Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

22 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? 

My point was that the opinion of a man matters especially in relation to life he is related to - not that his opinion only matters in that relation.  From the example, Lincoln didn't share genes with those he advocated for.  His opinion was of no private matter, thank goodness. 

This will be my last word.     

 

Link to post
47 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

Denial of the humanity of the fetus is not necessary for the decision. One can still accept that humanity and also agree that she has jurisdiction over her own uterus and gets to decide if a fetus may continue living there. Slavery does not compare, as slaves did not live inside people's bodies.

Evils which impact abortion rates:

Women are more likely to be murdered by their husbands or partners when they're pregnant.

Women are frequently denied the ability to access birth control or make decisions like sterilisation. 

Minimum wage is not a living wage for a family.

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
6 hours ago, smac97 said:

In matters of law enforcement, firefighting, use of military force, suicide, sexual assault amongst incarcerated persons, homelessness, job-related injuries, and many other areas of life, men are "hit harder" and "bear more of the consequences."  Do we tell women that they, as a category, should have a "lesser" voice than men when discussing such issues?  Do we disparage women who choose to speak on and have a voice in such issues?

Nope and nope.

Thanks,

-Smac

Apples and oranges. They are disproportionately affected in quantity but women still experience all of those.

How many men have had an abortion? How may have been refused an abortion? How many have died due to a botched back alley abortion? Now if women were talking endlessly about the horrors of prostate cancer or the great menace of vagina dentata you would have an equivalent point.

  • Like 3
Link to post

There is no evidence a human has a spirit inside them, let alone an unborn fetus.  If religion must require that a fetus is a person once a spirit enters into it, then what are we to make of those who aren't Christian or aren't God believers, or don't think humans have ghostly unkown forms inside them?  

The argument grows silly due to religion.  If religion's position is you can't kill a human and yet only assumes a fetus should be considered human, then we have no real argument here other than to argue against a religion's assumption.  What if there is no God and we are just another piece of this natural phenomena we call world/existence?  It seems its quite reasonable to think a sprouting seed inside a woman is not a human until birth.  It appears we have to assume God in order to think there is some purpose to a fetus.  But, the assumption is weak under scrutiny.  

Link to post
22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There is no evidence a human has a spirit inside them, let alone an unborn fetus.  If religion must require that a fetus is a person once a spirit enters into it, then what are we to make of those who aren't Christian or aren't God believers, or don't think humans have ghostly unkown forms inside them?  

The argument grows silly due to religion.  If religion's position is you can't kill a human and yet only assumes a fetus should be considered human, then we have no real argument here other than to argue against a religion's assumption.  What if there is no God and we are just another piece of this natural phenomena we call world/existence?  It seems its quite reasonable to think a sprouting seed inside a woman is not a human until birth.  It appears we have to assume God in order to think there is some purpose to a fetus.  But, the assumption is weak under scrutiny.  

It is not just religionists that are against abortion. The secularist argument is not about the spirit, but about the nomenclature of life.  When does human life begin?  It is a "human" zygote!   It is human...in the primary stages of life.  The human goes through developmental stages.  The fetus is not fully developed, but then again neither is a newborn child. 

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It seems its quite reasonable to think a sprouting seed inside a woman is not a human until birth. 

A sprouting juniper is not a juniper? 

22 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

It appears we have to assume God in order to think there is some purpose to a fetus.  But, the assumption is weak under scrutiny.  

This is a great secularist argument to oppose abortion.  Thanks for sharing.  Why does that purpose not deserve an advocate?

Edited by pogi
Link to post
1 hour 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).

Abraham Lincoln also had some really bad ideas that didn’t work. Look into his plan to relocate former slaves and the hell they went through. Lincoln also did not presume to write books about the experience of being a slave or insist that emancipation was primarily about him. One can aid a cause without being a primary benefactor.

If you want an equivalent of someone making abortion or racism or whatever about themselves we can turn to Robert E. Lee. He describes slavery as an evil but:

Quote

I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.

Yep, the slave owners are the real victims. Just like in todays society in the USA heterosexual white males are the real victims of racism, sexism, and being silenced.

As has been said before: History does not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme a lot.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to post
9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Abraham Lincoln also had some really bad ideas that didn’t work.

That doesn't detract from the analogy that men's advocacy for the fetus is of value. 

Link to post
53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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

I think the comparison holds.

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.

Sure.

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.

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

Was a "consensus" reached about slavery?

"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?  

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

"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

The fact that you have to go back to the 1800's to make your analogy work says a lot. It is now you that is arguing from the fringe.  Can you name a single mainstream person in this country that shares your idea that a slave is not really a person?

Yet the MAJORITY of Americans do not believe a fetus is a person.

You are pretending the analogy is comparable.  It is not.

Link to post
46 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.

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:

Thanks,

-Smac

That is a beautiful straw man. Being told your views are of lesser value because they do not involve you does not mean you cannot have views, even strongly held ones. It means that you should be willing to listen to those who are more impacted by the situation in question. It is like having a strong opinion about whether someone else should or should not take a family member off of life support when you are a distant acquaintance. Would you insist on stepping in and sharing your views on the situation and then be offended if they told you they don’t particularly value your input.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
3 minutes ago, pogi said:

That doesn't detract from the analogy that men's advocacy for the fetus is of value. 

It does have value but it is of lesser and less immediate value. If you want to grandstand against abortion these nuances are pointless and that is what is happening a lot here. It is chest beating. Do you think smac is actually trying to learn anything in this discussion? He shared his views and then spent the rest of the thread explaining and justifying how valuable his views are and acting hurt when they were not valued as highly as someone else’s. It is a standard mansplaining/whitesplaining/whateversplaining tactic. The last pages are about the relative value of his opinion. It is all about him. It is a tactic to soothe the ego with “me too” and also gives a jolt of self-righteousness in victimhood.

If you want to solve the problem and set up circumstances in which abortion is rare or extinct you need to listen to those who are impacted by it. Why are they there? What can we change to make this less likely to happen? Things of that nature.

If I want people to stop sleeping under the overpass is it of much value to run around asking middle- and upper-class people what drives people to live under an overpass or should I figure out why the actual people are actually there?

The point of identifying privilege and entitlement and the rest are not primarily rhetorical (unless someone is a bad faith actor of course) to control a conversation. It is to let the people who are impacted by or are more likely to be impacted by the problem or circumstance speak and have their voice valued over those who have not. While this has catharsis value that is not the purpose either. The people who are experiencing the problem are likely to know why they are there, what it feels like, and are the most likely to have the insights we need to fix the problem. I saw this most poignantly when I worked with children in the system. You see well-meaning people trying to do what is right for the child but they often misstep because they do not know what the child wants and needs.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
51 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

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?

This is one of the main reasons why I do not oppose abortion.  If a woman can not or will not care for a child, she shouldn't take that responsibility.  I wouldn't let anyone who can't or won't take care of a dog have one either for that matter.  Why in the world would I force them to have a child they don't want.

Now if all of those that are against abortion pledged that they would raise these unwanted children when they are born, then I would be much more willing to not allow that abortion.  The ironic part is, the vast majority of those that are against abortion are also against welfare for those mothers that find themselves raising a child without an income.  I find that hypocritical.  They should be the very ones pushing for easier and more state welfare.

Link to post
9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet the MAJORITY of Americans do not believe a fetus is a person.

I don't know if I believe that.  Do you have a reference?  Even if you are right, however, it makes the analogy works that much more.  It is a parallel.  It is funny how time changes perspectives, isn't it?  To have hushed those dissenting opinions as not valid, would have been a pity, don't you think? 

In terms of when human life begins, whose opinion should we value the most?  The politically biased?  The emotionally and physically biased? The lay person? Or, the biologists?  Interesting, despite differing political affiliations and positions regarding abortion, there was almost unanimous consensus from biologists as to when human life begins.  95% believe that human life begins at fertilization.  I haven't read to see what the other 5% believe, but I am fairly confident it is not at birth. 

Quote

The participants were separated into 60 groups and each statement was affirmed by a consensus of each group, including biologists that identified as very pro-choice (69-90%), very pro-life (92-97%), very liberal (70-91%), very conservative (94-96%), strong Democrats (74-91%), and strong Republicans (89-94%). Overall, 95% of all biologists affirmed the biological view that a human's life begins at fertilization (5212 out of 5502).

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3211703

 

Link to post
22 minutes ago, california boy said:

The fact that you have to go back to the 1800's to make your analogy work says a lot. It is now you that is arguing from the fringe.  Can you name a single mainstream person in this country that shares your idea that a slave is not really a person?

Yet the MAJORITY of Americans do not believe a fetus is a person.

You are pretending the analogy is comparable.  It is not.

Slaves were also viewed generally even back then as having souls. They were just infantilized. We know what is best for them. You can see this in slaveowner accounts as they dismiss the worry of slaves over broken families and talk about how childlike and cheerful the slaves are. To those who have never experienced anything similar in your own life ask a woman to explain it to you.

Edited by The Nehor
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
4 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know if I believe that.  Do you have a reference?  Even if you are right, however, it makes the analogy works that much more.  It is a parallel.  It is funny how time changes perspectives, isn't it?  To have hushed those dissenting opinions as not valid, would have been a pity, don't you think? 

3/4 of Americans want to keep Roe v Wade

I am not in favor of hushing anyone's opinion.  What I am not in favor of is forcing those opinions on others.  If the issue in this country was simply, I am against abortion, so I won't have one, then that is exactly the position I also have.  If the issue is I am against abortion and I want to make sure you don't have access to an abortion, then the discussion brings out all the unfairness of a person not involved in the issue forcing their point of view on another person.

Quote

In terms of when human life begins, whose opinion should we value the most?  The politically biased?  The emotionally and physically biased? The lay person? Or, the biologists?  Interesting, despite differing political affiliations and positions regarding abortion, there was almost unanimous consensus from biologists as to when human life begins.  95% believe that human life begins at fertilization.  I haven't read to see what the other 5% believe, but I am fairly confident it is not at birth. 

No person's view of when human life begins should be valued over another opinion.  If you think human life begins at conception, then live your life accordingly.  If you believe life begins after 3 month, then make and decisions about your abortion accordingly.  

Now my turn to ask for a reference.  Do you have a reference to show that 95% think human life begins at conception?  They may believe that cell division begins, but a human life?  I think not.

Link to post
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It does have value but it is of lesser and less immediate value.

Why should my opinion be of less value to the advocacy for human life?  I understand that the implications of abortion, for or against, are much greater for the woman then the man.  But abortion is not just about the woman.  The greatest implications of abortion are on the human life being aborted or preserved.  I am not talking about advocacy for women - obviously their voice matters most and should be the most valued.  I am talking about advocacy for human life, for the fetus.  The pro-choice woman is advocating for herself, not the fetus.  In what world is her opinion and advocacy (which is non existent) for the fetus more valuable when it comes to advocacy for the fetus?  

Link to post
18 minutes ago, california boy said:

3/4 of Americans want to keep Roe v Wade

I am not in favor of hushing anyone's opinion.  What I am not in favor of is forcing those opinions on others.  If the issue in this country was simply, I am against abortion, so I won't have one, then that is exactly the position I also have.  If the issue is I am against abortion and I want to make sure you don't have access to an abortion, then the discussion brings out all the unfairness of a person not involved in the issue forcing their point of view on another person.

No person's view of when human life begins should be valued over another opinion.  If you think human life begins at conception, then live your life accordingly.  If you believe life begins after 3 month, then make and decisions about your abortion accordingly.  

Now my turn to ask for a reference.  Do you have a reference to show that 95% think human life begins at conception?  They may believe that cell division begins, but a human life?  I think not.

You have not provided me any evidence that suggests the majority of people believe that human life begins at birth.  You are just assuming that if you support Roe v Wade, that they must hold that assumption.   You would be wrong. 

This whole argument of when human life begins reminds me so much of the coronavirus and the science behind it.  Many people seem to care less about scientific consensus and place more value on biased political nonsense.  There is overwhelming consensus about when human life begins in biology.  People dismiss it just like Covid because of the potential political implications.  Both sides put on blinders in different ways.  But politics, not science, always seems to win the day.

Edited by pogi
Link to post
36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is a beautiful straw man.

No, it's not.  In fact, I provided a link to a specific example of when this happened.

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Being told your views are of lesser value because they do not involve you does not mean you cannot have views, even strongly held ones.

Well, that may be a fair point.  I'll think on it.

Of course, if a woman was told her opinion was "of lesser value" solely because she is a woman, I would still have some real heartburn about it.

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

It means that you should be willing to listen to those who are more impacted by the situation in question.

No, it doesn't mean that.  I've never indicated that I'm not "willing to listen."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
43 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is not just religionists that are against abortion.

Well yes it's a highly politicized topic.  Everyone seemingly has to take a stance one way or the other in today's world.  

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

The secularist argument is not about the spirit, but about the nomenclature of life.  When does human life begin?  It is a "human" zygote!   It is human...in the primary stages of life.  The human goes through developmental stages.  The fetus is not fully developed, but then again neither is a newborn child. 

um...the problem is of course this is inside another person.  Are you suggesting the moment "human life begins" is the moment we define it as human?  WHy?  Is not the egg inside someone?  Is it not seeded inside someone?  

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

A sprouting juniper is not a juniper? 

A juniper is not a human embryo sprouting in another person.  Are you equating plant rights with human rights?  

43 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is a great secularist argument to oppose abortion.  Thanks for sharing.  Why does that purpose not deserve an advocate?

What purpose?  The purpose of human life according to religion?  Because religion is not a falsifiable notion.  It's simply belief without good reason to believe.  

Link to post
3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

This has perplexed me, too, about the LDS position. If there is another life involved (the unborn child's), then why is it ok to end that life because of the father's sin (rape)? It seems contradictory.

I could be wrong, but I think the LDS church allows grace for the mental state of a woman. Not all problems are physical, and asking a woman who is already traumatized by rape to also carry the child to full term is more than many women could handle, and she is not condemned for that decision. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
41 minutes ago, california boy said:

The fact that you have to go back to the 1800's to make your analogy work says a lot.

That you have no substantive response to it also "says a lot."

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is now you that is arguing from the fringe.  

Citing historical precedent and analogy is not "arguing from the fringe."

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

Can you name a single mainstream person in this country that shares your idea that a slave is not really a person?

It's not my idea.  It was an idea widely held in antebellum America.  In retrospect, we are all horrified at the notion that many of our ancestors thought "a slave is not really a person."  The humanity, the personhood, of these slaves was not acknowledged or recognized by many, largely because of a need to protect / rationalize / justify the practice of slavery.

The point of the comparison is to suggest a similar dynamic regarding abortion.  The idea that babies in utero are "not really" persons is widely held now.  I think the day will come when we will be horrified at this notion.  The humanity, the personhood of these babies is not acknowledged or recognized by many, largely because of a need to protect / rationalize / justify elective abortions.

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet the MAJORITY of Americans do not believe a fetus is a person.

Ah.  So if "the MAJORITY of Americans" thought Africans were not "person{s}," would you go along with that?

41 minutes ago, california boy said:

You are pretending the analogy is comparable.  It is not.

It certainly is.  Again, that you have no substantive response to it is, in my view, telling.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Apples and oranges. They are disproportionately affected in quantity but women still experience all of those.

And yet despite women being not "disproportionately affected in quantity" in terms of combat injuries and deaths, PTSD, military suicides, law enforcement injuries, and so on, nobody has said to them, in effect, "Shut up.  You are a woman, therefore you have a 'lesser voice.'"

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Slaves were also viewed generally even back then as having souls. They were just infantilized. We know what is best for them. You can see this in slaveowner accounts as they dismiss the worry of slaves over broken families and talk about how childlike and cheerful the slaves are. To those who have never experienced anything similar in your own life ask a woman to explain it to you.

I can’t add any more reactions today so I’ll just say “bravo” to this comment!

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Denial of the humanity of the fetus is not necessary for the decision.

It generally is.  Very few women, I think, say to themselves "Within me is growing a human being.  A person.  It nevertheless has no right to life, and I am at liberty to kill her for any reason, or no reason at all."

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

One can still accept that humanity and also agree that she has jurisdiction over her own uterus and gets to decide if a fetus may continue living there. Slavery does not compare, as slaves did not live inside people's bodies.

Slavery very much does compare, as they were deprived of their inherent rights as human beings.  Because they were not seen as human.  As persons.

Same with babies in utero.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
1 hour ago, juliann said:

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

You continue to presume to tell me what my motives are.  Carte blanche has its perqs, I guess.

I'm happy to address "underlying issues."

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to post
12 minutes ago, pogi said:

You have not provided me any evidence that suggests the majority of people believe that human life begins at birth.  You are just assuming that if you support Roe v Wade, that they must hold that assumption.   You would be wrong. 

This whole argument of when human life begins reminds me so much of the coronavirus and the science behind it.  Many people seem to care less about scientific consensus and place more value on biased political nonsense.  There is overwhelming consensus about when human life begins in biology.  People dismiss it just like Covid because of the potential political implications.  Both sides put on blinders in different ways.  But politics, not science, always seems to win the day.

Are you making the leap that 95% of Americans believe they are killing a human life when an abortion happens?  If not, then what is your point?

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...