Opinion

Why this Catholic will not join the March for Life

A group of women hold up their artwork. They were among the many to carry images of the uterus in protest against statements by President Trump, at the Women's March on Washington near the National Mall on Jan. 21, 2017. RNS photo by Jerome Socolovsky

(RNS) Some groups that identify as anti-abortion feminists created a small hullabaloo at the post-inaugural Women’s March. They say it was wrong to exclude them just because they disagree with the organizers on a key plank — that a woman has the right to choose an abortion, follow her own conscience and be trusted to decide whether to continue or end a pregnancy.

One could have taken their complaints as a cynical attempt by anti-abortion groups to insert themselves into a successful storyline of over 3 million marching around the country for a set of values and beliefs on the side of women’s rights.

If you believe opposing abortion is not anathema to caring about the welfare of women, then you also may think that perhaps on some ideological level those anti-abortion activists should have joined in the march.

On Friday (Jan. 27), thousands will gather on the National Mall for the 44th National March for Life. Considering I am not against life and, in fact, quite in awe of it, you may think that I, too, would be clamoring to join.

Rev. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life, leads a prayer during the March for Life anti-abortion rally in front of the US Supreme Court building in Washington, on Jan. 22, 2009. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

The Rev. Frank Pavone, national director of Priests for Life, leads a prayer during the March for Life anti-abortion rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington on Jan. 22, 2009. Photo courtesy of Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

One doesn’t have to look far to see the massive influence and presence of the Roman Catholic leadership at this march, from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and its ultraconservative allies to all the schoolchildren bused in to swell the ranks.

But this Catholic — and so many Catholics like me — will not join them. We do not believe it is a space that any Catholic who believes in life, freedom, social justice or the welfare of women should occupy.

Despite the efforts to sell the march’s ideology as Catholic, it certainly does not reflect the opinions, views or practices of the Catholic faithful.

The sanctity of life includes the sanctity of women’s lives — a point of view that will  likely not be represented at the march. In fact, the March for Life has historically failed to include the sanctity of women’s lives. Inconvenient facts have, time and again, been omitted or ignored because the reality of the anti-abortion stance raises some very uncomfortable truths as to what would happen if our laws really reflected the extreme anti-abortion position.

The disrespect the bishops and their allies show for the moral agency of women to know and make their own choices is painfully obvious.

Most recently, we have seen it in their support for the reinstated Global Gag Rule, which prohibits health care clinics that receive U.S. funding from offering or discussing abortion care, and their push to make the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding for abortion care with limited exceptions, a permanent law.

Their point of view does not uplift the lives of women — at home or abroad. If anything, their point of view leaves the poorest and most vulnerable among us in dire straits.

The Global Gag Rule and the Hyde Amendment are devastating for poor women both abroad and at home.

The Global Gag Rule will particularly impact the Global South, where it is not uncommon for clinics to receive the majority of their funding from the U.S. If the clinics are forced to close down because they are not allowed to even mention abortion care in their health care services, the people they treat are left without any form of health care. Period. This will do nothing to reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancies or the need for abortions. And for women who find themselves with a high-risk pregnancy, the situation is doubly worse. Women will die.

Back at home, the Hyde Amendment currently bans federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or if the woman’s life is in danger. It does not permit funding even for women whose pregnancy poses a significant health risk, or for fetal abnormalities.

On Tuesday, the anti-abortion extremists in Congress voted to make this policy permanent law in an effort to garner support with the marchers coming to town. If it passes the Senate, HR 7 would permanently ban women from receiving any federal financial assistance for abortion if they are insured through public programs such as Medicaid or if they’re privately insured through plans offered on the Affordable Care Act exchanges.

The extreme agenda of the bishops and their allies neither values nor uplifts the lives of millions of women — and as a result, this march does not represent the lived reality of the majority of American Catholics.

The vast majority of American Catholics support contraceptive services. Today, 99 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the U.S. have at some point in their lives used a form of contraception banned by the bishops, and 79 percent believe that health insurance companies should be required to offer health plans that include birth control, according to a 2016 survey by Catholics for Choice.

Catholic women also seek abortions at the same rate as women of other faiths or those with no particular faith, and a majority of Catholic voters support access to and coverage for abortion care in both private and public health insurance.

As important, the majority of American Catholics reject the bishops’ rigid notion of religious liberty. American Catholics believe access to health care should not be restricted based on the religious objections of health care providers or employers.

Seven in 10 Catholic voters reject the idea that businesses, universities and other institutions should be allowed to deny services or employment based on religious objections, according to the 2016 survey. The same poll shows 60 percent believe Catholic hospitals or health clinics that receive taxpayer dollars should not be allowed to refuse to provide certain medical procedures or medications based on religious beliefs. This data puts the Catholic faithful in clear disagreement with the church’s hierarchy.

But the bishops continue to ignore all the data and push their radical agenda, refusing to accept that their flock is far from a monolith.

Catholic tradition teaches us that church teaching on moral decision-making is complex — and Catholic theology leaves room for the acceptance of policies that favor the full range of reproductive health options. At the heart of Catholic teaching on moral matters is the call for Catholics to obey the certain judgment of our individual conscience — not mindlessly march to the bishops’ drum.

Research shows that Catholics in good faith across the country do not practice or vote strictly in accordance with the bishops’ teachings. Whether in everyday life or in political matters, Catholics follow their conscience.

It would behoove political observers and the Trump administration not to mistake Friday’s march as very Catholic at all.

(Jon O’Brien is president of Catholics for Choice)

About the author

Jon O'Brien

260 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • actually I thought this was a woman. Only a lefty woman could be so emotionally immature. I was wrong.

  • Wow as hominem from the obnoxious right. Quel suprise.

    Seriously you guys got to work on your discussion skills when you aren’t posting on WND and Breitbart.

  • So the author is for the choice of murdering babies. The vicious, brutal, intentional murder of a little girl or boy in her mothers womb. How sad, how heartbreaking when someone declares in public that they are in favor of children being murdered.

  • I’m guessing the author was baptized so he is Catholic but as we all know when a person promotes the abuse and murder of children like he does they go to hell….so yes he is a catholic but catholics can end up in hell when the murder innocent babies……..for all eternity he will experience all of the pain and suffering he “chooses” to happen to little girls and boys in the womb.

  • I don’t post on zionist outfits.
    Sorry, emotional nu-males like the bleeding heart above isn’t my thing.

  • Seek help.

    That stiff right arm and lack of knee movement when you walk could be the sign of early onset arthritis.

    The big question is, why bother? It’s not like you will be saying anything to contribute to a conversation. Does flinging poo really get you through the day?

  • Haha. Does reading progressive outfits about so called Catholics that support the murder of babies ease your own twisted conscience?

  • And there we go.

    The hysteric “baby murder” and “innocent” squares are now covered in the Fetus Worship Word Salad Bingo cards.

  • So would you say people who are against the Holocaust are …Jew worshipers?

    Every child in the womb is loved by God….but clearly not loved by you.

  • The author is certainly entitled to his opinion. What I don’t like though is this notion that if you are pro life you’re ultimately this right wing ultra conservative male. Christian ethics is rooted in a consistent life ethic from the womb to the tomb. That consistent life ethic does not fall neatly on partisan political grounds.

    So a Consistent Life ethic causes us to be pro life on abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research. Conservatives agree with this. Liberals don’t. It also causes us to be anti-death penalty, anti-war, anti-poverty, pro economic justice, pro redistribution of resources and wealth, etc. Conservatives will disagree with this. Liberals will agree with this.

    A Christian’s commitment however to a consistent life ethic shouldn’t be motivated by left/right, liberal-conservative partisan ideologies, because Christ’s teachings are things that you can just shoehorn into a pre-conceived ideological narrative. And a commitment to human rights, human dignity and social justice isn’t a partisan political game.

    The author should know that some of the most prominent Catholic progressives such as anti war activists Dorothy Day and Fr. Daniel Berrigan(who was placed on the FBI’s most wanted list with the Black Panther Party for opposing the Vietnam War) were also pro life on the abortion issue. They say a consistency between their opposition to abortion and their opposition to the death penalty and war.

  • I don’t know when we discuss murdering babies, I will tell you. But that isn’t the subject here. Babies are born.

  • The author’s position has nothing, really nothing, to do with Catholicism. In fact the whole piece is a wicked attack on the Catholic Church and its doctrine. Perhaps she should join the Episcopalians, who have already completely capitulated to the demands of modern secularism.

  • Or put simply: I support mortal sin & an intrinsic evil specifically condemned even by liberal Pope francis

    Catholics for choice is basically catholics for mortal sin

  • So in others words .. the writer of this article is not a Roman Catholic and may not even be a Christian. If he rejects the sanctity of life does he also reject other church doctrine? Does he reject Christ?

  • As a Catholic, and a pro choice person, I support the message Jon is putting forth here. For too long it has seemed like the Church has acted with an amazing disconnect between the faithful and the hierarchy. Jon brings forth an important point, “Today, 99 percent of sexually active Catholic women in the U.S. have at some point in their lives used a form of contraception banned by the bishops, and 79 percent believe that health insurance companies should be required to offer health plans that include birth control, according to a 2016 survey by Catholics for Choice.”

    This 99 percent is compelling. Even if we expand out to others conducting similar surveys, I have never seen that number below 94 percent. So, clearly, this use of contraception is a problem for the all male Bishops.

    The 79 percent number is important because the Catholic Church, through groups like the USCCB have moved outside of the spiritual realm, and decided to engage in a public policy debate. Clearly a debate that they are losing because the faithful have gone against the Bishops rejections both privately, from the pulpit, and in the media. 79 percent differ with the institutional opinion of the USCCB.

    Jon writes, “Seven in 10 Catholic voters reject the idea that businesses, universities and other institutions should be allowed to deny services or employment based on religious objections, according to the 2016 survey. The same poll shows 60 percent believe Catholic hospitals or health clinics that receive taxpayer dollars should not be allowed to refuse to provide certain medical procedures or medications based on religious beliefs. This data puts the Catholic faithful in clear disagreement with the church’s hierarchy.”

    This disagreement is the crux of my problem with the hierarchy today, the obvious disconnect from the faithful.

    I am glad Jon wrote this, I am glad he takes a stand like he does, and I support him in that conviction and conscience.

  • If snark is all you have in lieu of argument I would reply in kind that you obviously have major reading comprehension issues.

  • “As a Catholic, and a pro choice person…”

    Sorry. Those are mutually exclusive if by the weak euphemism “pro choice” you mean you are fine with the murdering of the unborn.

    Can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion.

  • As I mentioned above, sanctimonious, self-righteous snark is not rational argument.

    Baby murder is accurate. Innocent is accurate. Truth can sometimes be difficult. It can be dismissed with wise cracks for only so long. Make sure you come to grips with it before it’s too late.

  • Once again, 5 easy questions for “We” who seek to trump “Their” spiritual/existential beliefs with Ours:

    1.) Are Their beliefs “indisputable”, “obvious”, “reality”, just because They define their beliefs as “facts”?

    2.) Do They get say-so over Our lives, Our rights, Our freedoms, Our choices, Our bodies, Our faith?

    3.) Do They get to hold Us to Their religious or nonreligious beliefs, requirements, and restrictions?

    4.) Do They get to make Us pay with Our money, Our time, and Our lives, for Their decisions about Us?

    5.) What of Their beliefs, Their equality, Their Religious Liberty?

  • Wanna know something funny? The article was written by a guy! Yeah, even I thought it was a woman the way it’s written…!

  • If you really, truly, fully, completely, absolutely, passionately believe something, that still doesn’t make it fact for everyone else.

    Of course you should hold yourself to what you soulfully embrace as true and right.

    But holding strangers who don’t even go to your church to your sacred beliefs while denying theirs? That’s different. That’s bullying. Trespass. Self-exaltation.

    Has it occurred to you that you are invading, disparaging, profaning their beliefs?

  • Thanks for the response. I understand that you might not be interested in anything I said after my first sentence, since you did not address any of it.

    But, let me state again, I believe that the Catholic Church has chosen to engage itself in a public policy debate that goes against the very nature of the faithful within the church. The Church has created this divide through centuries of actions, and inactions. Those are valid things to discuss, and I think Jon has tried to discuss those here in his post.

    My comment was intended to lift up those things that he wrote about.

  • With all due respect, the so-called, “majority opinion” of American Catholics (albeit personal and subjective) in favor of contraception/abortion DOESN’T OVERRIDE – no matter how hard they try – perennial Catholic moral teaching concerning the matter. Too many American/progressive Catholics subscribe to this false idea that the Church is somehow a democracy that can “change” Her teaching(s) to fit the zeitgeist based upon majority rule. Truth doesn’t change. Scripture and Tradition are very clear: abortion is murder; period. God endowed each of His children with a conscience capable of discerning truth in light of faith and reason and He also provides the necessary grace via the sacraments to always choose the right in accordance with these same divine mandates.

  • PuerDeiDeploribus thank you for that. I am glad you brought that up. I will not get into a long history of the church with you, because I am very excited that you brought it up.

    But, I will say that the Church (sorry if I forget to hit shift sometimes, it is late and I sometimes forget) has changed course over time on many many things. For example, I cannot find a Church teaching prior to John Paul II in which the Catholic Church explicitly opposes capital punishment. Thomas Aquinas wrote in support of capital punishment.

    Vatican II marked a shift in the Church. Even if you dig no deeper than Wikipedia, many changes are outlined there.

    The Catholic Church is capable of change. I think I am responding to your comment directly, and I am doing so in good faith. You introduced the idea that the Catholic Church does not change, and I am offering you a few instances of change.

    Thank you.

  • Again, with all due respect, Vatican II did not authorize a wholesale commission of revolutionary change toward doctrinal matters of faith and morals solely based upon public opinion. That idea is ridiculous. The example you presented concerning capital punishment and its correlating exception in cases of unjust aggression (per Thomas Aquinas) has always been, and remains, the Church’s teaching for time immemorial even though modernist/post-Vatican II/social justice warrior-types fail to acknowledge this exception. Another example being the doctrine concerning the Universal Social Kingship of Christ which has not changed and still remains true even though the post-Vatican II Church rarely discusses it. Any so-called, “changes” you may be referring to are most likely related to matters of discipline; i.e. meatless Fridays, and worship; i.e. Mass in English, etc. All one needs to do is study the Church’s catechism to reference and understand why the Church adheres to its Scriptural and Traditional basis for proclaiming this unchanging, perennial Truth.

  • Abortion is not health care.

    Full-term pregnancy does not endanger a woman’s health. I know of a woman who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer when she was pregnant. She was advised to abort, but chose to carry the baby full term anyway. It was only after months of delivering the healthy baby that she died.

    Most women who choose to abort do so, not for health reasons, but because it’s inconvenient to have a baby.

    Jon O’Brien, you worry about a woman’s physical health, but what about her spiritual health? And yours?

  • “I believe that the Catholic Church has chosen to engage itself in a public policy debate that goes against the very nature of the faithful within the church.”

    Legalized abortion is a public moral issue and it is the business of the Church to address it. Murder of the innocent is non-negotiable with the Church. You are either a believing Catholic or you’re not.

  • PuerDeiDeploribus,

    Thanks. My phone beeped for the email notification so I thought I would get up.

    Since it is the middle of the night in Wisconsin (where I am) please forgive my fuzziness.

    My point is this, the Church as an institution is capable and has changed. I did not claim to connect public opinion to the changes of the Church. That is a line that you drew, that I did not. I am sorry if we got our discussion points crossed in that regard.

    Regarding Capital Punishment, I would ask that you find a mention of any Capital Punishment, that would be helpful for our discussion. This is the source material I am referencing.

    http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae.html

    I will not be around tomorrow to respond, but I will return this weekend to read your response. Please do not feel the need to attempt to change my mind, it is entirely possible that you and I will differ in these ideas greatly. My humility allows for that, and I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to one another about something like this.

  • Mara319, Thank you. Since I was up responding to what PuerDeiDeploribus posted, I will take a moment here as well.

    My comment was not in regard to doctrine, my comment is clear in its meaning. The USCCB has chosen to act as a public policy arm of the Catholic Church and has engaged in a public policy fight. It has, for lack of a better description, become a lobbying arm. It did indeed focus its efforts on defeating a piece of legislation, and I take issue with that.

    Further, the statistics that were brought forward by the Jon O’Brien piece highlight a disconnection between the institutional Catholic Hierarchy and the faithful.

    These are my points. To respond directly, and respectfully please do not insert snark or smart assedness as that is not my style, the business of the Church is indeed the problem. The intersection between the Church as health care provider and spiritual leader in the world is something that can be called troubling. It allows for an entire level of criticism of a Church as a business, and this criticism is often times hard to rebut and leaves the Church open to challenge and ridicule.

    Like I said in my other comment, it is 315 am in Wisconsin (where I live). I will not be online very often tomorrow, but will see emails I am sure. Thank you for responding. I enjoy respectful discussions like this very much.

  • Shame on the author for LYING by omittance of the most relevant data:

    “As important, the majority of American Catholics reject the bishops’ rigid notion of religious liberty.”

    “This data puts the Catholic faithful in clear disagreement with the church’s hierarchy.”

    Election, which just happened a few months ago. In it, a candidate explicitely taking a position against abortion in the last debate with a vice-candidate being of the more explicit pro-life sort WON a MAJORITY of the CATHOLIC vote:

    http://fortune.com/2016/11/09/donald-trump-election-2016-catholic-vote/

    “In spite of reports indicating that Trump was having “problems” with the Catholic vote, exit polling indicates that he won Catholics by 52% to 45%. This marks a substantial change from the previous two presidential elections when Catholics voted for Obama by margins of 9% in 2008 and 2% in 2012.”

    And especially it can be suspected that abortion was one of issues giving Trump an edge among catholics:
    “Catholic journalist Andrew Sullivan argues in New York Magazine
    that the “left” had overplayed its hand on cultural issues. Obviously,
    abortion is a central part of this perceived “overplay,” and even
    liberal Catholics—many of whom are against abortion but not willing to
    outlaw it—are taken aback by positions reflected in social media
    campaigns such as #shoutyourabortion, not to mention Trump’s opponent
    Hillary Clinton’s own defense of late-term pregnancy terminations.”

    So it seems that a MAJORITY of catholic voters – and only these count politically, not some polls about this or that question – are in favor of more pro-life compared to the last 8 years.

    Of course, you are still fine to highlight potential discrepancies with various polling questions, to highlight that 45% is of course a very large minority, to highlight that you are amont that minority and your resons for being there.

    But please do not LIE by omitting the election data which is far more relevant and important than any of the other polls and data you cited.

  • A poorly argued thesis full of logical flaws and inconsistencies, of which there are too many to list here; it would take a doubly long dissertation to answer them. Not that topic isn’t worthy of that, but unless there are substantial numbers of those genuinely conflicted on the question hovering in the wings of this website, then the Choicers will simply clamor for choice, and the Lifers will stand just as firmly for life. For the record, I am among the latter, if that isn’t patently obvious.

  • “A lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it. And the Truth is still the Truth even if no one believes it!” Venerable ++Archbishop Fulton Sheen.
    Whether many, or all Catholic women at some point in their lives contracept is not relevant. All sin, all need repentance. One does not change Truth to fit prevailing societal or personal whims. The only real choice is this; To Obey God and His Holy Church, or not. I know that seems uncharitable in this “Age of Mercy”, but there is no Mercy, no Charity in accepting false ideas, condescending opinions masked as Charity, and outright heresy posited as “new developments” on existing Church Teaching. Abortion is murder. Contraception is a Sin against God. No amount of enlightened reasoning, no pretzel logic can turn a Sin into a virtue.

  • No it isn’t.

    Anti abortion rhetoric is inherently hysterical and overblown. Bad analogies and ignoring material facts are key to the position.

  • Babies are born abortion doesn’t affect them. Ignoring the fact that a fetus is physically and inseparably attached to its mother before birth is key to your fictional assertions.

    The word innocent is used as a contrast to the mother in order to pretend she is of no consideration in the discussion. To create the fiction that she must defer to an alleged moral superior for making intimate and locate decisions concerning her body.

    Truth has nothing to do with your position. Self righteousness and narcissism does. The entire notion that all women must defer to you for their intimate and personal decisions about their own bodies is as far from the truth as one gets.

  • Considering the Church seems to define itself in such petty ways these days, that is a fair point.

    But the big problem is the lack of respect the church has to people who haven’t volunteered to follow it’s dogma. There is no justification for the notion that I must be bound by your beliefs.

  • You don’t have to agree with the Church if you don’t want to. You don’t have to join the Church if you don’t want to.

    But if someone does claim himself a Catholic (like the author of this article) and does not believe in what the Catholic Church teaches, then such a one simply contradicts himself, with no one but himself to blame.

  • As obnoxious as your mocking laughter has been in this forum, I’m still glad your mother didn’t off you when you were still a fetus.

  • True. Mostly because at this point I know engaging you in such a way will be a waste of time.

    I sincerely doubt you will recognize:
    1. Fetus’s existence is not the same as the born. That no born being lives in any kind of analogous condition.

    2. Having an opinion on what a woman’s decision are is not the same as having a say in the matter. She is not your property to control.

    3. Anti abortion laws don’t work and only lead to maternal deaths and injuries.

    4. It doesn’t matter how immoral you think a woman is, it doesn’t mean you get to decide for her.

    5. A fetus has no separate and autonomous existence from its mother. So it can have no rights which exist in conflict with hers. Her rights are superior by the fact a fetus only can exist by her will.

  • Not disagreeing with you there. But it is important to note since the Church can’t seem to butt out of the lives of people who do not follow it, they make their business everyone’s business.

  • “Abortion is not health care.”

    So you got your degree in Obstetrics where? What state are you licensed in?

    The idea that you are qualified to intervene into a woman’s health care choices is one borne of pure narcissism on your part. Short of being a healthcare provider, your opinion as to what is an is not medically necessary is of no value.

    ” I know of a woman who…”

    The plural of anectdote is not data. Your story also seems to indicate that she might not have died if she had the abortion. The blithe avoidance of consideration for women is key to your POV.

    “Most women who choose to abort do so, not for health reasons, but because it’s inconvenient to have a baby.”

    At no point does your opinion on why a woman has an abortion give you a say in the decision. They are not answerable to you for decisions concerning what goes on in their body.

    “Jon O’Brien, you worry about a woman’s physical health, but what about her spiritual health? And yours?”

    Again, at no point does your opinion of such things become a right to decide for others. A woman’s spiritual health is her business. It is not your job or duty to make decisions for her concerning that either. In fact it is an outright trespass and attack upon her to do so.

  • CRY, MY CHILDREN, CRY
    Hispanic women account for 25% of all US abortions, though Hispanics make up just 16% of the population. While we hear a lot of agonizing over the high murder rate of minorities, we don’t hear much about the thinning of the minorities by abortion. Truly the most dangerous place for a black baby is in his mother’s womb, and a Hispanic baby is not far behind.

    Do you know that the founder, Margaret Sanger, wrote in a 1939 letter: “We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population?” Do you know that the majority of Planned Parenthood’s clinics are located in communities with minority populations exceeding the city or state averages.

  • You realize your own complaints must then apply to you as well: what makes your opinion more important and that anyone should care about what “spuddie” says. Are you a doctor? Although that is a faulty argument anyway- because you’re not a health care provider your thought doesn’t matter!? Typical lefty hypocrite- you really want to silence any opposing voices only to replace them with your own. Furthermore, does anyone give themselves their body, do we create ourselves so as to claim absolute dominion over it? No, we do not. Be gone troll, you are just some non-believer coming on to a religious news site to spew your pro-death rhetoric. Your arguments are mostly mockery and put-downs rather than rational discourse.

  • Well that was a load of nonsense.

    Am I the one making claims about what is and what isn’t healthcare?

    No.

    In fact my view is in line with medical professional organizations on the subject. They are the most vociferous opponents of abortion restrictions and the attacks on healthcare made through them. Every anti-abortion bill has been met with protest by the medical professional acting as a whole. I am deferring to the expertise of those with knowledge of the subject instead of interjecting my own opinion. People who know what the hell they are talking about. What the prior poster did was pretend to know a subject but instead displayed proud ignorance.

    “Typical lefty hypocrite- you really want to silence any opposing voices only to replace them with your own.”

    Where do you get this crap from?

    I am not the one who is seeking to make decisions for others. How is let women decide for themselves, silencing anyone? It isn’t.

    You are so narcissistic and egotistical that you mistake being criticized with being silenced. Of course it isn’t. But you are not particularly interested in hearing any other views. As for being silenced, the only person demanding others not give
    their opinion is you. You have some nerve to make such phony claims of
    victimhood and demands of others to leave a discussion. You are more
    than welcomed to your opinion as I am to mine. If you can’t handle
    criticism that is your problem, Snowflake.

    “Furthermore, does anyone give themselves their body, do we create
    ourselves so as to claim absolute dominion over it? No, we do not. ”

    So any trespass and attack on the lives of others is justified? Hell no! In no way do you have a right or duty to intrude upon the lives of others in such an unwarranted fashion. You claim dominion over the lives and decisions of all women as an integral part of your point of view. You claim women as your personal chattel property to do with as you will. There is nothing moral about this view. Somehow your alleged respect for life doesn’t seem to entail respect for people and their lives.

    My arguments started here are putdowns because frankly the discussion went straight to hysterical nattering from the outset. There was no sense in pretending your crowd was interested in an actual discussion.

  • Thanks for proving my point: you claim other people have no right to speak- which you clearly did in your reply to mara319 saying her opinion doesn’t matter, who is she to be saying anything- and accuse them of being narcissistic, etc., then proceed to give us lengthy and frequent posts with your opinion. You also contradict yourself, e.g., “Am I the one making claims about what is and isn’t health care” Yes! You told mara319 that her statement that abortion is not health care is not true. Even if you think you are repeating what you falsely claim to be the opinion of the “medical establishment” you are still making it your own by telling someone else they are wrong. If you knew “our crowd” wasn’t interested in discussion why you are even here and so active in your postings? To try and assuage your guilty conscience by repeatedly telling yourself there is allegedly nothing wrong with the evil of abortion.

  • You’ll be sorely missed! We’ll pray for you as you ponder the fact that the most basic foundation of social justice is keeping everyone alive, including viable fetuses!

  • Once upon a time a mother – more often than not – could be trusted to make the choice of life for her knew-born every time she was with child even if it meant that she – the mother – might not survive the birth.
    Death in child birth and the more general loss in “quality of life” accompanying the onset of the responsibilities of motherhood (having to feed, clothe and otherwise care for her baby – yes, even in the absence of the father- perhaps due to war, disease, persecution, abandonment etc.) were all too common.
    Such mothers chose what was once understood to be the epitome of “life” – the life of the next generation – and in true Christian spirit their choice was one of sacrifice and love that went beyond the love of oneself or of the selfish love for their husband (that fine romantic solitude of childless couples – so much time, so easy to be the centre of attention etc.).
    It was a love that embraced the unknown (the realm of possibility) – for a mother cannot know her child if she dies giving birth to him or her.
    There are those who would deny these women their agency. They would claim they were victims of a patriarchy that forced them to do this. Good for them. They are only besmirching the name of their own female ancestors.
    They accomplish nothing more.
    Nowadays it seems that many Western women – even self described “catholics”, apparently (here, a word of caution: use of certain labels, especially if you are pursuing specific intentions contrary to the highest moral tenets associated with those labels, comes with its own set of risks and rewards from which there is no escape as the powers invoked are not of this World and your subjective input – belief or lack thereof – is quite irrelevant to consequences duly incurred) would rather hide behind a false narrative of compassion for their “sisters” threatened by the spectre of death in child birth – presumably in the third world, as it is quite uncommon elsewhere by now – than be honest about their actual motivations for wanting to ensure that planned parenthood etc. retain federal funding and that abortion is legally obtainable in the US.
    What difference, after all is said and done, does it make to any given third world denizen if abortion law is changed in the United States? I was unaware that Roe vs Wade was a part of international law.
    Or they invoke the twin spectres of rape and incest (which are again quite uncommon reasons for abortion in the US or indeed in the world as a whole statistically).
    Incidentally, I find it amusing that these same women, in the same breath, more often than not also express their solidarity with Islam (and its adherents), which actually does have a very tangible problem with rape culture and even with sexual slavery and has an appalling track record regarding women’s rights (women’s anything , really).
    Odd how intersectionality works these days!
    The brutally honest truth is this: A practicing Roman Catholic woman doesn’t want to prevent child-birth. She is married to her husband with whom she wants to have children, if she is biologically capable of doing so.
    She also understands that because she alone as the female of the species is the incubator of this new life – a biologically indisputable fact – she holds the bulk of responsibility for most of the decisions that affect it – including with whom she choses to copulate to begin with. After all pregnancy in humans is a nine month deal and the new born child is not like a baby shark or crocodile – a mini version of mummy or daddy capable of fending – more or less – for itself. No. A human baby is utterly dependant on its parents – biologically more so on the mother because she is possessed of the means to feed him / her on her person for the first few years and the father is certainly not.
    Of course to the modern Western woman, this is all a drag and they don’t get nearly enough credit for it. So screw solidarity in favour of the human rights of the unborn. Let us all just pout about the raw deal women got biologically. Damn patriarchy.
    If said same woman – in my example above – makes other “life choices”: say she is single and has a one night stand – or indeed many (serial monogamy) – with a man who is not her husband and subsequently becomes pregnant then she has fornicated (as has he) and the teaching of the Church was not really that important to her (or him) to begin with otherwise this would not have happend at all.
    The pregnancy, then, is merely the pre-ordained biological result of that union. Quite natural, really.
    If she then terminates the child because it would cause a scandal (aka to save face) or because it interrupts her career aspirations or because it will ruin her figure or because she will be financially burdened by the child or because the man was fine for a bit of crumpet but was an otherwise utterly useless specimen etc. then she seeks only to avoid the consequences of her initial actions – through murder. How classy.
    Abortion as little more than contraception.
    First world problems.
    Seeing as how many Western women these days honestly could not give a damn about the moral teaching of the Church – which is ultimately derived from that of Christ – on these matters it seems odd that they would want the Church to change its rules regarding them.
    If they wish to fornicate then perhaps they should do so in a way that prevents child birth altogether – it is not like they are lacking in imagination or “courage” in this field.
    They would of course invoke the third world again. In doing so they imply that Catholic women in this part of the world are all somehow ignorant and devoid of agency.
    I find it odd to conceive of the notion that, on the one hand, one is happy to commit adultery or to fornicate – both contrary to the teaching of the Church – and yet, on the other hand, one is suddenly somehow unwilling to use contraception or engage in various forms of buggery because one is concerned about breaking the Church’s rules regarding these things (this applies generally).
    Then again, the world is apparently over populated and I’m sure that like Margaret Sanger these progressive and compassionate – white – women are ultimately just worried about there being to many brown people about. Odd that they still want them to come over by the boat load.

  • Wow the only genocide which is purely voluntary!

    Did you realize that large family sizes and unplanned pregnancies are key drivers in poverty? Why do you want black and hispanic women to be destitute?

    Did you know that you are taking the words of Margret Sanger out of context and not using the full quote in an honest manner. The full passage was that she did NOT want that to be the image and was working against such scurrilous lies.

    The full quote is,

    “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

    If your POV was so moral and able to stand on its own, you would not have to lie so badly and so obviously.

    Btw abortion rates have been on a steady decline mostly by IGNORING religious dogma concerning reproduction. By greater access to effective birth control.

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/17/509734620/u-s-abortion-rate-falls-to-lowest-level-since-roe-v-wade
    ” women in the United States have been using the highly effective devices in growing numbers for more than a decade, and said the declining birthrate suggests more women are preventing unwanted pregnancies.”

  • Spuddie has been here for years. You’re the new guy. This is not a “religious” news site, it is a news site about religion. Atheists are welcome here.

  • “you claim other people have no right to speak”

    No I did not.

    I guess making stuff up about an opponent’s position is far easier than addressing them. [My quote You are more than welcomed to your opinion as I am to mine. If you can’t handle criticism that is your problem, Snowflake.]

    “who is she to be saying anything- and accuse them of being narcissistic,
    etc., then proceed to give us lengthy and frequent posts with your
    opinion”

    Oh no, being criticized! How harsh and destructive. Its like you are being silenced by hearing another point of view! /sarcasm

    “Even if you think you are repeating what you falsely claim to be the opinion of the “medical establishment””

    You are either ignorant or a liar if you think my claim about the medical profession’s opposition to abortion restrictions was false.
    http://www.acog.org/About-ACOG/News-Room/News-Releases/2013/ACOG-and-AMA-File-Amicus-Brief

    “If you knew “our crowd” wasn’t interested in discussion why you are even here and so active in your postings?”

    Because you deserve ridicule for the trite, dishonest and hysterical language you employ in support of your views. If you can’t handle that, its not my problem.Your crowd is so full of self righteous posturing and holier than though egotism that it needs to be taken down a peg or three. The whole idea that a claim of self-styled moral superiority gives you the right to trespass upon the lives of others is nasty malicious garbage.

  • “Once upon a time a mother could be trusted to make the choice of life
    for her knew-born every time even if it meant that she – the mother –
    might not survive the birth.”

    But now you believe all women should be your chattel property, incapable of any personal decisions without your go-ahead.

  • Yeah, “once upon a time” you could assume that all women thought like you. That time is over. The “Christian spirit” you privilegedly assume all women share is irrelevant to the healthcare choices of me and my wife. We have two blessedly healthy children. But we both agreed that should either of her pregnancies come to a point where my wife’s life was at risk, my wife’s life took precedence. In fact, one of her pregnancies failed. The fertilized egg never implanted, or it did implant but never developed. She had to have a D&C. What is the “compassionate” course of action there? And the female ancestors of mine that I’ve known would agree with me. Well certainly my Bolshevik great-grandmother would.

  • Killing babies is not the right of anyone, woman or man. Not to mention the fact that almost all abortions are done to cover up sin. Kill the baby to save the embarrassment and inconvenience. Hardly a Christian position.

  • What’s really funny is that it’s shocking to you to see men holding views about women that don’t involve seeing them as weak, stupid, mere sex objects, or baby factories.

  • Prochoice Catholics recognize that ultimately it is up to an individually informed conscience to make the best decision it can. Furthermore in a pluralistic society that has very different views about when life begins and about the autonomy of people who can get pregnant, it is wrong to impose the views of some on all. that is anathema to religious freedom. It is also wrong to demand that someone be parent when they do not wish to be. Women have been having abortions for as long as they have been having children. The only question is whether they will be able to do safely and legally. And for those who question the author’s Catholicism – wow. Why would you question the identity and sincerity of someone?

  • I know that he’s not a real Catholic. The mere fact that he uses the phrase ‘anti-abortion’ places him outside the pale of Catholicism. Catholics who know and live their faith believe that abortion is egregious damage to society, not the norm.

    I would also like to note that he sprinkles double negatives where the issues must remain murky for his assertions to resemble, in any way, viable, although not logical.

  • I assumed that the “Christian spirit” was one shared by Christians – specifically Roman Catholics in this case. This article is, after all, about something Christian. A Christian demonstration against abortion and in favour of the life of the unborn child.
    It clearly was not meant as a universally applicable statement. Only someone ignorant of geopolitics could assume that.
    You assume far too much in your post.
    “Privilege”, indeed! Nice little talking point. Not an argument though is it.
    Neither is current era.
    Progressives are, of course, want to make such grave errors. I commend them for it. The consignment of their ill-born movement to the dustbin of history will progress all the quicker for their hubris.
    A Bolshevik, is also of course a fine upstanding moral authority on all things. How many people did the Bolsheviks murder again from 1917 onwards?
    I, personally, could not give a damn about your life choices or those of your wife.

  • I do believe you have me confused with the Prophet Mahound. As I tried to explain, there are many choices being made here. You are all just terrified of the consequences of them. Good thing they can only ever be put off but never avoided totally.
    The murder of an unborn child is a terrible thing.
    I wonder how you feel about the death penalty … .

  • “Prochoice Catholics” – a contradiction in terms. The Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church – according to the dogma of the Church – is the word of God. It is therefore absolute and universally applicable – especially to Catholics. At the minimum therefore Catholics can be expected to oppose legislation in favour of abortion. I would have thought that limiting that opposition to merely being against Catholics being able to procure it would be quite against the more inclusive spirit of the post V II Church.
    All of you who make appeals to the secular civil authority of secular law are merely stating that as far as you are concerned it takes precedence over the Magisterium. In other words the contemporary mores of any given Western secular State are more valid than the teaching of Christ.
    You’ve chosen to side with what you believe to be the prevailing attitude – most likely to avoid the sanctions that come with not being in lock step with it. You have virtue signalled.
    In so doing you have also chosen and proclaimed your master.
    I commend you for honesty. You cannot, of course, serve more than one.

  • The point being that you can’t take criticism, misrepresent what people say and mistake it all for being silenced. Sure. You’re welcome.

    Not all opinions are of equal merit. More importantly her opinion doesn’t matter when it comes to decisions other people make. Just like my opinion of you has no bearing on any decisions you may make.
    That is called having a respect for the lives of others. Not seeking to interject or control what people do with their lives because of their self-styled opinions of them.

    You mistake having an opinion with having a right. I guess when you feel entitled to force others to your will you have a problem with such concepts.

  • As I stated below, I have no arguments for this. But it is rather an overused and trite statement to make. Catholicism appears to define itself in relation to what they want people to do in their bedrooms. One would hope they would aspire to something more important.

  • A Catholic, contrary to popular superstition, is fairly easy to make out. They do, after all, have the Magisterium. If the individual in question is baptised as such then they are in point of fact one. Confirmation then seals the deal. If they then hold views that run counter to the Magisterium on abortion and seek to propagate these views (and in due course do so) and then don’t change them when this state of affairs is then pointed out – along with the consequences of this – then I do believe they run the danger of formalising their heresy, which if I remember rightly ultimately leads to excommunication. At which point they are no longer Roman Catholics. Sadly these days people can go their whole lives in this state with no official rebuke – therefore no real chance of seeking to make amends – only to die and, well, you figure it out. They did after all make a choice and choices do have their consequences.

  • There is no fundamental difference in belief on this subject between ultra conservative Christians and Islamicists.

    You feel it is necessary to make decisions for women regardless of it being unasked for and essentially attacking their autonomy and free will. Essentially reducing them to property.

    “I wonder how you feel about the death penalty … .”

    Interestingly, I support it. But only in the cases for the “worst of the worst”, which unfortunately generally never happens. We overuse the death penalty for situations where it is inappropriate. Some crimes are beyond the pale of civilized society and therefore require punishment. These crimes are very narrowly defined: serial/mass murder, sadistic torture murder, and contract killing. Although I believe genocide should get the death penalty, that is a crime for the World Court to prosecute and they don’t have one.

  • “Ignoring the fact that a fetus is physically and inseparably attached to its mother before birth is key to your fictional assertions.”
    Here, you ignore three objective truths yourself:
    1) The implied total (and at present still unoptional) dependency that the “fetus” – let us call it a human child, shall we – has on the mother that this situation, which I might add is the biological default for the human species and is still without alternatives – you described demonstrates for its potential to survive (it cannot at present do so outside of the mother);
    2) The fact that the human child is not genetically of the mother (he/she is not merely one of her organs, he or she being the product of the combination of the DNA of the mother and father into something wholly unique);
    3) the objectively observed potential that a “fetus” implicitly has to become what you would define as a “baby” (which it only becomes once it is outside of the mother as if by magic – guess marsupials never have them) providing the process is not interrupted.
    QED

  • “which if I remember rightly ultimately leads to excommunication”

    Out of curiosity, when was anyone outside of Vatican personnel excommunicated in the last century?

    Its safe to say the Catholic Church has pretty much given up on this form of enforcement of their dogma. Especially because if they did so, the numbers of people identifying as Catholics, attending churches and contributing to Vatican coffers would be drastically reduced to a pittance.

    But its a church with a central person who speaks for the entire sect, so they can easily issue such an edict. Something tells me that they are very reluctant to do so.

  • Re-read the post . You fail to comprehend that the official admonition is merely an outward sign of an inward reality. It merely served to help those in danger of falling away to understand what that entailed. Nowadays people are “merciful” in as much as they confirm others in their sin, thereby damning them. The human element in all this is quite superfluous.

  • “But holding strangers who don’t even go to your church to your sacred beliefs while denying theirs? That’s different. That’s bullying. Trespass. Self-exaltation.
    Has it occurred to you that you are invading, disparaging, profaning their beliefs?”

    As is the enlightenment assertion that “truth” is always relative, which is the underlying proposition to all of your – collective – arguments.

    What we are dealing with here are two diametrically opposed absolutes:
    one which acknowledges that man is indeed more than capable of making choices (specifically moral ones – it is in fact his most unique characterisitc) but that above the subjective world of men their is a pre-ordained objective truth (in the case of the Roman Catholic faith this is the word of God – of which the Magisterium is an intrinsic part);
    the other proposes that “truth” is entirely subjective and that one individual’s truth is therefore necessarily not another’s.
    In one system their can be no true tyranny of the majority over the minority because to inforce what is objectively true over that which is false is not tyrannical, it is justice and at the same time the objective truth remains so even if all men no longer espouse it, because it simply is so.
    In the other system their can only ever be a tyranny of the majority over the minority because all things are defined as either good or bad from moment to moment in a purely subjective sense – universally – and this is necessarily subject to change over time when one no longer acknowledges the existance of an over-riding default position. So powers jockey for position and compete for resources – adherents, which equal worldly power – which leads to conflict and subjugation etc. and the need to try and find a lowest common denominator with which most – but not all – people can ever truly be happy with so that civilisation – the force which ultimately sustains and, for a time also serves to perpetuate any given ideological structure over others – can function on some level.

  • So the church isn’t willing to publicly declare people who “stray” from such dogma to be no longer Catholic in a tangible sense. They do so by implication and insinuation, as is done here.

  • I do believe there is quite a bit of difference, actually. Since Martin Luther it is also quite hard to speak of one “Christian” position on any moral issue.

  • “You feel it is necessary to make decisions for women regardless of it being unasked for and essentially attacking their autonomy and free will. Essentially reducing them to property.”
    Certainly not. They are, by definition, free to do what they wilt. Providing they freely accept that their actions also have consequences, which at present in an attempt to make this the new “default” we are trying very hard to avoid doing at our own peril.

  • So you oppose a woman’s choice for an abortion as something wrong but not their right or the legality to make the choice. If I am reading you correctly. If that is the case, then that seems perfectly reasonable and understandable.

  • I don’t believe they have a “right” to it, no.
    How could I, on the one hand, be morally opposed to abortion – which I condemn as infanticide – and at the same time, on the other hand, agree with the proposition that they had something as intrinsic as a “right” to it.
    The cognitive dissonance I would need in order to hold those two contradictory ideas as true within my mind would be highly detrimental to my over-all mental state.
    As it stands, however, women are indeed legally allowed to procure an abortion in the USA (and many other Western countries), at present, and a vociferous minority, which I think we can all agree enjoys a good degree of élite support, still has a sizeable platform from which they can continue to make the suggestion that this is indeed how things “should” be.
    How long this state of affairs can be maintained is the subject of some speculation.
    How a change in this state of affairs can be brought about – what price, change? – is one we will ultimately all decide upon together very much in line with our own free will (as is often the case where fundamental opposition is concerned).
    I’ve stated my opinion on the matter fairly matter of factly.

  • “How could I, on the one hand, be morally opposed to abortion – which I
    condemn as infanticide – and at the same time, on the other hand, agree
    with the proposition that they had something as intrinsic as a “right”
    to it.”

    The same way one condemns both blasphemy and adultery but knows it is not even close to a good idea to make those things illegal. What is a sin and what should be illegal are two different things.

    Your religious beliefs do not constitute a basis for our laws. It is one thing to condemn an act as wrong, quite another to declare that nobody (even those who do not share your beliefs) should be allowed to do something. You can condemn an action without demanding the laws follow suit.

    Abortion is legal because we recognize that a woman’s choice as to what goes on in her body is ultimately her choice and not the province of our government. Women do not become chattel property of the state by the dint of getting pregnant. Whether you consider it infanticide (which is complete nonsense) or not, it is not a choice you are privy to nor have a right to be.

    What it comes down to is whether you respect the lives of people who do not share your beliefs or not.

  • Spuddie, I quote Dr. Ben Carson, whom the whole world by now knows quite well: “Answering a question at RiverWoods Retirement Community, Carson said that ‘Planned Parenthood, as you know, was founded by Margaret Sanger. . . . Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist. She believed that people like me should be eliminated, or kept under control.'”

    Nuff said.

  • Of course nuff said. Ben Carson is an idiot. The man is the “Rain Man” of American conservative politics. The man has proven time and again he isn’t qualified to speak of anything other than surgery. His opinion on history isn’t worth a pile of dung.

  • Abortion is a government matter, currently defined as legal. Churches, as entities, have no say in the matter. It’s a choice. You make yours and let others make theirs theirs freely.

  • “Contraception is a Sin against God. No amount of enlightened reasoning, no pretzel logic can turn a Sin into a virtue.”
    you said it.
    not me.

  • So, you are for putting words in other people’s mouth so as to falsely judge them. Nice. That pretty well disconnects you from any legitimate claim to the discipleship of Christ. Your willingness to evoke shakes of the Holy Inquisition in your personal behavior just shows you to be one of the evil pretenders to God’s work and not actually someone who serves Christ. Your willfully obtuse single-mindedness on the issue is what removes you from reasonable dialogue on this issue or any other issue of importance in Human Rights.

  • Dr. Carson, when he is awake, is hardly an expert on anything other than his specialty. He was the one that says going to prison turns men gay, that the pyramids were built for grain storage, and a host of other stupidities.As I always like to say about Dr. carson, his religious dominionisnm, and his general ignorance:
    It ain’t rocket surgery.

  • I wonder how many of the child molesting priests and their abuse-enabling superiors have been excommunicated?

  • “IT IS WHEN I AM WEAK THAT I AM STRONG.”

    Bennie, get used to Dr. Ben Carson. He will soon be in charge of the Department of Housing and Urban Development with its 40 billion dollar budget. St. Paul said that God uses the weak to confound the strong; “It is when I am weak that I am strong.”

  • Ridingtheline….you just wrote one of my favorite posts ever. Your first line tells us judging is bad,,,,then the rest of your post is a wild and wack judgment of things you have no idea about…..every time I hear people misuse the do not Judge statement of Jesus as an excuse to turn a blind eye to sin they always write posts that are filled with their own judgments……it never fails.

    If you don’t like judgments hear are a few facts…….abortion is the hellish and demonic murder of a child and those who support it are choosing to murder a child God loves.

    The writer of this article is a member of a group called Catholics for the mass murder of babies in the womb……he is certainly a favorite of satan and his abortion loving demons.

  • At it’s core it is still the same Church founded by Christ.
    Certain people in the Church who are trying very hard to gain the respect of so called progressives for some reason – bit late really, since we are witnessing the end of the beginning of progressivism’s nimbus – are merely selling out. This is, of course, a scandal, but it is ultimately water off a duck’s back in relation to the real source of the Church’s authority.
    That in turn is more than can be said for any other organisation that many here seem readily willing to serve.

  • Why don’t you go and find out. You seem to have a modem of some sort. Bit of a non sequitur, really.

  • “You can condemn an action without demanding the laws follow suit.” Only if you are interested in maintaining the status quo. There is no inherent superior logic to your position. It is simply an argument in favour of things staying the same because you have a vested interest in that being the case.
    “a woman’s choice as to what goes on in her body is ultimately her choice”, I could not have put it better myself. Perhaps the woman in question should not have allowed a fertile penis into her body – her vagina no less – in the first place. She did. Pregnancy was the consequence and we are back to square one.

  • Using this logic we could argue that Christ never forbade the specific killing of the individual known as Aralan because that exact wording: “thou shalt not kill the individual known under the pseudonym Aralan”, is not in scripture.
    As it stands the Magisterium’s position on abortion is well founded in scripture and elsewhere and this information is readily available to anyone who wants to read it so … yeah, nice try, but no cigar.
    As it stands I very much doubt you would accept “scripture” as an authority – you’d probably argue that we cannot be sure that it was actually “his word” because – “councils!”

  • You believe abortion is murder.

    I believe forcing your adult peers to submit their bodies to your dictates is slavery.

    The only “objective truth” here is that we’ve both made our positions clear.

  • Thanks for doing exactly what you say is “bad” to do, waggle an unrighteous finger at someone else. Nice. Obviously, you can’t see your own hypocrisy, can you?

  • Clearly you are suffering from an overdose of the holy ghost, and nearly as dangerous, an overdose of ellipses.

  • I did not realise that to be a Catholic you must agree with everything the Church teaches. Do you have to sign or swear some sort of oath of allegiance agreeing not question its teachings?

  • “Nice to see liberals squeel like pigs.” Moralizer outrage — Is it angst, or is it schadenfreude?

  • 1. Let’s not call a fetus a child. Children are born. Dishonest use of language is key to dishonest representation of facts. A fetus does not survive without its mother’s will. Potential is not actuality in being. You can’t equate it the born until born.

    2. An irrelevance since its existence is within the mothers body and inseparable from her until birth. Unless you can take the fetus away from the mother, it’s life is a function of her personal choice and autonomy.

    3. Silly argument concerning the honest and correct use of language. You object to the words being used correctly. Correct word usage makes clear distinctions you want to pretend do not exist.

  • “There are not even 100 people in this country who hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they think the Catholic Church to be.” Venerable Archbishop Fulton J Sheen

  • What is the status quo, legal abortion, is something I have no problems with as a matter of law. It is something worth upholding. Just because you do not like it or think it is contrary to your religion doesn’t mean it should be made illegal. A superior logic position does not have to oppose something. You are simply declaring your position better without bothering to support it.

    As for the latter part of your argument, I guess it would only be a matter of time before you engaged in s1utshaming. Declaring a woman to be so immoral that she must defer to the self righteous narcissist for her personal decisions. Your POV has a rather nasty and malicious attitude towards women and children. Despite your holier than thou attitudes children are not a form of punishment or a penalty. Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy.

    Your opinion about a woman’s sexual activities is as welcomed as your opinion about her choices to keep or terminate a pregnancy. Not at all. Neither are your business. Nobody requires your input for either. A woman doesn’t become your property because she becomes pregnant. Choices about her body and what goes on in it are hers, not yours. You cannot claim it as a right for being so allegedly “morally superior”.

  • Frankly if they learned about respecting personal boundaries, there would be far less animosity towards the Church. If one discounts the abuse scandal.

  • Defending innocent children from being viciously dismembered and murdered in the womb is one of the most beautiful callings God has give to all of us.

    Some of us, pro-lifers, answer Gods call to defend and love every human being.

    Some people like the writer of this article follow satans words and actions -Non serviam “I will not serve”….. when called by God to protect and defend innocent little girls and boys facing the culture of death.

    Ridingtheline – my friend, if you have had an abortion or are responsible for someone else’s abortion God will forgive and heal you but you must repent and stop supporting the murder of other children – God is so good and loving but His Holy love cannot help you if you continue to support and promote the murder of God’s little girls and boys.

  • “Do you have to sign or swear some sort of oath of allegiance agreeing not question its teachings?”

    I believe they call that catechism.

  • The answer is, none.

    In fact the Church enabled an ongoing moral wrong for decades and continues to do so. Any claim of moral authority is laughable.

  • Ooh the progressivism is strong with this one!

    So let me get this straight…

    You are, on the one hand, quite happy to admit that the child in question (and I will continue to insist on the use of this word because your movement’s use of “fetus” is nothing more than the parroting of a legalistic parlor trick designed to objectify a living organism to the point of total denegration – to deny him/her *by definition* their humanity) is ‎totally at the mercy of his/her mother when it comes to her insuring that- at the very least – he /she undergoes a gestation without interruption (the interruption in question – the abortion – then occuring at her behest at the hands of clinicians), which then ultimately (save for other externalities beyond the control of the mother intervening) would likely conclude in birth (because, and I think you will agree, this is essentially how pregnancy in humans works as an empirically observable process – in other words one can speak of a “typical” pregnancy) right?

    You are also in agreement with the notion that the location of said process is – and this is still without exception – in the womb of a human female, right?

    Yet you somehow fail to see how the choice by the mother to prevent that gestation through the medium of abortion necessarily implies a moral component precisely because of two features inherent to it:

    1) it being something optional and not something that simply occurs with or without the will of the individual being a factor and,
    2) it’s intrinsic finality (i.e. one can be certain that the result of the abortion is a termination of the process of gestation whereas one cannot be certain that the same can be said if the abortion is not carried out) …

    right?

    What is more, the severist physical consequences of this process necessarily effect the child, whose gestation process has been wilfully terminated. ‎

    After all, a major “feature” (one you’ve harped on about no end) of legalised clinical abortion is the fact that the mother continues to live and, more often than not, also remains fertile whereas the child – or whatever you’d like us to call it – is in fact in every respect irrespective of the terminology very much finished.

    What is more, because the child in question, by its very nature, was not in any way structurally (like an organ or a limb) or, for that matter, fundamentally, intrinsic to the survival of the mother in any way whatsoever (that is to say her survival as a distinct organism was not in fact ever dependent on its survival or even it’s existance nor was it impeded in any way once it was terminated clinically) – the mother continues to exist in a state of physical (biological) near total integrity (save for the loss of amniotic fluid, the placenta and the excess – now surplus to requirements – uterine tissue that accompanies pregnancy depending how far along we are in the process).

    Ignoring, for a moment, any resultant emotional / psychological side effects, which according to your viewpoint would be superfluous anyway as nothing of value has been lost, therefore there is nothing to mourn the passing of, I think it is safe to conclude that this does not apply to the child aborted.

    This final point clearly illustrates how the “just another part of her body” line of argumentation is fundamentally false as the organism in question very clearly does not fall into this category (for the above reasons and more besides).

    It does, however, find itself in truly exceptional circumstances by dint of the present legislation.

    What is more this is purely by chance, as far as it may be concerned, as it is not as if we can accertain it’s opinion on the matter either way, although this does not apply in the case of the consenting adults, which had a lot to do with the process of it’s initial conception.

    We can see these “exceptional circumstances” in as much as it is subject to overt hostility (it is terminated, by choice, by the one person who it is totally and utterly dependent upon, because, by law only that person has a “right” to make the final decision and because of the “laws” of the biological process it is caught up in) in an environment (the only one available to it) in which it ordinarily would be expected to gestate up to a point where it then could be born (thus finally becoming a human being, in your sage opinion).

    That you fetishise this one aspect of a nine month holistic and continual process is also quite strange. After all is a murderer who targets a pregnant woman in the knowledge that she is pregnant with the express intent on killing her and the baby within her (if the frankly equally arbitrary time constraints imposed by law are met) not guilty of murder in two counts and not just one?

    How, at this point, you cannot begin to see that perhaps this organism might be worth protecting boggles my mind.

    At the very least some form of protection through legislation should be considered preferable to none at all .

    Indeed this could be achieved in much the same way as “preferential” legislation is afforded to any other “subject” (and I use this term on purpose, because of course, certain “rights” have indeed been extended to corporate – therefore not human – entities in such a way as to preclude the need for the infringement of the rights of an individual member of said organisation before said infringement can be made actionable) is afforded similar protection through legislation by the present dispensation when it is “feared” that because of it’s inherent “weakness” vis-a-vis other – intrinsically more powerful – organisms executive action is needed to prevent possible gross abuses (up to and including a final existential sanction being enacted by the “stronger” would be opponents, due to a lack of said legislation).

    In fact it is precisely the concept of “rights” as a means of pre-emptive protection under law against the prospect of infringement (traditionally by the State but now increasingly also by private citizens) that demonstrates that the very system you claim to be defending does in fact conceive of “potential” and “being” as being equally actionable when it suites it.

    The arguments I have put forward have not been “religious” arguments. They have been logical (in a very general way, quasi legal) ones.

    You have done little more than present a fundamentally weak – buzzword loaded – argument in favour of something that you freely admit can be construed as utterly morally reprehensible.
    What is more, every step of the way you pointed out the underlying depravity of your overachring proposition (even by the standards of your own, secular and highly individualistic value system), whilst wilfully ignoring the one element in this equation, which is both acted upon and that cannot also act against said action (the definition of vulnerability, which is something that your own value system constantly uses as the trump card for executive interfence), in favour of what amounts to little more than a chance to “white knight” on behalf of morally dubious Western females (the kind who “can consent to sex” – even “unsafe sex” – but cannot possibly be expected to then carry the naturally occurring product of that union to term because… “muh body, muh choice”, and furthermore do not tire in pointing out the fact that they don’t need you to do that for them any way.

    To what end?

    Surely not reproduction!?

    Perhaps you are simply engaged in a cynical attempt to weedle out unwelcome competition. After all, if they never get out of mommy’s womb to see the light of day they are one less competitor to worry about, right?!

    Or maybe you are just worried about the repercussions your support for abortion might have, if it were no longer flavour of the month?

    As you might have noticed I doubt very much you are doing it out of the goodness of your heart.

    A religious argument would be far simpler but no less pithy:

    “X (the moral absolute, which is up for discussion) is abhorent in the eyes of Y (deity / religious authority – see: this or that bit of scripture or this or that general tenet), therefore those who espouse X while also claiming to be loyal followers of Y and his teaching are in error and if they continue to do so in spite of this being made clear to them then Z sanction – physical or metaphysical – will be incurred; furthermore, as Y is the author of all creation – visible / invisible – and therefore the one universal constant above all things, all men who perform X, are in favour of X etc. are equally to be considered anathema.”

    Your idea of what constitutes slavery is also very 1960s. Go and ask some real slaves in the Middle-East what slavery is, I’m sure they will enlighten you. Perhaps their owners might provide you with a demonstration.

  • You are desperate to avoid my arguments to reframe everything in a far more canned argument based largely on irrelevance, sophistry, and avoidance. That was a mighty fine word salad to avoid very relevant truths:

    1. At no point do you have any say as to a woman’s pregnancy. It is in her body. She is the one who has the entirety of the pregnancy burden. Her choice is hers always. That is if you consider a woman as anything other than your property.

    2. At no point a distinct and separate being from her until birth. Her bodily systems are required for its existence. So treating it as indistinguishable from the born is simply denial of facts.

    3. The psychological effects of abortion are her concern, not yours. See point 1

  • “Word salad”, my arse.
    You are avoiding dealing with my arguments and not the other way around.

    Not only that but you resort to straw men. Pathetic.
    Give up on flogging a dead horse already and admit you are shit scared about the prospect that people like you may soon be in the minority and that you will have a fair amount to answer for and no good answers. Doubling down will not do you any good.

    Then again I cannot say I blame you. On some level a vague notion of how our society once dealt with practitioners of infanticide and their advocates is still knocking around beneath the surface and I’m sure just thinking about for too long can make someone like yourself feel real antsy all of a sudden.

    Oh and btw, I do apologise wholeheartedly for using long and complicated sentences to discuss a complicated topic.

    Perhaps an amusing gif would have been more to your liking.

  • What I love the most about your idiotic line of argument is that you also conveniently forget that fifty percent of the genetic material that makes up the whole of the child – from the get go – can, by definition, never be a part of the female in any way shape or form since humans are not tape worms and therefore do not reproduce asexually.
    No, the male of the species has to provide his gametes (the sperm) in order to fertilise the egg to begin with thereby forming the zygote.
    But by the wonders of progressivism this decidedly foreign genetic material, “becomes part of the mother’s organism” because it just happens to be growing in her womb and so something which wasn’t there to begin with and is genetically foreign to the woman’s organism is absorbed into her and then magically detaches itself once again nine months later providing mommy didn’t have an appointment with a pair of rather sharp surgical sissors and a clinical vacuum cleaner in between.
    What a laugh riot you are.
    You absolute charlatan.
    At the rate your going we’ll be growing babies in industrial incubators before long to avoid inconveniencing women with this terrible chore. Then again perhaps that is precisely what is intended.
    Also, since part of your argument hinges on the idea that the startling degree to which the child is dependent on the mother during pregnancy somehow translates into it being a non-viable candidate for any kind of protection under law I would be interested to know what your views are on the plight of freshly born and subsequently abandoned infants (who again cannot fend for themselves) or, for that matter, on the plight of the severely disabled (who also cannot survive without constant care provided by a third party).
    Perhaps you are familiar with the term “lebensunwertes Leben”? Are you by chance a proponent of this school of thought?
    Well?
    Finally what are nine months – give or take – in comparison to the totality that is terminated existence?
    How about a nice bribe for the jezebel in our example followed by a speedy adoption process? Any takers?
    Didn’t think so.
    Perhaps you can answer that last question though by carrying out some sort of field experiment?
    I await your findings with bated breath.
    You really crack me up.
    All of your sort do.
    If this is the best you can do after I don’t know how many decades then this is just shocking.

  • The fetus genetic makeup is an irrelevancy to the issue. It’s a matter of where it resides and how it’s kept alive.

    “At the rate your going we’ll be growing babies in industrial incubators before long to avoid inconveniencing women with this terrible chore”

    If we had those maybe you wouldn’t treat a woman like your personal property. You’re nonsense about a fetus as a distinct bring wouldn’t sound so quixotic and detached from reality. But we don’t. So it is still a woman’s decision to keep a pregnancy or not. Whether you like it or not.
    .
    “I would be interested to know what your views are on the plight of freshly born”

    Any human being can care for a baby. The mother is not even close to as essential as when it’s a fetus. The fact ever this isn’t obvious to you shows how truly removed from facts and reality your conflation of born and unborn is.

    Do not waste my time with the idiocy of claiming a newborn relies on its mother in exactly the driveway as a fetus. When a baby is born, a,woman can keep it in a separate room, feed it at different times than herself, go to the toilet without bringing it along and have someone to look after it if she is too tired herself. None of that is true for a fetus.

    Most importantly not once have you demonstrated why a woman has to give a damn as to your opinion of her pregnancy. They are not answerable to you on such matters. Their bodies and what us inside it is theirs, not yours. You have no say. So nobody has to care if you think they are s1uts for having an unwanted pregnancy or selfish for not bringing them to term.

  • Your arguments can be boiled down to two statements:

    1. IT’S A BABY!!!! Exactly the same as a born child.

    2. Women have no right to do what I don’t want them to do. Especially concerning their bodies. They all must do as I say.

    Everything else is simply an elaboration of those two ridiculously false premises.

  • God made Eve from Adam’s rib, Genesis 2:22 “And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

    Genesis 3:16Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

  • This is relevant because???????

    The good thing about having you around is that it nips stupid analogies of abortion to the nazis/holocaust in the bud. Neo Nazis like yourself hate abortion.

    I love how your presence undercuts all that christian apologetic nonsense. They try to deny your views are part of the same faith. You proudly demonstrate the contrary.

    Good job

  • Spuddie’s debating protips:

    <>

    I cannot help it if you fail to comprehend the depth and range of the arguments I presented here beyond that little straw man you foisted up just now.
    Others have doubtless done so and will continue to do so and that is really rather more important. That is the point of disputation. Not familiar with the concept?

    As things stand anyone looking at the sorry excuse for a case you’ve presented here will start to wonder exactly where on the autism scale you actually fit in.

    As it stands we can keep this up for a good long while.

    I don’t mind coming back periodically on a whim to give you a good intellectual beating for the shit you’ve been spewing here and elsewhere.

    The more I re-read what you’ve written the more I’ll find to pick apart and the better I will be able to read you too, which will make it much easier for me to then present you to the folks who just happen to wonder by for what you truly are because you and I both know you are not that slow on the uptake (we also know what that implies about you as a person since you seem happy to make such callous arguments and cannot even begin to see how they are missing a certain something out).

    In turn as I continue my exposition so too will our audience. Looking at the damage I’ve already done I cannot help but feel a certain sense of accomplishment.

  • Genesis is revered by Christians, it is also part of the Jewish Torah. On this site you constantly speak negatively of Christianity, but your silence on Talmudic Judaism is defeaning.

  • Your existence here on this thread speaks negatively for Christians. I am enjoying it. I love how some fundies try to disassociate themselves from your beliefs. They lie and say neo Nazis have nothing to do with christian beliefs. Well you show him how wrong they are!

    As for everything else, it’s telling your misuse of the Talmud is exactly the same as anti Islam bigots treat the Koran. Bigots think alike. Go figure. I believe you have read the Talmud in the same way an Islamaphobe has read the Koran. Meaning not at all.

  • Sorry if I am far more capable of making a succinct and relevant point than yourself. I can’t help it if your canned argument is factually and conceptually flawed in an obvious way. So clear is such flaws that you will never address then in a meaningful fashion.

    If I am boring you with being so straight to the point and not taking your dishonest language use at face value, oh well. Maybe you are better off discussing the subject elsewhere.

  • Would such a D&C be legal if the March for Life people get their demands, or would we have to get governmental permission first?

  • Who is the one claiming women not only lack choices concerning decisions concerning their body, but demands that they be in control of such choices? Not I.

    Exactly like slaves, who were all born people, they lack even the most basic decision making power. Power over control of their own bodies and must defer to their alleged superiors. It is not an analogy it is exactly the same. You are treating a pregnant woman as your property. Someone who must defer to your decisions.

    You have to be born to be a person, with your own distinct autonomy and potential rights. Therefore a fetus can never be equated with a slave or victim of genocide if the pregnancy was terminated by the mother.

    As for racism and eugenics, honest people who quote family planning experts advocates in context know that neither has anything to do with contraception and devotion rights. You fetus worshipers are notorious for misrepresenting facts concerning Planned Parenthood and it’s founders.

  • It is not an autonomous being. Using the same term as a born being “child” is a dishonest conflation used to ignore the material differences between existence as unborn and born. Since it has no autonomy, treating it identically to the born is to ignore material facts of the situation in favor of over emotional hysterics.

    Personhood is a legal definition which begins at birth. Hence birth certificates, not conception certificates. It requires autonomy. You have to be a separate and distinct being to be rationally considered a person. All you are doing is engaging in nonsense denial of well established facts

    Since one has to be born to be murdered, your use of the term is a similar dishonest conflation. Of course in your rhetoric, even medically necessary abortions would be some kind of crime despite even lacking an intent to terminate the pregnancy.

    A fetus is a stage of life where it has no autonomy nor can be treated as something separate and distinct from its mother.

    If you were honest about the differences between gestation and after birth, you would be left without an argument. But you aren’t, nor ever will be. Which is why no Court could consider your points rational or factually supportable.

  • I understand the medical science fine, what worries me is people. How, if personhood is defined by conception, would a couple in our situation prove to the government that they’re entitled to a D&C?

  • A fetus is not separate from its mother. A mother is an autonomous being with rights over her own body. You have to be born to be murdered. These are facts you avoid by dishonest use of language. What you call semantics is more honestly described as material facts.

    More importantly I have yet to see the argument where your opinion of a woman’s pregnancy gives you a right to control it. Where all women must defer to your will in the matter.

  • Presidents are not required to take the oath on the Bible. In fact there are a few that did not: John Quincy Adams, Franklin Pierce, and Theodore Roosevelt. Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in after the Kennedy assassination on a Catholic prayerbook because that’s all they could find on Air Force One. Also, the text of the oath or affirmation, as listed in the Constitution, does not mandate that the oath is to God.

  • Of course it’s about beliefs. It is your belief notwithstanding facts that a fetus is indistinguishable from the born. Science supports such statements being that a fetus is physically attached to it’s mother in a way no child is

    It is your belief that you feel entitled to make decisions for all pregnant women notwithstanding the fact that no such privilege exists.

    It is your belief that your religious views should be given color of law notwithstanding the fact that doing so violates legal principles underpinning our society.

    There is nothing but beliefs here by you and no relation to facts or rational arguments

  • Although you may consider all of Christendom synonymous with conservative Christians, it is not so. Much like Islamists consider themselves the only voice of Islam although it is not true either.

    A child is born and an autonomous being. A fetus is neither. Your unwillingness to acknowledge fundamental differences between the two render your argument nonsensical. One has to be born to be murdered.

    I still don’t see where you have suddenly gained a right to make decisions for pregnant women concerning their bodies. All I see here is someone too dishonest and childish to recognize facts important to the issue.

    “No law states that any human being is a property unto themselves and as such can buy and sell parts of that piece of property”

    Abortion is not an act of commerce more analogy fail on your part.

  • Now that is a load of bullshit. Completely expected and dishonest bullshit.

    One can act on behalf of or care for a baby without ever compromising the autonomy and bodily systems of another person. Any adult can conceivably keep a child alive, but only the mother’s biological systems keep a fetus alive. Methinks you do not understand what autonomy means.

    There are always ways to act on behalf of a baby which do not attack it’s mothers ability to control her own body. None of that is true for a fetus. So your childish inability to distinguish born and unborn rests on avoiding this fact.

    “Every woman who is sober when she gets pregnant knows immediately that she is carrying another human being–a very bizarre and incredible sensation–not a burden, but an incredible gift as is every human child.”

    Again you are letting your ego confuse your personal opinion with facts. Obviously such thinking is not always the case. Hence unwanted pregnancy. Your insult of calling women who disagree with your idea as lacking sobriety is just more proof of the unthinking, emotional and irrational nature of your argument. Self righteous narcissism in a tangible example.

  • It’s not called magic, it’s called birth. Until it can be born, it requires physical attachment to its mothers system. There is nothing arbitrary or unusual about this. This is basic mammalian reproduction.

    Your childish inability to acknowledge this is why you will never understand why abortion is legal or present a relevant challenge to it.

  • My only point is that neither the Bible nor an acknowledgement of God is required by the Constitution. And I work in a courtroom — witnesses here are not sworn or affirmed on the Bible, nor is “so help me God” administered. It is not a requirement and I doubt it would pass constitutional muster if it is a rule anywhere else.

  • Until you can take physical custody of fetus from its mother, you are talking bullshit.

    It’s in her body, it lives at her will and her will alone. That’s just basic biology here.

  • They raise their right hand and swear or affirm. If they say “so help me God” on their own that’s fine, but it’s not required.

  • Alright, “Special Spud”,

    I’ll toss you a bone since you’ve clearly lost track of things (and judging by the liberal smattering of spelling mistakes, grammatical errors and the occasional bout of outright gibberish – which, I will be sure to highlight later on, for my own personal amusement – can probably be put down to actual problems with reading comprehension rather than simple imbecility).

    Let me recapitulate what has been discussed so far.

    Don’t worry, I’ll try harder to keep things nice, simple and as brief as the topic will allow to aide in comprehension and I’ll be sure to sign post the really important parts so you don’t get lost again.

    Ok?!

    Great. …

    Now the crux of your argument hinges on the notion that the subject of this debate (to whom you refer to as “fetus” and I refer to as an – unborn and human – child) is, essentially, a part of the mother’s organism and therefore anything she does or does not do to it is entirely her decision because she is only acting upon herself and furthermore this action only affects herself – for all intents and purposes.

    Any restrictions on her actions (abortion) would therefore, in your eyes, be an infringement of her bodily “rights” and therefore tantamount to enslavement.

    You therefore posit that the “foetus” is essentially not a separate entity in and of itself and therefore is neither worthy of legal protection as a beneficiary of “rights” nor for that matter eligible of even being a beneficiary of said “rights” by definition (after all, that would be like affording an arm, leg or liver rights vis-à-vis our hypothetical human female, right?).

    You cite its inherent dependency on the mother’s body (as the de facto singular location in which gestation can occur until the end of pregnancy) for its survival as substantial enough evidence of this state of affairs. You further cite the reliance on the mother’s organism for “life support”- style functions (disposal of waste bio-chemicals, provision of sustenance etc.) until the conclusion of pregnancy (i.e. until the organism in question – on average – is developed enough to provide its own basic survival requirements in as much as it has its own – rudimentary – organs capable of digesting nutrients, processing oxygen, expelling waste bio-chemicals, it has a functioning central nervous system etc.) as further evidence for what at this point at best – in light of your argument – can be termed as the fundamentally “parasitical” nature of pregnancy.

    You have therefore made an assertion and cited some evidence as proof of that assertion. Good, so far. We have something to work with.
    Needless to say the onus is on you to make sure that this assertion withstands closer examination or refutation.

    Now, I have in fact provided ample counter arguments as to why your assertion is incorrect and your argument therefore invalid.
    I will list them – again – briefly (for more detail, simply refer back to them):

    1) Your preference for the term “fetus” as a descriptor (although likely born out of ignorance since the foetal stage of human development begins at about nine weeks into pregnancy – at the cusp of the second trimester – runs through so called “viability” – which starts at week 23 to 24 – and up until the moment of birth and therefore is far advanced past the stage of “mere cell division” – aka “Embryogenesis”), belies an intent to deny the scientifically well-established continuum nature of pregnancy (here, specifically, in human beings) with a view to furthering the notion that the final postpartum product is clearly distinguishable from any and all of its preceding stages of development and that therefore it is not identical with them, so anything that happens to them (say termination) must be treated differently. You are trying to deny that the subject is human because acknowledgement of that fact would lead to a need to acknowledge that the subject could indeed qualify for legal protection purely on those merits alone as it would in that case by definition be a beneficiary of “human rights” (with all that this would entail).

    2) Even if one choses to deny the “humanity” of the “fetus”, as you do, this still does not necessarily mean that it is entirely incapable of enjoying some form of legal protection as evidenced by the provision of (specific) “rights” to non-human corporate entities (religious organisations etc.) within the framework of the American legal system and equivalent Western legal systems. Furthermore these “rights” are actionable in the same way as those of any natural person (against any and all who choose to infringe upon them). Finally, by their very nature, these “rights” are pre-emptive, in other words the mere threat of infringement is grounds enough for their existence and in practice their legal actionability. Furthermore – at least in the USA – individuals who themselves are not effected in any way by said infringement can represent those who are.

    3) Your argument that the only issue up for debate here is the freedom of the mother to do with her body what she wants is fundamentally flawed because half of the DNA which constitutes the “fetus” is, by its very nature, not hers to begin with (it is in fact entirely derived from the male’s gametes). Needless to say the zygote is therefore distinguishable from the body of the mother. Incidentally this is one of the reasons why the partially permeable and – more importantly “fetomaternal” (consisting in two parts: one from the mother’s organism and one from the child’s) placenta exists (in addition to its many other functions also as a barrier to “contamination” of the mother’s organism from the “alien” organism of the child and vice-versa).

    4) The fact that the “fetus” develops in the mother’s body – though increasingly unfortunate in light of certain “reptilian” attitudes– doesn’t change the above elementary biological principle. In fact because there is no other alternative to this set up – at the moment – a “perfect storm” of inherent vulnerability is the end result if no legal provisions are made to ensure that the “rights” of the organism in question (the child) are – at the very least – taken into due consideration. Simply leaving it up to the mother (or, for that matter both parents) is an inadequately simple solution (born more out of ideology – the feminism of the 70s -than actual jurisprudence) that does not take into account the fundamental truth of the matter at hand, which is that whether the choice lies only with the mother or with both parents the organism that is ultimately terminated in case of an abortion is merely seen as an object and not as a subject – equally worthy of consideration by law – in and of itself. It is therefore tantamount to the very worst kind of discrimination because even in the worst case scenario (willfull termination) no protection is afforded. Furthermore, in almost any other case where such inherent inequality defines the fundamentals of interaction between two individuals the extant legal system almost always attempts to counter-act this by affording the more vulnerable party greater protection (e.g. provisions for the protection of the severely disabled from euthanasia, protection of – unwanted – infants from murder by exposure etc.).

    Therefore I have established that, in the first instance, the “fetus” is separate and distinguishable from the mother (therefore it does not fall into the remit of her right to bodily self-determination because the body in question is not hers); in the second, that the born child and the “fetus” are identical (being that they are merely descriptors for various stages of a process that is a continuum) and therefore any differentiation, which attempts to establish separate identities for these elements is arbitrary at best (at worst mere sophistry); in the third, that grounds exist for the provision of legal protection due to the grave inequality and vulnerability that the “fetus” is exposed to (as a result of the particular nature of pregnancy as a biological process) under the present legal dispensation and that, furthermore, “humanity” is not precluded by the said same legal system for their provision.

    I would add that (for these reasons):

    1) Legislation designed to protect the existence and unimpeded development of the “fetus” is not tantamount to slavery. Otherwise even the Bill of Rights could be considered in such terms, as its provision of rights in favour of one subject by definition leads to the boundaries of other’s rights. Indeed any law can be construed as such as all laws make a demand on those subject to them (“stop doing x” or “do x”).

    2) Provisions could be made to recompense the affected mothers (including remuneration) and the advances of Western medical science already make it easier to shorten the period of time the child needs to remain in the womb (and will likely continue to do so).

    3) Consent to sex between two (fertile) adults without protection is always consent to the possibility of pregnancy. How children are born is no longer a mystery to people – most certainly not promiscuous Westerners.

    4) Bearing this in mind it is likely that such laws would engender a more cautious – arguably healthy – attitude in matters pertaining to sexual health and self-determination.

    In light of all of this and more I would conclude that in the main your defence of legalised clinical abortion as the only possible option is inadequate and I would re-state my concluding inquiry:

    Why is the “fetus” not worthy of legal protection / representation?

    Simply responding with: “you are religious and therefore a narcissistic nazi misogynistic bigot who hates children (I’m still at a loss for that conclusion) and wants to enslave women”, is most definitely not a good enough answer and is far more indicative of a “canned argument” than anything I have committed to ones and zeros in the last couple of days.

  • Now you are just denying the basis of several days of arguments. If you distinguished between born and unborn you would not use the word child or murder, make silly analogies with slavery, or make the silly claim a baby has no autonomy. But you dont.

    Your argument in the second part contradicts prior assertions in the first part. There is no law nor rational basis in law in treating a fetus as the same as a child.

    “No. My views are based on sound science on which my religion agrees”

    Science tells us a fetus is inseparable from its mother until birth. You ignore that as part of your beliefs.

  • “… Also, since part of your argument hinges on the idea that the startling degree to which the child is dependent on the mother during pregnancy somehow translates into it being a non-viable candidate for any kind of protection under law I would be interested to know what your views are on the plight of freshly born and subsequently abandoned infants (who again cannot fend for themselves) or, for that matter, on the plight of the severely disabled (who also cannot survive without constant care provided by a third party).
    Perhaps you are familiar with the term “lebensunwertes Leben”? Are you by chance a proponent of this school of thought?
    Well? …”

    All those poor bastards on ventilators etc. would be candidates for a gassing if Special Spud was on an hospital ethics commission methinks.

  • Several sects disagree with your views on abortion. You just don’t want to recognize their existence. Much like your inability to recognize a fetus is attached to its mother. What you call obscuring language is really an honest representation of material facts.

    “woman has a right to choose what to do with her own body–my answer being: No she doesn’t, nor does anyone else”.

    So a woman is property to you. You do believe you have a right to control her body. Your statement contradicted itself. If nobody has a right to control a woman’s body, she does.

    “Each individual is a whole, the sum of its parts–the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.”
    Cabish?”

    Yes I capisce. You stink at analogies.

  • Your opinion and an insult of women who may disagree with you. Neither are facts nor require to be taken seriously.

  • “Who is the one claiming women not only lack choices concerning decisions concerning their body, but demands that they be in control of such choices? Not I.”

    Actually, since you likely deny that “Rights” are self evident because all humans were imbued with them by their creator and are more in favour of “rights” being granted through law, I’d say you were actually making a determination there. At the very least you were implying that just as easily as they can be granted they can also be taken away. But hey, Who is perfect? Right!

    Let’s face it, Special Spud, you’ve more than met your intellectual match in those individuals debating you right now.

    I have not even begun to actually break a sweat yet and from the look of it neither have the other guys. The only thing you have to offer now is plain simple obstinacy heavily laced with obvious parlour tricks.

    You guys like doubling down.

    I’ll say one thing, it sure is a shame that “Christians” – or moral conservative types in general – are not the fire-breathing nazi stereotypes – special little guys like you – make them out to be because if I remember rightly from that last documentary I watched on the Hitler channel those nazis had a way of dealing with obstinate dickheads like you that was unparalleled in its efficiency and over all effectiveness.

    Oh well. Guess you are lucky you were not born in the 20s.

  • Dr. Carson being a fruitcake in your opinion still doesn’t change the fact that Sanger was all of the above and more.

  • “I have no arguments for this”

    Talking points, Special Spud, they are called “talking points”. Come now, a man well schooled in the are of argument can always argue about anything. What is more he can do so predominantly through the use of his own intellect and reasoning abilities – everything else is just extra ammunition. A good debater can construct a sound argument based almost entirely on the refutation of the logical inconsistencies of his interlocutor without even having to resort to anything pre-prepared.

    You’ve written my opening quote far too often. It says a lot about you. Just talking points.

  • As someone else noted, you can pull your quotes out of context all you want. But you are right. Whatever Sanger said has nothing to do with Carson.

  • Its really a matter of not caring so much about how a church chooses to define itself. They are more than welcomed to reduce themselves to petty concerns and encouragement for trespasses upon the lives of others. Just as I am more than welcomed to criticize them for doing so.

    It just speaks badly for the church that it chooses to do so. No need for argument. Its their church. If they want to be known for that, so be it.

  • They have to “spring forth” first to make your definition work. The issues here involve the time prior to that.

    You are dependent on the fantasy that you can speak on behalf of a fetus without attacking its mother in the same breath. Since they are attached, it makes absolutely no difference whether it is a human being or not. It is not a person by any definition. Personhood defines rights. Personhood is a function of autonomy.

  • You have to be born to have such rights. Personhood, the very basis of inate rights is premised on being born first. Since a fetus is attached to its mother and utterly dependent on her for its survival, it lacks autonomy necessary for personhood.

    It is an exercise in denial to claim to speak on behalf of a fetus without also saying that you are attacking the mother’s rights in the same breath. In essence you are saying a fetus has rights, but the born do not. This is in contradiction to all of our notions of rights under the law.

    ” At the very least you were implying that just as easily as they can be granted they can also be taken away.”

    Only if we are going to deny a woman her rights as a person and declare her property. As you suggest ever so indirectly. I guess if you don’t have any regards for the rights of anyone born, that would make sense. But it is hardly a rational or sane position.

    “I’ll say one thing, it sure is a shame that “Christians” – or moral
    conservative types in general – are not the fire-breathing nazi
    stereotypes – special little guys like you”

    Except we have a fire breathing nazi stereotype on this discussion who agrees with you fully, for the same religious reasons as you do. Poster Strong119 is precisely that kind of person. 🙂

  • Actually it changes a lot. Birth creates personhood. It breaks that attachment the fetus has with its mother and allows for it to be considered an autonomous being with its own interests completely separate and distinct from its mother. Your ignorance of biology is duly noted. It is why “viability” is used as a benchmark for abortion laws.

  • Since when is custody of a child considered a property right? So a guardian is really the owner of a child? You really are losing it. The more you argue, the further away from basic facts and reality you get.

    If the neonatologist could finish their work without putting the fetus back into its mother, you would have a relevant point. But it still requires her body to keep its existence going. So you don’t.

    Until you recognize a fetus is attached to its mother and inseparable prior to birth, you will never do more than spin your wheels and use dishonest language. But you won’t. So we waste time talking past each other.

  • “…the plight of freshly born and subsequently abandoned infants (who
    again cannot fend for themselves) or, for that matter, on the plight of
    the severely disabled (who also cannot survive without constant care
    provided by a third party).”

    I actually made statements on this earlier. Since any human being other than its mother can keep those people alive and speak for them without affecting the bodily integrity and autonomy of another human being, they are not analogous to a fetus in any way. It is not a matter of whether they can survive on their own, its whether they can survive without being physically attached to another human being.

    Recognizing the difference between the born and unborn is why my POV is more honest and fact based than yours. Your view requires dishonest claims that a fetus is indistinguishable from the born and claims that the mother’s decisions are an irrelevance compared to your opinion.

  • Declare yourself the winner despite the fact that your argument is utterly dependent on beliefs notwithstanding facts and hysterical pronouncements. Whatever. At this point all you have done is repeat the same 2 points in different variations. Not once have you shown that either point has a basis in facts.

  • “Birth creates personhood?”

    YES! Hence legal existence begins at birth.

    “That is so ridiculous.”

    Yes I know your opinion on the subject. It is utterly dependent on ignoring the physical attachment of a fetus with its mother. Ridiculous has been your conflation of the born and unborn in both your language and arguments.

    “a human being regarded as an individual.”

    Can you be regarded as an individual if you are physically attached to another human being and dependent on that human being for your existence? Of course not. There you hung yourself on your own petard. Bye bye.

  • Does baby want a bottle now? That is a major temper tantrum.

    I was never arguing a fetus was not a human being, I was arguing that it was not a person or autonomous. The problem fetus worshipers have is they are too used to talking amongst themselves that they don’t realize how vacant their arguments are outside of their own echo chamber. Too used to arguing in self-defined terms that they lose sight of relevant facts.

  • A woman’s body is not designed except in a metaphoric sense. Still doesn’t make your previous statement anything beyond an opinion.

  • spuddie, You wrote about “…respecting personal boundaries…” Doesn’t that go beyond the First Amendment? For those of us who aren’t members of the Federal government, shouldn’t Christians be participants in setting those boundaries?

  • We are a democracy. Everyone is the federal government in one form or another. No religion has a monopoly on rights or privileges under the law. Ones boundaries are created by dint of being a person,not because it is defined by one faith or another.

    The Catholic Church was a problem respecting personal boundaries of those who are not part of their faith and sect. There is a feeling they have a duty to trespass upon others. Hence Catholic hospitals subvert medical necessity and informed consent in service of religious dogma. Hence Catholic employers consider their workers acolytes in the faith and deny mandated and demanded healthcare. Hence Catholics conflate their dogma on family planning to apply to everyone whether they ascribe to such ideas or not.

  • spuddie, I don’t speak for the RCC nor does she speak for me. But I have looked into these matters, and I believe the body politic needs Christian influence. It is not true that a Christian’s influence should end at the (closed) church door.

  • I couldn’t disagree with you more. There is already an untenable level of Christian influence into our government and laws. So much so it amounts to efforts to undermine our freedoms as a nation.

    What passes for Christian values for many has a nasty habit of being self serving trespass upon others. Too often Christians use their religious belief as something to beat others about the head rather than uplift people.

    To be honest there is not a lot of Jesus in their Christianity. Too many excuses to avoid love thy neighbor. Too much malice people are pretending is love. Too much egotism pretending to be knowledge and piety. So I am not going to look upon it any favorably that such people seek greater influence and power over others.

  • “and allows for it to be considered an autonomous being with its own interests completely separate and distinct from its mother.”

    Brings to mind the neurons left over after neural pruning (that you have at birth) will be the only neurons you will ever have. Theses neurons compete for survival while others wither due to various environmental stimuli as a baby.

    There is a very sad famous study case on a child named “Genie” that was deprived of many types of environmental stimuli after her birth right into her childhood that caused irreparable damage to her speech centres.

  • “only the mother’s biological systems keep a fetus alive. Methinks you do not understand what autonomy means.”

    Well, Special Spud, as I believe I mentioned already in yet another post, by the onset of “viability” in human gestation this is no longer the case. In theory – and in practice – the child in question can be removed, its life preserved through other means.

    But that is kind of by the by, really, as I also explained in some detail in the very same post.

    Good to see your not listening.

  • So, pregnancy only being a thing that the female of the species can sustain as a physio-biological process is what? An opinion, now?
    Just how special are you Spudster?

  • “Blah blah blah Personhood … blah blah blah.”

    What about those corporate entities I mentioned, Special Spud? The cooch that pumped those out must be wider than the grand canyon.

  • “It is an exercise in denial to claim to speak on behalf of a fetus without also saying that you are attacking the mother’s rights in the same breath.”

    As explained before, this is how “rights” of individuals work when they come into conflict with another individual’s rights. No great moral dilemma here. It is the principal upon which the whole concept of “rights” is based. That one individual’s rights necessarily also define the borders of another’s. Go ask a constitutional lawyer.

  • ZOMG!! Really? A real live member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party? I had no idea they had high-speed internet in 1930’s Germany! Then again they did also invent flying saucers and shit like that so I guess … anything is possible. Right, Spudster?!

    Oh Special Spud, you card.

    If there is one thing I am absolutely certain of at this very moment, it is that your definition of “nazi” and the actual reality of what constitutes it are two concepts that are very wide apart.

    But since you like branding everyone who disagrees with you as a nazi, perhaps I can have a little fun with that at your expense – versteht sich.

  • “Christendom” … hahahahahaha. Laugh riot. As if that is even a thing nowadays. What a Special little Potato you are.

  • “Blah blah … sects … blah blah”

    Sects, being the operative word. I love how you keep providing us with the ammo. You are a real trooper.

    For your own sake, Special Spud, try to stay out of the realm of absolutes. Your sophistry doesn’t cut the mustard in there.

  • I can’t help it if your ego happens to give you delusions of godlike authority. But it is a hazard of the self righteous.

  • RINSE AND REPEAT – makes a comeback! Yay!

    There is just so much wrong with this… . Where to begin:

    “2 points”

    Count them Spudster, count them:
    One, two, three and four.

    That is four, Special Spud. Not two (2), four (4)!

    Four! Each containing its own set of content rich sub-clauses.

    I see maths is also vexing to you. Great!

    Remember I mentioned that you were the one making an assertion. I spelled it out, in fact. In that last post. Do you know any of the formal rules for debate? That, for instance, the individual who makes the assertion has to prove it also? Ring any bells?

    Of course not!

    “Declare yourself the winner”

    Now why would I do a thing like that?

    Rummage around in your subconscious for a little while – around about the area where you keep notions like “Lebensunwertes Leben” knocking about and you might recall the expression “Vernichtungskrieg”, no?

    We, that is you and I, are engaged in the intellectual equivalent of one and since you want nazis and since I promised I’d have a little fun at your expense, here goes (pics related):

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ab/22/eb/ab22eb1aba6b716ee34b69c5eeedfcb3.gif

    http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/hh581/RNCoetzee/UR7a89u_zpstppjhebv.gif

    “blah blah blah facts”:

    Special Spud, I’ve annihilated your initial premise. Answer my question, Spudster. WHY ARE THEY NOT WORTHY OF PROTECTION UNDER LAW?

    Not human? … Dealt with!

    Parasitical? … Dealt with!

    Muh Slavery? … Dealt with!

    Her body, zomg!? … Dealt with!

    Personhood means being a born human only! DERP! … Dealt with!

  • Great example! In all the years of discussing the subject none of you guys came up with that before. But I always expected it to.

    One that has yet to be tested under the law. Especially in instances where separation will result in death of a twin. But can you treat them entirely like separate beings under the law? Who knows?

    It seems to undermine your premise a bit since one is not inside the other. Fascinating what you can do with such an analogy.

  • Hurling insulted doesn’t make your analogies and inability to recognize physical facts concerning pregnancy any saner. I am not the one who thinks half the population is so incapable of making personal decisions that they must do it for them. You consider all women your personal property, who must do as you command when it comes to their own bodies. Very Nazi like.

    The problem is your head is so far up your sphincter with nonsense pretending a fetus is no different from the born and pretending a woman’s interests are of no importance you go nuts when people disagree with your nonsense assertions.

  • According to you a fetus is a person, despite having no autonomous existence bit it’s mother is not. Your understanding of rights is completely upside down. A fetus can’t be considered an individual because before birth it isn’t. When you allegedly protect s fetus, you attack it’s mother.

  • Yes, I know you have no argument here and you are stuck with a script which doesn’t recognize basic facts of reproduction or acknowledges that women have lives which are not subject to your approval.

    Now you are trying to stretch analogies and ignore the basic arguments posed. Oh well.

  • “insults”, dear boy. Insults. Not insulted. Do please try and spell words correctly.

    Your entire counter-argument is ad hominem. So pot, kettle, much. I’m just having a bit of fun. Don’t take things so seriously. Special Spud.

    I don’t think half of the population is incapable of making decisions. We are not talking about that. You want to talk about that. I explained why it doesn’t even really follow. But it is the only premise you have. Its the fig leaf for an otherwise morally untenable position and you are not used to that. You don’t like having the shoe on the other foot. You want to be the moral apostle. The white knight. But you aren’t and we’ve got your number and we’ve been calling it out.

  • Stretch analogies? Spudster, please … ? It illustrates the ability of the present legal system to assign personhood on a whim.

  • Says the man who believes that “rights” are given to someone by the secular potentate and not inalienable.

  • One does not infer design unless one has experience creating such things. This is why creationist arguments are so dishonest. We have created nothing like a womb. We don’t know how to design one. It is a product of nature. If you are left “with God made wombs therefore God’s word governs them”, you have given up rational discussion.

  • Both are individuals. Except one wants to make decisions for the other as if it were simply making decisions for itself and that decision just happens to involve the termination of the other. While the other, through no fault of its own is in an impossibly dangerous situation unless it is afforded protection under law because it is incapable of defending itself. DERP! Not hard.
    My definition of “rights” is not backward. You are just a bloody neo-Marxist with extreme feminist tendencies.

  • By viability abortion is only done in cases of medical emergency for the life of the mother. Late term abortions are invariably done by women who already intended to keep pregnancies but can’t due to medical complications.

  • “Only if we are going to deny a woman her rights as a person and declare her property.”

    No, Spud, no. You are the one saying that. I explained how that is simply not the case. But if you entirely ignore one half of this increasingly simple – due to it having been spelled out ad nauseam – equation, then of course you will come to that conclusion. A bit like four can be two. Or everyone is a nazi.

  • Not defined by myself. Defined by physical conditions, all notions of legal personhood and common sense.

    The whole notion of pretending a fetus is for all intents and purposes not really attached to its mother and inside her body is ridiculous. A your analogies of a fetus to a baby require this fiction. It also requires pretending a woman lacks those very traits of personhood you impute to a fetus.

    At this long you are left slinging insults and being uncivil. I think irs time you take a breather from knee jerk responses. I can’t take your view any less seriously at this point.

  • Thankyou for your very kind words.
    Of course he was a truly exceptional man of God.
    I am just a simple man trying to use the talents God saw fit to bestow on me to do some good just like the rest of us here are.
    So lets shine His light into some dark and dank corners.

  • Very badly in most cases. You end up arguing the aptness of the analogy far more than the subject at hand. It is a poor tool for anything beyond poetic flourish in legal arguments.

  • Not really. If you were talking about biology, you would recognize that a fetus cannot be considered a separate and distinct person until birth. That being attached and dependent on the mother makes it by its nature subordinate to her.

    But what we were really discussing was philosophical views of biology and function. According to your view she is merely a womb with limbs. In my view a woman is a person.

  • I am simply restating your s1utshaming and self styled authority arguments in a way which is more honest and discomforting to you.

    The only way you can argue that a woman must defer to you or governments when deciding what goes on in her body is to consider her property. To discount and ignore her existence as a person.
    .if you don’t like such an assessment, tough luck. It’s more honest than anything you have said.

  • No they aren’t. Individuals have autonomy. Distinct and separate existence as human beings which can be distinguished and treated in a unique fashion. Until you can separate a fetus from its mother physically, you are just making empty declarations and ignoring basic biology. I don’t have to care whether it has its own genetic code or heartbeat as long as it survives solely on the womb at her mother’s will. It’s in her, she possess it, her choice.

    Also you don’t really consider women to be individuals as you seek to intervene and control her most personal and intimate decisions. They are somehow bereft of the most basic right of control of their body.

  • Attacking secularism means you have no respect for religious freedom or religious beliefs which are not your own. You made such autocratic sentiments known from the outset. Like it or not secular arguments are required for discussing our laws.

    According to our secular society all people have inalienable rights. Even pregnant women.

    Besides religious notions of morality and law are ridiculously arbitrary and relativistic. Sociopaths love using scriptures to justify acting badly to others.

  • Take a breather. obviously your ego can’t handle arguments outside your well worn script. It seems to be irritating you far more than reasonable.

  • See prior comments. Analogy is the tool for people unable to argue the merits of their position in the relevant facts.

  • “Not defined by myself… blah blah blah.”

    But definable – therefore malleable because nothing is intrinsic here (everything is relative, remember) – by others who – because they are big, strong and powerful, you happen to agree with.

    What a surprise.

    Oh and stop with the whining about the odd joke at your expense. I only treat you the way you’ve treated everyone else who is not of your opinion. Pot and kettle, remember? Or are you unfamiliar with that one?

    “The whole notion of pretending a fetus is for all intents and purposes not really attached to its mother and inside her body is ridiculous”

    Where, Spezial Spudster? Where do I do that?

    I simply state that the child is not identical with the body of the mother, which is the case. I simply state that it is in and of itself an individual organism, which is the case. So therefore any dispositions made by the mother over said “Fetus” necessarily are no longer just about “her body” but about another one too.

    Just so happens it is in a specific womb. Big deal. Not like the little guy has a choice in the matter now is it. Not like the whole human race has a choice in the matter either – technological advances notwithstanding.

    Precisely this fact – the fundamental vulnerability an organism faces if it has no rights whatsoever within the only environment in which it has any hope in hell of actually surviving long enough to be born in the first place – is the crux of the argument I am making.

    I don’t know how much more I need to spell it out.

    It is this attachment and the lack of an alternative to this attachment combined with the inability of the organism which gets the chop to do anything about it unless a third party does something about it that sets the premise for special protection being necessary under law.

    That is the premise upon which all “inequality” legislation is based. The powerlessness of one individual being counteracted by the power of the State in the name of that individual through law. It is an extant principle. One liberally applied – especially in the USA. Normally by bleeding hearts like yourself – albeit you guys do it to screw everyone else, normally.

    For pity’s sake man, are you ever so slightly impaired in you cognisance?

    Why the never ceasing invocation of talking points, the endless repetition of the same premise in spite of it having been refuted – nay deconstructed, even by at least two individuals here who are demonstrably doing a better job of advancing a cogent argument than you are?

    All you have to offer is extreme resistance – nay intolerance, even, because you will not even acknowledge the existence of those counter arguments put forward by myself and others here. You prefer to denigrate. As if you were performing before your own personal audience.

    You simply refuse to engage with them beyond a terse repetition of your initial premise (laced with more denigration) and when that doesn’t work, then the best you can do is ad hominem.

    That has been your last resort throughout.

    That and making some spurious claims about slavery. Another talking point. Problem is we are not in your cultural Marxist echo chamber so referencing this or that buzzword doesn’t do it for us.

    We are about content.

    There are, of course, people who work just like that. They hear one word in a sentence and they are happy. Screw the content. No need to examine anything. Just that one word was enough.

    “Confirmation bias systems operational? Check!”
    “Fragile world view, in which you are the good guy and everyone who doesn’t agree with you is literally HITLER! Operating at peak efficiency!”

    I am beginning to think you are one of these people.

    That suites me fine. As I said, if that is the case then you serve an illustrative purpose. Nothing more.

    I want you to keep making the same point over and over again because each time you let the mask slip just that little bit more.

    You’ve already made one huge blunder in so far as you admitted to the “fetus'” humanity – after dragging your feet. At first it was an organ or something.

    Now it is just a parasite. With no rights. Although its human. Go figure!

    That, paired with your invocation of the necessarily arbitrary notion of (legal) “personhood” (deference to the status quo on its own is like a “current era” argument, meaningless!), as an explanation, was a real doozy.

    You essentially claim (for your betters) the right to make the objective into the purely subjective. That is the definition of tyranny. The imposition of man’s will (at best: through the use of a lowest common denominator that most people are kind of happy with, at worst: by decree).

    What government fetishists like you don’t realise is that the Moloch known as the secular state can and does cut both ways. Or perhaps you do. Hence desperate rear-guard actions like the one Mr. Jameson and I are now privy too.

    After all, the times, they are a changin!

  • You elect the people who make the laws, yes. They don’t run the country on their own now though do they. Nor do those laws of theirs get made without the influence of this or that lobby. Or are you a true believer?

  • I think you need to take a breather. You are getting a little punchy. Maybe find another topic. Abortion rights will come up again. Don’t worry.

  • Oh dear. Context, Special Spud. Context!

    Analogy in jurisprudence is a bit different to the kind you so rashly dismiss. It is an important tool. It is how you establish the rule of law in similar but not exactly identical situations to avoid lawless spaces.

  • No. No Spudster. No it does not. It is simply a weakness in the system I am pointing out (the last century is full of relevant examples). But nice try. You like defaulting to type, don’t you?

    All of my arguments have been secular in nature. I was even generous enough to offer you a generic example of the alternative.

    That is what you cannot cope with. You are used to debating well-meaning but none too intelligent “religious” people on this issue. People who do – to some extent – work from a script. Kind of like you do too, really. For the same reasons as well.

    Like most atheists, I imagine, you probably didn’t even believe there was such a thing as an intellectual Christian. More is the pity. You’d have been better prepared.

    That is why you constantly try to paint me and Jameson into a corner with your pathetic attempts at ad hominem. Label after label is flung around willy-nilly by you. None stick.

    Your argument here is essentially this: “Augie and Jamie are X, people who are X are Y, therefore we can discount what they say at face value because!” Its the classic: A is a nazi argument all over again.

    Problem is it isn’t that original. It has been done to death. So the magic power is wearing off.

    “According to our secular society all people have inalienable rights. Even pregnant women.”

    Apparently not. But hey. Two out of three is alright. Right? We can be happy with that.

    With all this white knighting you do you must be the cause of one heck of a lot of abortions.

  • “autonomy” …

    Hmm…

    “In certain unique circumstances government may have the right to temporarily override the right to bodily integrity in order to preserve the life and well-being of the person. Such action can be described using the principle of “supported autonomy”,[https://www.library.yorku.ca/find/Record/2376624] a concept that was developed to describe unique situations in mental health (examples include the forced feeding of a person dying from the eating disorder anorexia nervosa, or the temporary treatment of a person living with a psychotic disorder with antipsychotic medication). While controversial, the principle of supported autonomy aligns with the role of government to protect the life and liberty of its citizens. Terrence F. Ackerman has highlighted problems with these situations, he claims that by undertaking this course of action physician or governments run the risk of misinterpreting a conflict of values as a constraining effect of illness on a patient’s autonomy.[ Mappes Thomas, A., and David DeGrazia. “Biomedical Ethics.” (2006). pp62]”

  • Your argument is this: “its in her womb and therefore it isn’t relevant what happens to it because it is nothing of value”. So it is a parasite?

  • “According to your view she is merely a womb with limbs. In my view a woman is a person.”

    According to you a “fetus” is disposable parasitical human meat. I never said a woman was not a person. You just want everyone desperately to believe that. Unfortunately the content of this thread proves you wrong – for posterity.

  • “You are getting a little punchy.”

    ROFL.

    Not used to this sort of thing are we snowflake. Truth doesn’t cut and run.

    So, not going to happen.

  • I am not the one degenerating into person insults here. Your feelings appear to be hurt that I am not taking you as seriously as your ego demands. You are lashing out like a whiny toddler. I see no point in continuing the discussion until you calm down quite a bit.

    Better yet, lets table it for the next time abortion inevitably pops up.

  • See my comment above, you are being a bit overly excitable here. There is no more intelligent discussion to be had at this point. You are just in the mood to fling poo and satisfy your ego. I couldn’t care less about either.

  • Since I would have to explain to you how a uterus and umbilical cord works, it is obvious you are in no position to speak about human reproduction. There are plenty of resources online which can demonstrate that for you.

    I will pray for you. Bless your heart.

  • In many cases it is. Especially when it endangers the life of the mother. A less hysterical term would be an “involuntary lodger”. 🙂

  • Yes we have established you can’t tell the difference between a fetus and someone already born.

    Your link doesn’t help that assertion. To be declared mentally incompetent one is speaking on behalf of the person involved as they are an autonomous individual person. One has to prove they are no longer in command of rights inherent with being one. The burden is on the people seeking to remove the individual rights. Bad analogy is paramount to your position. You are declaring all women who become pregnant are in the same situation. That is overreach to say the least.

    A fetus has no individual rights because it has no individual existence. Being inside the body of another human being precludes such fantasies. Your argument depends on a fiction of ignoring such material facts of a pregnancy.

  • See comments above. We have reached the maximum limit of civil and intelligent remarks. You are descending into silliness. I will pray for you. Bless your heart.

  • Secularism isn’t a weakness. It is a strength. All you are doing is showing a preference for theocratic nonsense over appreciation of a free society. Demonstrating your character flaws and animosity to others. Not surprised here. When one thinks their religious views grant them license to trespass upon the lives of others, they don’t appreciate things like individual rights or religious freedom.

  • Analogy is typically not used in legal arguments except for dicta. To add a little descriptive flourish to an argument. It is used as a primary form of argument by people who do not like to discuss a topic on its own facts.

    Online, it always mires down the discussion in the aptness of the analogy. A poor tool for argument in this venue.

    I will continue to pray for you. Bless your heart.

  • “I shall pray for you. Bless your heart.”

    LOL, wut?

    “We have reached the maximum limit of civil and intelligent remarks. You are descending into silliness.”

    The final trick in the box: try to suggest your opponent is not being reasonable when all else fails.

    I call it – playing “grown ups”. I was wondering when you’d try that. It is the false way of crying uncle.

    I went away for a little while – because you know – life does go on and all that and I must say you’ve outdone yourself all on your own in the meantime. Performed as expected (and a little bit beyond).

    If we take anything away from this highly amusing and informative exchange it is this:

    Special Spud thinks a “fetus” is a kind of parasite (sophistry notwithstanding) and he thinks that this “parasite” is human.

    Augustine: “… So it is a parasite?”

    Special Spud: “In many cases it is. Especially when it endangers the life of the mother. A less hysterical term would be an “involuntary lodger”. :)”

    https://youtu.be/cx_ptJCn4Tw

    Not bad for a couple of day’s work!

    Outta your league, Spudster, way out of it.

  • Spuddie, you may be right, in your diagnosis of the problem. (I wouldn’t be at all surprised!) But look at Matthew 7:16 (“…By their fruit you shall know them…”) The important point here is the standard which was used to measure them by.

    Christianity is not a set of rules: so much love, so much tolerance. It is the fruit of the Spirit.

  • From what I have seen of the deeds of people who have mixed their Christian faith with politics, it leaves little to be proud of. For every MLK or Roger Williams, there are ten thousand Bryan Fisher and Jeff Sessions types.

    Your Good News comes at far too high a price for most people with morals and integrity.

  • spuddie, I guess I’d rather be known as standing for inclusiveness rather than “morals and integrity”, for the reasons I gave.
    Good chatting with you.

  • Sigh,“Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law” (CCC 2271). This is church doctrine, period. You are free to do as you wish. It will not change. No Bishop, Pope, or anyone , can change it. tYou need to know as a Catholic, the difference between doctrine, and discipline.

ADVERTISEMENTs