultist - like how the prophets came and came and came and came and came to repeat repeat repeat to the ppl - TURN back to God to avoid punishment.

I wasnt thinking that. I respect your point of view and I think many are in a position where they can more easily choose a candidate in good conscience. I wasn't able to do that in the past three (I think?) presidential elections. I voted third party and in doing that I knew that I was making it more easy for Obama to win my State. No easy choice. So, I am not going to use another person's vote as a litmus test for anything because I believe in general they probably aren't very Godly people. they might be. But I can't know that or assume that and i know in life I have met very very Godly liberals and very very ungodly conservatives and there doesn't seem to be a correlation in my experience so why would there be with presidents?

So here we have 2000 years since the Resurrection and ppl are of the same ilk as they have always been. Scoff at His laws and even find it ludicrous to follow them in light that nothing has happened to assert we are doing it wrong...and God forgives...etc.

and if you are convinced that a war was begun for selfish reasons and bsed on lies I would say that they scoffing equally at His laws.

He forgives - but only the repentant.

amen sister.

Our country and many others are fodder - when He finally has had enough of our sorry butts.

Right. I don't disagree with your overall position. I'm just saying that if they all support something that makes God angry, who do you choose? Lesser of two evils or write in Santorum?

 

[Antigone]

Please stop deflecting. Abortion kills babies. We have laws against cruelty to animals yet countries like America and most of the Western World killing babies is in conformity with the law.

Are you justifiyng this..?

The justification is that from a biological point of view (yes, I know it's not the Catholic point of view), it's not a baby but first a zygote and then a fetus. As long as the zygote/fetus is dependent on the mother's body to survive it isn't considered a full human being. Since a fetus is often able to survive outside the womb after 24 weeks gestation (sometimes even earlier), that is where most countries draw the line (unless severe birth defects are detected after this period).

Now, we all know that Catholic morality disagrees with this, but you cannot ban a law based on Catholic morality when the majority of the population of a country (at least 80% over here, for instance) agrees with these laws.

And this is why you need to change public opinion before you ban abortion. If you don't, the law will be unsuccesful.

 

[StThomasMore]

I wonder about this often. But then I also wonder about choosing presidents who one believes has started unjust wars. You know what I mean? I get that's a landmine of a statement but my point is that if one truly believes it is unjust/ built on fabricated reasons (regardless of if it's true) and they vote for the president in spite of that, are they guilty of something as well?

That's why although I can't understand how any pro-life person can vote for a politician who supports pro-choice, I don't judge their pro-choice-ness because they could make an even better case against someone against the Iraq war voting for Bush despite the war and because of pro-choice. Democracy is complicated.

That's also why I tend as of the past couple elections to vote third party or write-in.

I think it's important in this issue that we separate the person's beliefs from the political choices they (sometimes feel they are forced to) make so that we can know who our allies are. I believe i have more an ally in someone who hates abortion and does not view it as a human right but (oddly) believes it should be kept legal for statistical purposes and truly cares about the women and children in these situations than the guy holding a sign of an aborted fetus outside a Planned Parenthood and shouting murder at people or even the person (who I realize I have been) who is an armchair pro-lifer who has a lot of beliefs but no action (according to their abilities) to back it up.

That doesn't mean I don't strongly disagree with their political perspective, but if we are on the same page with understanding of human rights and the fact that we need to help these people, then we can help.

Because the attitude that getting rid of Roe v Wade "opening a can of worms" is counterproductive to the pro-life movement. And it just doesn't make any sense. It would be like saying that you think its wrong to kill Jews, but making the killing of Jews illegal would just open a big can of worms that you just don't wanna deal with. Do we care about what the neighbors will think, or do we care about doing the right thing. Yes it will be a shock. But we have been sitting froggies in slowly rising hot water for decades now. We think the water is still luke warm, but in reality it is boiling. So any type of sensible abortion law would be a big shock, when in reality it would just be bringing back the old infanticide laws that existed for hundreds of years in America before Roe v Wade. If anyone thinks infanticide laws are a big thing, then they have been a boiling froggie in the pan for quite some time now.

Have we all turned into boiling froggies?

 

[S.ilvio]

The justification is that from a biological point of view (yes, I know it's not the Catholic point of view), it's not a baby but first a zygote and then a fetus. As long as the zygote/fetus is dependent on the mother's body to survive it isn't considered a full human being. Since a fetus is often able to survive outside the womb after 24 weeks gestation (sometimes even earlier), that is where most countries draw the line (unless severe birth defects are detected after this period).

Now, we all know that Catholic morality disagrees with this, but you cannot ban a law based on Catholic morality when the majority of the population of a country (at least 80% over here, for instance) agrees with these laws.

And this is why you need to change public opinion before you ban abortion. If you don't, the law will be unsuccesful.

I haven't once evoked Catholic Morality when expressing my abhorrance to child killing.

Abortion is the intentional killing of human life. Human life to me should be protected in all instances.

Your Dutch, liberal tendancies are shouting from the screen at me. You'll happily talk about abortion and 'respect' a woman's right to choose, while at the same time allow babies to be massacred in your liberal nirvana...

Every society has a choice in tihs matter, whether to legitimise child killing or make a stance to protect human life and make abortion illegal, as we have down in Ireland...

 

[Davidnic]

The justification is that from a biological point of view (yes, I know it's not the Catholic point of view), it's not a baby but first a zygote and then a fetus. As long as the zygote/fetus is dependent on the mother's body to survive it isn't considered a full human being. Since a fetus is often able to survive outside the womb after 24 weeks gestation (sometimes even earlier), that is where most countries draw the line (unless severe birth defects are detected after this period).

Now, we all know that Catholic morality disagrees with this, but you cannot ban a law based on Catholic morality when the majority of the population of a country (at least 80% over here, for instance) agrees with these laws.

And this is why you need to change public opinion before you ban abortion. If you don't, the law will be unsuccesful.

It is all about human nature. A fetus, zygote...all as human as a teenager, baby or senior. Just titles of human. Those who want to argue that in biology the zygote is not human (which is something most doctors disagree with) have the burden of proof that the fetus lacks a human nature. And nothing is one thing then becomes another.

If you extend the argument that the fetus is not human because it is dependent on external means for life...we then get into the issue that a 5, 10, 20, 30....whatever year old is not human if they are on transitory life support. Or if they need an organ transplant.

That line of thinking, combined with a conversion of heart, will help to convince any who honestly engage in the debate.

But it needs to be illegal because killing people is illegal, it does not matter if people do not recognize someone as human. True, the real effectiveness of the law in practical application will have a great deal to do with people's perceptions. But the fact of it being right or wrong is independent of perceptions.

We can make arguments founded in Catholic principles that are not dependent upon them. We can prove that the fetus is human logically without recourse to faith. The truth of it all comes from God, but He gives us other means to illustrate the fact.

Those who want to argue that a fetus has no human rights must come up with why someone is human and what is the condition for human rights. If that condition is anything other than: From the moment of biological existence a human nature is present that brings human rights. Then they have a burden of proof to come up with a consistent measure for what endows human rights.

And there is no other criteria that does not remove the right to life from those already born as well. The only view that is consistent is the possession of a human nature from the moment of conception. Anything else logically allows us to remove life from people in multiple sets of arbitrary conditions.

The only biological and philosophical criteria that make a consistent sense, meets with genetic facts and satisfies all logical terms is that a human nature is present from the moment of conception. It may be the hardest in what it makes incumbent on us, but it also is the only one that does not contradict itself.

 

[Joshua G.]

Because the attitude that getting rid of Roe v Wade "opening a can of worms" is counterproductive to the pro-life movement. And it just doesn't make any sense. It would be like saying that you think its wrong to kill Jews, but making the killing of Jews illegal would just open a big can of worms that you just don't wanna deal with. Do we care about what the neighbors will think, or do we care about doing the right thing. Yes it will be a shock. But we have been sitting froggies in slowly rising hot water for decades now. We think the water is still luke warm, but in reality it is boiling. So any type of sensible abortion law would be a big shock, when in reality it would just be bringing back the old infanticide laws that existed for hundreds of years in America before Roe v Wade. If anyone thinks infanticide laws are a big thing, then they have been a boiling froggie in the pan for quite some time now.

Have we all turned into boiling froggies?

It is clear you have no desire to listen read carefully. So, I am not saying the following for your benefit but so that I am not misunderstood.

RvW needs to be overturned ASAP. I have been very clear on that. But for a conversation to be worth while, talking points need to be put aside and the messy reality that RoevWade created needs to be recognized by both sides. Nuance is important if we think sincere communication with those on the other side of the fence is important.

Josh

 

[Joshua G.]

The justification is that from a biological point of view (yes, I know it's not the Catholic point of view), it's not a baby but first a zygote and then a fetus. As long as the zygote/fetus is dependent on the mother's body to survive it isn't considered a full human being. Since a fetus is often able to survive outside the womb after 24 weeks gestation (sometimes even earlier), that is where most countries draw the line (unless severe birth defects are detected after this period).

Antigone, that is not why the line is drawn there. That is hype built up by the pro-choice side.

You need to understand that this is all about choice. It's not about viability, life, death, etc. It's about women having the choice. This is merely the only "scientific" argument they have to hide behind.

Do you truly believe that as viability comes about earlier with new thechnologies that Planned Parenthood and NOW will be fighting tooth and nail for that number of weeks to be pushed back? Are they offended by the 26 week option in California? Are they lobbying to have that be pushed back to the 24-week mark? No. Because it's not about that.

Ask yourself honestly. Do you truly believe that groups like these or any strong advocate for abortion as a human would be fighting against measures to lengthen that time period?

My point is that PP and NOW and it's ardent supporters are first and foremost about a woman's "right" to not be pregnant and not let that child live at any expense. It's about choice. It's not about viability. It honestly is as plain as day. Even the name they proudly wear (and I have no problem giving them) says it all. Pro-choice. It's all about choice.

 

[Joshua G.]

It is all about human nature. A fetus, zygote...all as human as a teenager, baby or senior. Just titles of human. Those who want to argue that in biology the zygote is not human (which is something most doctors disagree with) have the burden of proof that the fetus lacks a human nature. And nothing is one thing then becomes another.

If you extend the argument that the fetus is not human because it is dependent on external means for life...we then get into the issue that a 5, 10, 20, 30....whatever year old is not human if they are on transitory life support. Or if they need an organ transplant.

That line of thinking, combined with a conversion of heart, will help to convince any who honestly engage in the debate.

But it needs to be illegal because killing people is illegal, it does not matter if people do not recognize someone as human. True, the real effectiveness of the law in practical application will have a great deal to do with people's perceptions. But the fact of it being right or wrong is independent of perceptions.

We can make arguments founded in Catholic principles that are not dependent upon them. We can prove that the fetus is human logically without recourse to faith. The truth of it all comes from God, but He gives us other means to illustrate the fact.

Those who want to argue that a fetus has no human rights must come up with why there are human and what is the condition for human rights. If that condition is anything other than: From the moment of biological existence a human nature is present that brings human rights.

Then they have a burden of proof to come up with a consistent measure for what endows human rights. And there is no other criteria that does not remove the right to life from those already born as well. The only view that is consistent is the possession of a human nature from the moment of conception. Anything else logically allows us to remove life from people in multiple sets of arbitrary conditions.

Thank you.