Jump to content

Catholic Bishop: Abortion Is the 'Preeminent Evil in Our Culture.


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Rain said:

With couples who are doing their best to follow the Lord I think it is rarely going to happen that they disagree on the matter.  It is only with disagreement that the weight given to the woman's voice means anything. 

The not numerous cases I have heard and read about have been some time ago when medicine wasn't as capable of saving younger premature babies, so that wasn't considered an option.  Cases I knew of were mostly the mother having cancer and needing treatment, but there are also a case of rape and medical issues besides cancer where doctors were advising high risk to stay pregnant to the mother.  Where there was disagreement, it was usually the husband not wanting to cause his wife more hardship or risk losing his wife and mother of his children and the mother who insisted on carrying the child even when a death sentence.  I am pretty sure besides word of mouth at church, I read a few accounts in the Ensign.  The ones at church, a few could have been FPR, but some were personal accounts or best friends with the person telling me.

Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I will think on it.

Do you believe you can understand the experience of being a slave as well as someone who has been a slave?

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post

Interesting thread. 
 

But even a cynical pundit like Howard Stern said that no matter how you “dress it up”, abortion is still killing babies. 
It is one of the greatest evils of our time. 

Edited by mrmarklin
spelling
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree. If anyone is an expert it is philosophers and theologians and moralists.

When it comes to all other animals and forms of life, biologists are the specialists and authorities we turn to to learn when life beings biologically.  Why should it be different with humans?  We are animals too.

Can you show me any kind of consensus as to when biological human life begins with moralists and philosophers?  I doubt it.  My guess is the consensus will be "go ask the biologists, this is not a question of morality.  Once that has been established...then we can talk about morality."

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If you argue that every zygote is an individual human worth preserving at any reasonable cost we have a SERIOUS PROBLEM.

I understand that there are moral implications which need to be hashed out.  But before we can address those, we need a scientific consensus as to when biological human life begins.  And we have one.  An overwhelming one!  This (I'm not talking about abortion in case anyone is confused) is a biological question, not a moral one. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
15 hours ago, Rain said:

A good portion of this thread is just smac saying we should have equal voice and many disagreeing and saying women should have greater voice.  Like I said above, this will only be a problem with disagreements, so what does one do then?

Vote :) 

When it comes to advocacy, the best advocate will have no potential conflict of interest.  Because the personal and life changing implications of abortion are much greater for women then men, they may have greater conflicting interests when advocacy for their own body and their own personal interests may potentially conflict with their advocacy for the life of the fetus.   To give women greater voice could potentially lead to greater conflict of interest when it comes to advocacy for the fetus.  That, to me, is a problem strictly from the perspective of advocacy for the fetus.  I understand that abortion is not just about the fetus.  Please, no one, assume that I am saying that men should have a greater voice when it comes to abortion.  I am speaking speaking solely about advocacy for the fetus.  Abortion involves more then just the fetus.    

I personally feel that men have fewer potential conflicts of interest when it comes to advocacy for the fetus - women, on the other hand, are in a better position to be better advocates for their own bodies, and both should have equal voice when it comes to abortion - because abortion is not just about the fetus, and it is not just about the woman's body.  It is both.  We need advocates from both sides.  And yes, I agree, people can, and should be, advocates for both.  That is what needs to be hashed out.  What is the proper balance?  

I don't believe in doing away with laws in favor of total libertarian freedoms dictated by personal revelation - especially when it comes to matters of intentionally ending the life of another human being.  Maybe that is not what you are saying, but that's what it sounds like when you talk about giving the choice to women based on personal revelation.  

 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Interesting thread. 
 

But even a cynical pundit like Howard Stren said that no matter how you “dress it up”, abortion is still killing babies. 
It is one of the greatest evils of our time. 

For those that want to have less abortions in the world, calling them evil is not going to work.  What would work is finding ways for these pregnant mothers to have real economic stability and offering to adopt unwanted pregnancies.  Until that happens, IMO, they are just paying lip service to not wanting abortions.

Of all of those who have posted here about their belief that abortion should stop, just how many have promised to raise a child of one of these desperate mothers.  Picketers stand in front of abortion clinics decrying their viewpoint of abortion being evil.  I have never seen a single sign saying that they would take care of the baby if the person would choose not to have the abortion.  

Link to post
17 hours ago, pogi said:

That is not what I am saying, and I think you are wrong about "most everyone" believes that human life begins at birth.  

Your original comment:

CFR. (because I just don't believe it - not that it changes my argument).  I have asked for evidence.  You provided me no direct evidence. 

My point is that it doesn't matter what the MAJORITY of Americans believe in this regard.  We should be looking to the biologists.  Not Americans.  The vast MAJORITY of biologists agree that a zygot is a human being.   It doesn't "become" one.  It is one.

Your poll doesn't answer my CFR.  It requires making an assumption.   Honestly, I don't care what they believe they are killing.  I care what science believes they are killing.  This is why science goes to the way-side for so many - because it gets in the way of people's politics or moral sensibilities.  It is so much easier to swallow killing a human being if we don't call it a human being.  "Go away science, you are making me feel bad!!!"

I don't think it is safe to say that.  Many acknowledge it and simply try to justify it.   95% of biologists agree that abortion is killing human life, yet a fair chunk of those are still pro-choice.  

Looks like we are not going to agree on this.  So how about this.  I will state that 75% of Americans support Roe v Wade.  And I will state that in my opinion the majority of Americans do not support murder.  I read that statistic to draw the conclusion that most Americans do not believe that a fetus is the same as a child that is born.

  • Like 1
Link to post
18 hours ago, pogi said:

It is not a "problem" for the fetus.  It quite likes it there actually!  That is where it is supposed to be.  It doesn't matter where it is at, my advocacy matters.  Women can advocate for themselves, and their opinion does matter more in that regard - but there doesn't seem to be consensus there either.  But my advocacy is more for the fetus. 

"Human" life.  Think about it...

So a chicken is a chicken, so long as the egg is not inside the hen, even though is still inside the egg?  Why does it matter where the heck the egg is or where it is seeded?  Some animals lay eggs before they are even seeded.  The whole process happens in the external environment.  These are distinctions without a difference in regards to life.  It doesn't matter where it happens. 

Well, that is the contention, of course.  If the fetus is inside the woman, and we cannot say the fetus is an individual human with rights, then it should belong to the woman to decide what to do.  We can't possibly say chickens or hens have rights like humans.  I get you are taking the position that the fetus is a human and should have rights, the woman wherein the fetus is found has no rights to decide whether the fetus should go full term or not.  

18 hours ago, pogi said:

I thought you were saying that life can have a purpose outside of religion.  I was agreeing with you. 

 

Thanks.

Link to post
16 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Well, that is the contention, of course.  If the fetus is inside the woman, and we cannot say the fetus is an individual human with rights, then it should belong to the woman to decide what to do.  We can't possibly say chickens or hens have rights like humans.  I get you are taking the position that the fetus is a human and should have rights, the woman wherein the fetus is found has no rights to decide whether the fetus should go full term or not.  

Thanks.

I am not talking about human rights or morals or anything like that at this point.  I am strictly talking about when human life begins.  It is astonishing to me how politics warps peoples brains on this issue. It is just like with Covid.  They can't get themselves to simply acknowledge what science has overwhelming consensus on.  Strip the politics from it. Strip the moral implications from it.  What does science say?

Edited by pogi
Link to post
21 minutes ago, california boy said:

 I read that statistic to draw the conclusion that most Americans do not believe that a fetus is the same as a child that is born.

I have given you good reason to question that conclusion. Do what you will with it. 

Link to post
28 minutes ago, california boy said:

Of all of those who have posted here about their belief that abortion should stop, just how many have promised to raise a child of one of these desperate mothers.  Picketers stand in front of abortion clinics decrying their viewpoint of abortion being evil.  I have never seen a single sign saying that they would take care of the baby if the person would choose not to have the abortion.  

There is a HUGE waiting list of parents desperately wanting to adopt.  Sadly but too many of the mothers do not want to bother with the process of putting up for adoption.  Also, abortion mills work strenuously to divert mothers from this option.

Not a single sign?  You must have been feverishly averting your gaze away from the protesters across the street from Planned Parenthood.  Have you seen the amazing movie:  "Unplanned" ?  Abortion protesters have worked tirelessly over many decades to persuade young mothers from taking the life of their child.

Always keep in mind that the DNA of the child in the womb is distinct from the mother.  It is appalling for pro-aborts to claim that the "fetus" is just another organ in the woman's body.

  • Like 1
Link to post
29 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am not talking about human rights or morals or anything like that at this point.  I am strictly talking about when human life begins.  It is astonishing to me how politics warps peoples brains on this issue. It is just like with Covid.  They can't get themselves to simply acknowledge what science has overwhelming consensus on.  Strip the politics from it. Strip the moral implications from it.  What does science say?

I think the problem with this approach is that the question of what is human life from a scientific perspective may not be the same as from a religious or philosophical perspective. I think everyone essentially agrees about the science: as far as how a human life begins and develops. What science can't do is arbitrate the discussion about when that biological human life takes on the qualities and aspects of humanity that many humans feel are somehow sacred or that have render that individual as having inherent human value and rights. 

I'm very conservative on the issue and basically follow the Church's stance on abortion, but I don't think an appeal to science really moves the conversation along. It is primarily a philosophical/religious debate, not a scientific one.  

Edited by Ryan Dahle
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
15 hours ago, Rain said:

 

Another clarification from me.  I believe that nearly all, if not all, of the active women on this thread feel that they are an advocate for the fetus as well as the woman.  Women like me are not going to advocate for the fetus any less than you do, even if through revelation, we feel it best to have an abortion.

With couples who are doing their best to follow the Lord I think it is rarely going to happen that they disagree on the matter.  It is only with disagreement that the weight given to the woman's voice means anything. 

And really, there will probably be times when the woman is the one who feels right to stay pregnant, while the man doesn't.   So its not a 2 sided coin of woman advocating for self and man advocating for child. 

A good portion of this thread is just smac saying we should have equal voice and many disagreeing and saying women should have greater voice.  Like I said above, this will only be a problem with disagreements, so what does one do then?

I know my husband would totally say I should have more say on it (like he felt with me getting pregnant), just as I would say he has more say in his employment.  Luckily, we have never had to worry about that as we have always agreed on the major things. Other couples are not so blessed.

 

 

I think a major issue with SMAC in this thread is his constant insistence to create moral equivalencies between abortion and slavery. This does undermine any of his arguments in a fundamental way. One needs to speak about abortion directly, without trying to hammer an analogy onto it to draw intellectually-easy conclusions.

A couple years ago there was a Twitter thread by an LDS woman, Gabrielle Blair not too long ago, which really drills down to the immoral moments which cause abortions of unwanted pregnancies, and pointed out the lack of personal responsibility men bear for pregnancies they help create:

Quote

 

I’m a mother of six, and a Mormon. I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. I've been listening to men grandstand about women's reproductive rights, and I'm convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion. Here's why…

If you want to stop abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies. No for real, they are. Perhaps you are thinking: IT TAKES TWO! And yes, it does take two for _intentional_ pregnancies.

But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. Period. Don’t believe me? Let me walk you through it. Let’s start with this: women can only get pregnant about 2 days each month. And that’s for a limited number of years.

That makes 24 days a year a women might get pregnant. But men can _cause_ pregnancy 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year.

And though their sperm gets crappier as they age, men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty till death. So just starting with basic biology + the calendar it’s easy to see men are the issue here.

But what about birth control? If a woman doesn’t want to risk an unwanted pregnancy, why wouldn’t she just use birth control? If a women can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can get birth control, right? Great questions.

Modern birth control is possibly the greatest invention of the last century, and I am very grateful for it. It’s also brutal. The side effects for many women are ridiculously harmful. So ridiculous, that when an oral contraception for men was created, it wasn’t approved…

… because of the side effects. And the list of side effects was about 1/3 as long as the known side effects for women's oral contraception. (LINK to source)

There’s a lot to be unpacked just in that story, but I’ll simply point out (in case you didn’t know) that as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

But good news, Men: Even with the horrible side effects, women are still very willing to use birth control. Unfortunately it’s harder to get than it should be. Birth control options for women require a doctor’s appointment and a prescription. It’s not free, and often not cheap.

In fact there are many people trying to make it more expensive by fighting to make sure insurance companies refuse to cover it. Oral contraceptives for women can’t be acquired easily, or at the last minute. And they don't work instantly.

If we’re talking about the pill, it requires consistent daily use and doesn’t leave much room for mistakes, forgetfulness, or unexpected disruptions to daily schedules. And again, the side effects can be brutal. I’M STILL GRATEFUL FOR IT PLEASE DON’T TAKE IT AWAY.

I’m just saying women's birth control isn’t simple or easy. In contrast, let’s look at birth control for men, meaning condoms. Condoms are readily available at all hours, inexpensive, convenient, and don’t require a prescription. They’re effective, and work on demand, instantly.

Men can keep them stocked up just in case, so they’re always prepared. Amazing! They are so much easier than birth control options for women. As a bonus, in general, women love when men use condoms. They keep us from getting STDs, they don’t lessen our pleasure during sex…

...[some content not quoted because of its graphic nature, talking about men not using condoms or the withdrawal method in order to increase their sexual pleasure.]

It’s mind-boggling and disturbing when you realize that’s the choice men are making. And honestly, I’m not as mad as I should be about this, because we’ve trained men from birth that their pleasure is of utmost importance in the world. (And to dis-associate sex and pregnancy.)

While we’re here, let’s talk a bit more about pleasure and biology. Did you know that a man CAN'T get a woman pregnant without having an orgasm? Which means that we can conclude getting a woman pregnant is a pleasurable act for men.

But did you further know that men CAN get a woman pregnant without HER feeling any pleasure at all? In fact, it’s totally possible for a man to impregnate a woman even while causing her excruciating pain, trauma or horror.

In contrast, a woman can have non-stop orgasms with or without a partner and never once get herself pregnant. A woman’s orgasm has literally nothing to do with pregnancy or fertility — her clitoris exists not for creating new babies, but simply for pleasure.

No matter how many orgasms she has, they won’t make her pregnant. Pregnancies can only happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies can only happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.

What this means is a women can be [very sexually active] and she will never find herself with an unwanted pregnancy unless a man shows up and ejaculates irresponsibly.

Women enjoying sex does not equal unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Men enjoying sex and having irresponsible ejaculations is what causes unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

Let’s talk more about responsibility. Men often don’t know, and don’t ask, and don’t think to ask, if they’ve caused a pregnancy. They may never think of it, or associate sex with making babies at all. Why? Because there are 0 consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.

If the woman decides to have an abortion, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation.

If the woman decides to have the baby, or put the baby up for adoption, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation, or that there’s now a child walking around with 50% of his DNA.

If the woman does tell him that he caused an unwanted pregnancy and that she’s having the baby, the closest thing to a consequence for him, is that he may need to pay child support. But our current child support system is well-known to be a joke.

61% of men (or women) who are legally required to pay it, simply don’t. With little or no repercussions. Their credit isn’t even affected. So, many men keep going as is, causing unwanted pregnancies with irresponsible ejaculations and never giving it thought.

When the topic of abortion comes up, men might think: Abortion is horrible; women should not have abortions. And never once consider the man who CAUSED the unwanted pregnancy. If you’re not holding men responsible for unwanted pregnancies, then you are wasting your time.

 

What Blair details here is the learned and perpetuated cultural focus on female responsibility for abortion without an equal, attendant focus on male responsibility. I think that, if men and women both focused on both equally, there would likely be much quicker and more universal agreement that emphasizes abortion prevention more and criminalization less. 

 

 

Link to post
3 minutes ago, longview said:

There is a HUGE waiting list of parents desperately wanting to adopt.  Sadly but too many of the mothers do not want to bother with the process of putting up for adoption.  Also, abortion mills work strenuously to divert mothers from this option.

Not a single sign offering help for adoption placement?  You must have been feverishly averting your gaze away from the protesters across the street from Planned Parenthood.  Have you seen the amazing movie:  "Unplanned" ?  Abortion protesters have worked tirelessly over many decades to persuade young mothers from taking the life of their child.  There are many options

Always keep in mind that the DNA of the child in the womb is distinct from the mother.  It is appalling for pro-aborts to claim that the "fetus" is just another organ in the woman's body.

 

Link to post
10 minutes ago, Ryan Dahle said:

I think everyone essentially agrees about the science

Clearly, that is not the case.  Several here cannot get themselves to acknowledge that a human beings' life begins at fertilization.  We have to start with that foundation because that biological fact may have potential moral and philosophical implications and deserves a place in the debate. 

 

Link to post
2 minutes ago, pogi said:

Clearly, that is not the case.  Several here cannot get themselves to acknowledge that a human beings' life begins at fertilization.  We have to start with that foundation because that biological fact may have potential moral and philosophical implications and deserves a place in the debate. 

 

It doesn't really if one assumes it as a given. Then they can be sure that they are more fully advocating for the unborn. 

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It doesn't really if one assumes it as a given. Then they can be sure that they are more fully advocating for the unborn. 

I don't know what you mean.

Link to post
Just now, pogi said:

I don't know what you mean.

Assume that a human being's life begins at fertilization and go from there. Then you can be assured if this is indeed true, then you are advocating for them as human beings and not just cells.

Link to post
22 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Assume that a human being's life begins at fertilization and go from there. Then you can be assured if this is indeed true, then you are advocating for them as human beings and not just cells.

I still don't understand what you are suggesting.  Are you suggesting that we should be science deniers when our politics don't align with science?

This is equivalent to saying that, "if we just assume that masks work (who cares what science says!) and go from there..."  It is kind of more than just an unestablished "assumption" at this point!  Same with human life!

You are reducing overwhelming scientific consensus to an assumption (like Covid deniers) that should be questioned when it has potential moral and political implications that don't align with yours. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post

 

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

Clearly, that is not the case.  Several here cannot get themselves to acknowledge that a human beings' life begins at fertilization.  We have to start with that foundation because that biological fact may have potential moral and philosophical implications and deserves a place in the debate. 

Such as, how does the intentional destruction of an in vitro fetus differ from abortion of a fetus from a mother’s womb?

Link to post
8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

Such as, how does the intentional destruction of an in vitro fetus differ from abortion of a fetus from a mother’s womb?

Exactly.  That is one good example. 

We need to start at the foundation of life however. We need to see eye to eye on that fundamental point before we can discuss anything else.  Otherwise we are just going to be talking past each other. 

Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

For those that want to have less abortions in the world, calling them evil is not going to work.  What would work is finding ways for these pregnant mothers to have real economic stability and offering to adopt unwanted pregnancies.  Until that happens, IMO, they are just paying lip service to not wanting abortions.

Of all of those who have posted here about their belief that abortion should stop, just how many have promised to raise a child of one of these desperate mothers.  Picketers stand in front of abortion clinics decrying their viewpoint of abortion being evil.  I have never seen a single sign saying that they would take care of the baby if the person would choose not to have the abortion.  

Kind of like saying that we can reduce illegal drugs if we stabilize Mexico's economy to reduce corruption and find jobs.   Not going to work.  Abortion will always be with us. 

If Republicans were serious about outlawing abortion they would have pursued a constitutional amendment.  They haven't.  Flag burning amendment, cool.  Such hypocrites.  

I'm for lawful safe abortions, but I will condemn anybody who has participated in one.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...