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

[Rain]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'll own that.  I get irritated with efforts to silence or shame men for having and expressing opinions about abortion.

My position is essentially identical to the longstanding position of the Church.  It's disappointing to get hectored by other members of the Church for holding that position.  It's also disappointing because that hectoring seems to be based purely on my gender.

Thanks,

-Smac

I believe nearly all, if not all, of the active women here hold the position of the church.  No active member here is hectoring you for the position the church takes on abortion.  There are, however, disagreements about things that the church doesn't take a position.

 

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've also never been a slave, and I have also never been a slaveholder.  But I reject the notion that this means I have "less of a voice" on this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

I reject that notion too.  But still others will insist that you and other men (including me) have "less of a voice" on this issue.  So there it is.  Stalemate.  Disagreement.  Lack of consensus.

Are you coming with me to go get some ice cream or not?  I'm ready to blow this popsicle stand.

[juliann]

12 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've also never been a slave, and I have also never been a slaveholder.  But I reject the notion that this means I have "less of a voice" on this issue.

Thanks,

-Smac

Seriously? Seriously? So if you are in a room with slaves or former slaves, you think your opinion should hold equal sway? Or would even be of interest?  Seriously?  

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

"Underlying societal causes" such as poverty?  Which I addressed here?

"Completely omitted," indeed.

Yup

Um, nope.  I addressed one of the "underlying society causes" you falsely asserted have been "completely omitted" from this discussion.

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-13-29

Quote

Nearly one third (31%) of respondents gave partner-related reasons for seeking an abortion. Six percent mentioned partners as their only reason for seeking abortion. Partner related reasons included not having a “good” or stable relationship with the father of the baby (9%), wanting to be married first (8%), not having a supportive partner (8%), being with the “wrong guy” (6%), having a partner who does not want the baby (3%), and having an abusive partner (3%).

 

Now I'm really confused.  So men can have an opinion about, and speak on, abortion, but only if they are in favor of it?

What are you saying here?

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

We could also go into the pressure on women to have sex to begin with.

Yes, we could discuss that.  I am strongly opposed to force, coercion or duress regarding sexual behavior (something that men to do women, women do to men, etc.). 

I am also opposed to the infantilization of women.

I am also cognizant about the moral dimension of killing a baby in utero.

24 minutes ago, juliann said:

This has been discussed before. It is a man's world in that arena. 

Women have no free will?  They are brainless, irresolute twits who are unable to say "no?"

Again, I am strongly opposed to force, coercion or duress.  But I have some qualms about conveniently stretching terms like "pressure on women" to cover consensual behavior.  (Of course, I would also have qualms about a man claiming such things about a woman "pressur{ing}" him into sex.)

I don't think we should infantilize adults.  If they consent to sex, that matters. A lot.  We cannot rationally retroactively negate that consent because the consequences of the consented-to behavior are foreseeable and adverse.

-Smac

[smac97]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

I've also never been a slave, and I have also never been a slaveholder.  But I reject the notion that this means I have "less of a voice" on this issue.

Seriously? Seriously?

Quite.  Quite.

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

So if you are in a room with slaves or former slaves, you think your opinion should hold equal sway?

In opposing slavery?  Yes, I think my opinion should hold equal sway.

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Or would even be of interest?  

Sure it would be "of interest."  We are all members of society.  We all have a right to be have and express opinions.  Even if we are male.

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

Seriously?  

Quite.

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Correct.  I can't answer it definitively.

Also correct.

Nevertheless, the denial of the humanity of black people as a rationalization/justification for slavery is scarily similar to the denial of the humanity of the unborn as a rationalization/justification for elective abortion.

I don't know what "miss their chance" means.  And I've said nothing about this in relation to abortion.

I have not said that.

You are not accurately stating my position.

And yes, I do have a right to present my personal opinion.

Sounds like "If you don't like slavery, don't participate in it."

Would you find that persuasive?

Thanks,

-Smac

Slavery was not happening inside a woman's body. The comparison does not match.

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

Quote

I'll own that.  I get irritated with efforts to silence or shame men for having and expressing opinions about abortion.

My position is essentially identical to the longstanding position of the Church.  It's disappointing to get hectored by other members of the Church for holding that position.  It's also disappointing because that hectoring seems to be based purely on my gender.

I believe nearly all, if not all, of the active women here hold the position of the church.  No active member here is hectoring you for the position the church takes on abortion. 

I dunno.  Juliann sure seems to be doing precisely that.

12 minutes ago, Rain said:

There are, however, disagreements about things that the church doesn't take a position.

Sure.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, juliann said:

Seriously? Seriously? So if you are in a room with slaves or former slaves, you think your opinion should hold equal sway? Or would even be of interest?  Seriously?  

I think the slaves appreciated Abraham Lincoln (never a slave or a slaveholder) being an advocate for them.  His opinion was of great interest and consequence for those who had no political power to speak up for themselves (much like the fetus).

Edited October 7, 2020 by pogi

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't have ANY problem with someone who does not want to participate in abortion or have one.  I do have a problem with those that want to force others to not have or participate in an abortion.

If I said "I don't have ANY problem with someone who does not want to hold slaves. I do have a problem with those that want to force others to not have slaves," would you find that acceptable?

Do you object to me objecting to, and actively working against, slavery?  Even if I have never held or been a slave?

Quote

If you are just saying you are against abortion, then I am totally fine with that.  

I am saying that.  I am exploring more than that, too.

If I said something like "If you are just saying you are opposed to slavery, then I am totally fine with that, as long as you don't actually try to do anything about your opposition," would you rind that acceptable?  Or do you think it would be okay for a person opposed to slavery to take affirmative steps to do more than merely oppose slavery in the abstract (such as enact legislation, or otherwise make specific efforts to curb slavery)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited October 7, 2020 by smac97

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Slavery was not happening inside a woman's body. The comparison does not match.

Again, denial of the humanity of the slave was a primary justification/rationalization for slavery.

Again, denial of the humanity of in utero babies is a primary justification/rationalization for elective abortion.

Moreover, Margaret Sanger was the nexus between racism (which, in tandem with the denial of the humanity of blacks, was used to justify/rationalize slavery) and abortion. 

The comparison is pretty apt. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Women have no free will?  They are brainless, irresolute twits who are unable to say "no?"

 

Yes, abused women are brainless twits.

Yes, young women who are seeking acceptance in a world that gives men priority are brainless twits. 

Yes, rape victims are brainless twits.

Yes, women who are dependent on men for their welfare are brainless twits. 

And yes, there are never are any consequences for a woman from any man for saying "no." 

And yes, we live in a world where it is considered normal for women to be consistently put in situations where they have to say no. And be called brainless twits by men who will never experience a woman's world. 

 

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think the slaves appreciated Abraham Lincoln (never a slave or a slaveholder) being an advocate for them.  His opinion was of great interest and consequence for those who had no political power to speak up for themselves (much like the fetus).

 I do to.  But I distinctly said what situation I was talking about so why are you creating strawmen?

[juliann]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, denial of the humanity of the slave was a primary justification/rationalization for slavery.

Again, denial of the humanity of in utero babies is a primary justification/rationalization for elective abortion.

Moreover, Margaret Sanger was the nexus between racism (which, in tandem with the denial of the humanity of blacks, was used to justify/rationalize slavery) and abortion. 

The comparison is pretty apt. 

Thanks,

-Smac

When does the soul (humanity) enter the unborn child? 

[smac97]

Just now, juliann said:

When does the soul (humanity) enter the unborn child? 

Asked and answered.

Meanwhile, I have asked: "If a fetus is just a clump of cells, and nothing more, then getting rid of it would be no more morally problematic than trimming your fingernails or excising a tumor.  And yet the Church denounces elective abortion.  Why is that?  How is it that abortion has a moral component?"

-Smac

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

Women have no free will?  They are brainless, irresolute twits who are unable to say "no?"

Yes, abused women are brainless twits.

Ah.  You're now entered "unserious" territory.  Got it.

Quote

Yes, young women who are seeking acceptance in a world that gives men priority are brainless twits. 

The importing of the Gender Wars into the Church continues apace.  

Quote

Yes, rape victims are brainless twits.

This is a flagrant misrepresentation of what I have said.  I'd report you to the mods, but we all know how that would go.

Quote

Yes, women who are dependent on men for their welfare are brainless twits.

Trading sex for "welfare" would seem to fall within the parameters of "coercion" and/or "duress."

I'd explore that further, but I think your hostility toward men expressing (even having) ideas about this area makes discussion impractical.

Quote

And yes, there are never are any consequences for a woman from any man for saying "no." 

Holy cow.  You are infantilizing women.  A lot.  

Absent force, coercion or duress, adults are expected to make rational, reasoned decisions, and to be responsible for the anticipated and foresseable consequences of those decisions.  All adults.  Including women.

Quote

And yes, we live in a world where it is considered normal for women to be consistently put in situations where they have to say no.

Again, you are infantilizing women.

Yes, women may "have to say no" to a man asking them for sex.  Similarly, men may "have to say no" if propositioned by a woman.  Our society having abandoned the basic sexual mores of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and having replaced it with the debauchery of the Sexual Revolution, transactional, meaningless sex is a genuine tragedy.

Quote

And be called brainless twits by men who will never experience a woman's world. 

Ranting and unserious.

And you are infantilizing women.  Big time.

-Smac

Edited October 7, 2020 by smac97

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

If I said "I don't have ANY problem with someone who does not want to hold slaves. I do have a problem with those that want to force others to not have slaves," would you find that acceptable?

Do you object to me objecting to, and actively working against, slavery?  Even if I have never held or been a slave?

I am saying that.  I am exploring more than that, too.

If I said something like "If you are just saying you are opposed to slavery, then I am totally fine with that, as long as you don't actually try to do anything about your opposition," would you rind that acceptable?  Or do you think it would be okay for a person opposed to slavery to take affirmative steps to do more than merely oppose slavery in the abstract (such as enact legislation, or otherwise make specific efforts to curb slavery)?

Thanks,

-Smac

You keep using slavery as an equal comparison to abortion.  It is not. Everyone agrees that the definition of slavery is someone held in servitude against their will.  We ALL agree that is what slavery is.  It is not an opinion.  It is exactly what slavery is and we make a moral decision as a society that a person should not be forced in to servitude against their will.

When it comes to abortion, there is no consensus as to whether or not the fetus is a person until it is born.  Some believe it is.  Some do not.  So no consensus can be reached.  The only option is to allow those who do not believe a fetus is a person the right/option to have an abortion. Those that do believe the fetus is a person have the a right to not have an abortion.  Neither side can force the other side legally to adopt their position because that position is strictly personal opinion.

I wish you well in living your life abortion free.  My life is also abortion free.  I support BOTH sides of this issue to live their own lives as they see fit. 

[pogi]

33 minutes ago, juliann said:

 I do to. 

I think that is good and right. 

By the same token, I think it speaks about the value of men's (who may be only indirectly involved) opinion and advocacy for those who don't have a political voice (in many ways like Lincoln and the slaves) - even more so when that life is directly related to them, and carries their genes.  

 

Edited October 7, 2020 by pogi

[juliann]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Asked and answered.

Meanwhile, I have asked: "If a fetus is just a clump of cells, and nothing more, then getting rid of it would be no more morally problematic than trimming your fingernails or excising a tumor.  And yet the Church denounces elective abortion.  Why is that?  How is it that abortion has a moral component?"

-Smac

For the same reason fornication is morally problematic. But you don't need to be told that which makes this mere deflection.

 

[smac97]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

You keep using slavery as an equal comparison to abortion.  

It's an analogy.  A comparison of similarities held by two or more otherwise dissimilar things.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

It is not.

I think the comparison holds.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Everyone agrees that the definition of slavery is someone held in servitude against their will.  

Sure.  

I think everyone also agrees that slavery was heavily predicated on the denial of the humanity of the slaves.  Right?

I also think that elective abortion arguments are heavily predicated on the denial fo the humanity of in utero babies.  Hence the comparison.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

We ALL agree that is what slavery is.  It is not an opinion.  

Sure.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

It is exactly what slavery is and we make a moral decision as a society that a person should not be forced in to servitude against their will.

Ah.  Note that you said "a person."  A person.

Please also note that there were plenty of people in that society who denied that slaves were "person{s}," and who were just fine with forcing black people "into servitude against their will."

We face a similar situation today.  Plenty of people in our society deny the humanity, the personhood, of in utero babies, and are just fine with killing them for any reason, or no reason at all.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

When it comes to abortion, there is no consensus as to whether or not the fetus is a person until it is born.  

I invite you to share the "consensus" about slavery in, say, 1860.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Some believe it is.  Some do not.  So no consensus can be reached.  

Was a "consensus" reached about slavery?

1 minute ago, california boy said:

The only option is to allow those who do not believe a fetus is a person the right/option to have an abortion. Those that do believe the fetus is a person have the a right to not have an abortion.  

"The only option is to allow those who do not believe a black person is a person the right/option to hold black people as slaves."

"Those that do believe that a black African is a person have the a right to not have black Africans as slaves."

Do you find these convincing statements?  

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Neither side can force the other side legally to adopt their position because that position is strictly personal opinion.

"Strictly personal opinion?"  Are you sure about that?

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I wish you well in living your life abortion free.  My life is also abortion free.  I support BOTH sides of this issue to live their own lives as they see fit. 

"I support both abolitionists and slaveholders to live their own lives as they see fit."

Meanwhile, what of the lives of the slaves?

Meanwhile, what of the lives of the unborn?

Thanks,

-Smac

[juliann]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think that is good and right. 

By the same token, I think it speaks about the value of men's opinion and advocacy for those who don't have a political voice (in many ways like Lincoln and the slaves) - even more so when that life is directly related to them, and carries their genes.  

 

Which makes it a only a private matter of each man's own genes.  Unfortunately, men have historically been profligate in spreading their genes, sooooo.....in the words of Elle, why here? Why now? 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Quote

"If a fetus is just a clump of cells, and nothing more, then getting rid of it would be no more morally problematic than trimming your fingernails or excising a tumor.  And yet the Church denounces elective abortion.  Why is that?  How is it that abortion has a moral component?"

For the same reason fornication is morally problematic.

Fornication necessarily kills a baby?  

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

But you don't need to be told that which makes this mere deflection.

Actually, I don't understand your position.  Fornication is "morally problematic" because God has imposed constraints sexual behavior, limiting it to between a husband and wife within the bonds of marriage.  

Elective abortion is, in my view, "morally problematic" because it results in the death of a baby.

I don't see these as "the same reason" at all.

And it's not deflection.  It was a genuine and sincere question.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, juliann said:

Which makes it a only a private matter of each man's own genes.  Unfortunately, men have historically been profligate in spreading their genes, sooooo.....in the words of Elle, why here? Why now? 

I've never understood the hostility some hold toward men who oppose elective abortion.  The presumption - often over the objection of the men expressing their views - is that these men are intractably hostile to, and want to "control," women.

This explanation doesn't work for me for a few reasons.  First, there are huge numbers of women - approximately half, IIRC - who share my generalized sentiments about elective abortion.  If I am pointing to reasons X, Y and Z for opposing elective abortion, and huge numbers of women are also pointing to X, Y and Z, then the "Men just want to control the bodies of women" schtick doesn't hold up.

Second, my reasons for opposing elective abortion have nothing to do with "controlling" the bodies of women.  See here:

Quote

I find the "'controlling the agency of women' agenda" claim to be absurd.  I couldn't care less what women do to their hair or ears or any other of their body.  Tattoos?  Whatever.  Elective cosmetic surgery?  As you like.  Sterilization?  It's your choice.  And on and on and on.

I hold the concept of bodily autonomy in high regard.  The only reason I think about abortion is because it involves the life of a baby.  I think that is the overwhelmingly predominant concern of pro-lifers.  So the accusation that we (including around half of all women) have some sort of dark and twisted desire to "control the agency of women" is absurd.  Stupid.  I reject it out-of-hand.  I am taking you less seriously for having presented it.

There are reasonable and good faith arguments to be made in favor of elective abortion.  There are also reasonable and good faith arguments to be made against elective abortion.  I can affirm both of these statements very easily. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Because our theology means that the soul of the child isn't harmed, and our theology also does not teach that a soul is assigned to a body at conception.

Wouldn't this mean that abortion is a minor transgression then? If there isn't a soul (no human life) and no one is harmed by it, and if the soul that would have come to earth can now go to another body (as mentioned in other people's posts), then what's the big deal about abortion?

Let's posit a situation where a woman is addicted to heroic, crack, meth, whatever. She has no job and lives in a meth house, prostituting herself for drugs. She becomes pregnant. Wouldn't it be better for her child for her to have an abortion? There is no harm done to the soul of her child, and that soul could go to another much better family. In fact, it would seem that abortion would be the moral reasonable thing to do. Spare the child a terrible life and let the child go to a better situation.

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

This does lead me to another question though.  In Catholic theology, are miscarriages treated as the loss of a soul?  I'm not speaking about from the parent's perspective but I mean theologically, is every miscarriage a soul that then loses it's chance to come to earth and is lost forever to wherever souls go who don't come to earth?

Honestly, I'm not sure of the specifics of miscarriages. I assume it would be similar to a child who dies without baptism. I did a little research and it appears that is the case, but I could have missed something. The Church declares that baptism is required for salvation. Here is the teaching from the catechism concerning unbaptized children:

Quote

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus' tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

This also comes from the catechism:

Quote

God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

That last quote is an important one. We must do all that we can to ensure that all are baptized, but God is not beholden to what He has commanded us to do.

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Actually, I don't understand your position.  Fornication is "morally problematic" because God has imposed constraints sexual behavior, limiting it to between a husband and wife within the bonds of marriage.  

 

Why

[juliann]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I've never understood the hostility some hold toward men who oppose elective abortion.  The presumption - often over the objection of the men expressing their views - is that these men are intractably hostile to, and want to "control," women.

 

 You continue to jump into to the tip of the iceberg to avoid having to deal with the underlying issues.