The Coming Civil War Over Abortion

[Arsenios]

EXACTLY!


Where is the church?
Why are SO many congregations and denominations AT BEST silent
(some even have SUPPORTED abortion!).
Why the silence?
.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jb-7gw1yVio


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

The discussion about abortion must, pretty much by definition, touch the essence of what it is to be human, no?

Yes.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/video/detail/B079LY9D18/ref=atv_dl_rdr?autoplay=1

If we believe that life begins at conception then logically an IUD must be considered a murder weapon.

Yes...

If life begins at implantation then abortion at any stage must be considered to be murder.

It is... And perhaps there are degrees... And conception, not implantation... Some fertilized eggs never implant...

If life begins at some other stage (there are a few theories as to when this might be) then abortion after that stage must be considered to be murder.

Yes...

If life is considered to start at any time before birth then abortion can only be justified in the same sense that justified homicide can be justified (e.g. shooting the person who represents a credible threat of bodily injury).

Yes...

Posing a credible threat to the mother's well-being (e.g. an ectopic pregnancy) would represent justification to terminate a pregnancy but "I decided I don't want to be a parent" or "I split up with the father and don't want his child any more" clearly wouldn't, any more than "I don't want this any more" is an excuse to kill a toddler.

Yes...

We need to learn to walk in a sacred manner...

That does not come easily...


Arsenios

 

[Jason76]

Well, as I mentioned in the thread about The Spoiled Poor - the solution is to integrate marginalized groups, rising their standard of living and also probably lowering their abortion rates.

 

[tango]

Well, as I mentioned in the thread about The Spoiled Poor - the solution is to integrate marginalized groups, rising their standard of living and also probably lowering their abortion rates.

It's hard to integrate marginalized groups when there are benefits to being marginalized. That, of course, is part of the issue with the very concept of the "spoiled poor". When it's advantageous to be "disadvantaged" we shouldn't be surprised that the "disadvantaged" remain so.

 

[Josiah]

Joe Biden - the "old school" candidate among the 23 seeking the Democrat Party nomination - who claims to be a "devout Catholic" and who was once a very Pro-Life senator, did a "180" and became Pro-Abortion when he first ran for president before most of us were born. His one "hold out" - he would not support the Federal Government paying for these. In order to not be an alternative to the Socialist/Communist also running, he changed his mind on that, too.


I'm not especially picking on him. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both solidly Pro-Life while governor and senator, but both did a complete "180" when they took the national stage and became radically, extremely Pro-Abortion. There's quite a list of Democrats who have done this. But it's not unique to Democrats. Ronald Reagan supported and signed into law one of the most radical, extreme abortion laws (this BEFORE Roe v Wade) while a Republican governor of California (at that time, the Republican party was pro-abortion and the Democrats were pro-life), but when he ran for president in 1976, he did a "180" (the political parties switched after Roe v. Wade). George Bush Sr. did exactly the same thing.


.

 

[Albion]

Joe Biden - the "old school" candidate among the 23 seeking the Democrat Party nomination - who claims to be a "devout Catholic" and who was once a very Pro-Life senator, did a "180" and became Pro-Abortion when he first ran for president before most of us were born. His one "hold out" - he would not support the Federal Government paying for these. In order to not be an alternative to the Socialist/Communist also running, he changed his mind on that, too.


I'm not especially picking on him. Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both solidly Pro-Life while governor and senator, but both did a complete "180" when they took the national stage and became radically, extremely Pro-Abortion. There's quite a list of Democrats who have done this. But it's not unique to Democrats. Ronald Reagan supported and signed into law one of the most radical, extreme abortion laws (this BEFORE Roe v Wade) while a Republican governor of California (at that time, the Republican party was pro-abortion and the Democrats were pro-life), but when he ran for president in 1976, he did a "180" (the political parties switched after Roe v. Wade). George Bush Sr. did exactly the same thing.


.

Yes, but Reagan (and I suppose Bush also) claimed to have come around and realized that abortion was killing a human. Whether or not this conversion was genuine, I cannot say with certainty, but the opposite does not work at all. That is to claim to be for life but then realize, belatedly...what? That the fetus is not human after all????

 

[Josiah]

Yes, but Reagan (and I suppose Bush also) claimed to have come around and realized that abortion was killing a human. Whether or not this conversion was genuine, I cannot say with certainty, but the opposite does not work at all. That is to claim to be for life but then realize, belatedly...what? That the fetus is not human after all????

Very true....

 

[JRT]

I have met a large number of people, like myself, who are "pro-choice". I have never ever met anyone who was "pro-abortion". How we use words matters a very great deal. If we seriously want to dramatically reduce the abortion rate, we must realize that banning it will not work and might even make the situation worse. The simple reason for that is that the most potent abortifacients in our world are ignorance and poverty. We must address those problems before anything else. That should be the "pro-life" stance.

 

[Lamb]

I have met a large number of people, like myself, who are "pro-choice". I have never ever met anyone who was "pro-abortion". How we use words matters a very great deal. If we seriously want to dramatically reduce the abortion rate, we must realize that banning it will not work and might even make the situation worse. The simple reason for that is that the most potent abortifacients in our world are ignorance and poverty. We must address those problems before anything else. That should be the "pro-life" stance.

The most potent abortifacients are NOT ignorance and poverty. It is not loving your neighbor as yourself...your neighbor being the unborn child in the womb.

 

[Josiah]

I have met a large number of people, like myself, who are "pro-choice". I have never ever met anyone who was "pro-abortion".

I've known MANY who are pro-abortion. I think all 24 running for the nomination of the Democrat Party in the USA are pro-abortion.


I think the distinction the pro-abortionists make is simply a slogan (taken hook, line and sinker from the slavery debate in the USA - right down to the very words used). Those who defend the tens of millions of innocent babies legally murdered in just the USA simply reduce everything to ONE point: POWER; it's a POWER issue, not a moral issue. It's exclusively about politics, the practice of POWER (even relative power). Who has greater political POWER - the unborn baby in the womb or her mother? Who should have the ULTIMATE POWER over the other - even to kill the other? The "pro-choice" crowd EVADES the issue of life and human rigthts because that's an argument they cannot win (and they are smart enough to know it), so they change the issue to CIVIL rights. Of course, babies can't vote and women do so this is as simple as the slavery issue - slaves could not vote, slave owners could, so it was easy to determine who should have the power ("choice") over the other.


The pro-choice crowd will never tell you what the choice is. It's the choice to murder an innocent, defenseless, non-threatening baby. "A woman (because half of you are women and you vote!) has the choice (but let's not even mention the choice to do what to whom)." They don't mention that half those murdered are females (so much for the pro-women and "women's health" issues). And just as in the slavery issue, there is a strong evasion to give ANY choice to the one most impacted. In the slavery debate, "choice" belonged ONLY to the slave owner, the slave had no choice whatsoever! If one is for choice, why is the one most impacted deprived of ANY choice whatsoever? If one is for choice, why is the one most impacted NOT EVEN CONSIDERED? Just as in the slavery issue in the USA.

 

[tango]

I've known MANY who are pro-abortion. I think all 24 running for the nomination of the Democrat Party in the USA are pro-abortion.


I think the distinction the pro-abortionists make is simply a slogan (taken hook, line and sinker from the slavery debate in the USA - right down to the very words used). Those who defend the tens of millions of innocent babies legally murdered in just the USA simply reduce everything to ONE point: POWER; it's a POWER issue, not a moral issue. It's exclusively about politics, the practice of POWER (even relative power). Who has greater political POWER - the unborn baby in the womb or her mother? Who should have the ULTIMATE POWER over the other - even to kill the other? The "pro-choice" crowd EVADES the issue of life and human rigthts because that's an argument they cannot win (and they are smart enough to know it), so they change the issue to CIVIL rights. Of course, babies can't vote and women do so this is as simple as the slavery issue - slaves could not vote, slave owners could, so it was easy to determine who should have the power ("choice") over the other.


The pro-choice crowd will never tell you what the choice is. It's the choice to murder an innocent, defenseless, non-threatening baby. "A woman (because half of you are women and you vote!) has the choice (but let's not even mention the choice to do what to whom)." They don't mention that half those murdered are females (so much for the pro-women and "women's health" issues). And just as in the slavery issue, there is a strong evasion to give ANY choice to the one most impacted. In the slavery debate, "choice" belonged ONLY to the slave owner, the slave had no choice whatsoever! If one is for choice, why is the one most impacted deprived of ANY choice whatsoever? If one is for choice, why is the one most impacted NOT EVEN CONSIDERED? Just as in the slavery issue in the USA.

As one slogan once put it, "only the living support abortion".

 

[JRT]

I have never met anyone who is "pro-abortion". I am "pro-choice" but I am certainly not pro-abortion.

If we wish to minimize the abortion rate, making it illegal is the wrong way to go about it. There are nations where abortion is totally illegal and carries severe penalties where the abortion rate is much higher than in nations where it is legal. The reason for this is that the two most potent abortifacients in the world are ignorance and poverty and in those nations you have both. But even in developed nations you can still have ignorance and poverty. In some quarters there is great reluctance to providing sex education, particularly birth control information. The same applies to the provision of pre-natal and post-natal care and delivery at an affordable cost to low income mothers in particular. In some case that would mean at no cost.

The USA and Canada are both affluent nations. In the USA abortion services are not readily available and attempts are being made to further reduce that availability or eliminate it entirely. In Canada we have universal single payer medical care and there are no abortion laws. Abortion is fully funded under Canadian medicare. Does Canada have a higher rate of abortion? No! The abortion rate in the USA is 50% greater than in Canada.

I believe that abortion should be legal, it should be safe, it should be available and it should be the woman’s informed choice but most important of all --- it should be rare.

 

[Lamb]

Again I say "The most potent abortifacients are NOT ignorance and poverty. It is not loving your neighbor as yourself...your neighbor being the unborn child in the womb."

Once we realize that a life is taken then we see the horror of what abortion truly is instead of trying to turn it into something necessary.

 

[tango]

I have never met anyone who is "pro-abortion". I am "pro-choice" but I am certainly not pro-abortion.

If we wish to minimize the abortion rate, making it illegal is the wrong way to go about it. There are nations where abortion is totally illegal and carries severe penalties where the abortion rate is much higher than in nations where it is legal. The reason for this is that the two most potent abortifacients in the world are ignorance and poverty and in those nations you have both. But even in developed nations you can still have ignorance and poverty. In some quarters there is great reluctance to providing sex education, particularly birth control information. The same applies to the provision of pre-natal and post-natal care and delivery at an affordable cost to low income mothers in particular. In some case that would mean at no cost.

The USA and Canada are both affluent nations. In the USA abortion services are not readily available and attempts are being made to further reduce that availability or eliminate it entirely. In Canada we have universal single payer medical care and there are no abortion laws. Abortion is fully funded under Canadian medicare. Does Canada have a higher rate of abortion? No! The abortion rate in the USA is 50% greater than in Canada.

I believe that abortion should be legal, it should be safe, it should be available and it should be the woman’s informed choice but most important of all --- it should be rare.

You said before that ignorance and poverty are powerful abortifacients. Can you back up that claim?

Can you also flesh out your thinking that it should be the woman's informed choice - do you believe the father (who helped make the baby, and who gets to help pay for the baby) should be totally sidelined in the process? It seems absurdly one-sided that if the father wants the baby and the mother does not then the baby gets terminated and the father is denied the chance to be a father, while at the same time if the mother wants the baby and the father does not she gets to keep the baby and the father is required to financially support it. The only way I can see justifying this one-sided situation where the father's wishes count for precisely nothing is if he raped the mother.