[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:[quote]countingbeans wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:You may fire at will. [/quote]I give you credit for being honest. Thankfully I didn’t, but had I been made to make that choice, I don’t know that I could have let my wife go. [/quote]I believe you may need to reread my post.[/quote]Just did, and I’m not sure what I am not understanding.[/quote]I said I wouldn’t let my wife go either. Unless I’M misunderstanding YOU?
[/quote]
haha, maybe.
I was basically saying I agreed with you and would most likely choose my wife. She would punch me in the mouth for doing it, and I would most likely hate myself either way, but I’m pretty sure I would pick my wife.
Damn it thinking about this even makes me feel like shit.[/quote]
Not sure what ya’ll are talking about, but I’ve yet been able to present a case to my bio-ethics professor in which he didn’t have a moral procedure to save both the mother’s life and possibly the child’s life.
This is a tough situation, but in the case of choosing which lives, I’d recommend researching the principle of double effect. Tirib, I believe, has rejected it for whatever reason. However, it is one of the most sensical doctrines when it comes to life and death and is actually used in cases of self-defense, I believe (I get my bioethics case studies confused sometimes).
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You will likely hit the powerball… twice… before ever facing that situation.
[/quote]
Yeah, I’m getting snipped in August, so, bring on powerball, haha.[/quote]
Not to stick my nose where it does not belong, but have you thought of the moral implications of sterilizing yourself?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Not sure what ya’ll are talking about, but I’ve yet been able to present a case to my bio-ethics professor in which he didn’t have a moral procedure to save both the mother’s life and possibly the child’s life.
This is a tough situation, but in the case of choosing which lives, I’d recommend researching the principle of double effect. Tirib, I believe, has rejected it for whatever reason. However, it is one of the most sensical doctrines when it comes to life and death and is actually used in cases of self-defense, I believe (I get my bioethics case studies confused sometimes). [/quote]I don’t know if you read my posts, but I ask that you do. I am however listening.
When moving into the abortion topic, one has to realize that both sides have one thing in common: compassion.
Abby Johnson, the abortion clinic director turned pro-life campaigner, says in her book UnPlanned that she “had never been interested in promoting abortion. I’d come to Planned Parenthood eight years before, believing that its purpose was primarily to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby reducing the number of abortions. That had certainly been my goal. And I believed that Planned Parenthood saved lives- the lives of women who, without the services provided by this organization, might resort to some back-alley butcher.”
Do just paint with a broad brush that those who are pro-abortion are evil child killers who just like to kill the unborn is unfair and not very reflective of the different sides of this argument.
However, I think looking at this somewhat logically we can see some interesting things, three that I can think of:
- The corporations and labs who claim certain benefits of embryonic stem-cell research are making somewhat false claims, that these powerful corporations with interest in embryonic stem-cell research make it so the unborn are powerless in their hands.
- The Catholic Church is actually a huge investo in adult-stem cell research. Both the CC and most pro-abortionists I have met have a common reason for being interested in this topic: advocates of legal abortion do not see it primarily as an ideological issue of women’s rights or of personal autonomy, but as the best of alternatives. Abortion, they believe, frees a woman from an unplanned pregnancy; and keeping it legal at least prevents back-street abortions. So, I’d suspect their motives are well placed.
- The CC is invested in and working towards creating a society where all life is welcomed and valued. The issue of abortion is not necessarily a issue of women’s rights versus other’s rights. The CC sees that women’s rights are best protected when ensuring that pregnant women are supported in every way possible.
The Universal Church speaks on behalf of the voiceless, defenseless embryo, just as it speaks on behalf of other “silent” victims. The Church seeks to bring down the upper legal limit on abortion in order to reach a point where abortion is no longer practiced.
At the same time, the Church seeks to promote public awareness of the fragility and value of unborn life and to offer real choices to women frightened by unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. The Church wants to work toward creating a society where all life is welcomed and valued.
Embryos are the early stage of human life; they are vulnerable and need protection from the law.
The real good news is the rapid progress made in adult stem-cell research. All the major developments have been in adult stem cells, not embryonic ones.
Claims made for embryonic stem-cell research are exaggerated and wishful - the result of hype by corporations and research labs seeking publicity and funding.
To re-iterate my points and to go deeper on the above, the Catholic Church is a major investor in adult stem-cell research - Vatican labs, Catholic hospitals, &c.
All science is governed by an ethical framework - good science and good ethics go together (embryonic stem-cell research has been marred by scandals: it is dangerous). There are powerful corporate interests behind embryonic stem-cell research. Unborn life is a powerless plaything in the hands of those interests.
Church wants to work toward creating a society where all life is welcomed and valued. This is not a matter of the rights of women versus other rights. There are others involved - men and the unborn life. The rights of women are best protected by ensuring that pregnant women are supported in every way possible.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Sorry raj, you only looked for cases to support your claim that there is nothing wrong with abortion. These women very well may be indifferent to abortion after a certain time period. Yet I know many women and talked with even more who regret abortion almost forty years later. [/quote]
Abortion and mental health has been studied for several decades decades now.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
The article you found never talks with the entire population of women who have had an abortion.[/quote]
This just speaks to your lack of understanding of statistics. It would be close to impossible to survey every single woman whoever had an abortion. What you’re asking for is completely unrealistic and if we held that standard, no study every posted here would be considered valid.
Look up “sampling” if you’re interested.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Let me say this another way for you - The Germans thought the exact same way as they justified the slaughter of six million Jews. Abortion has claimed at least fifty four million lives since Roe v Wade. Prove the unborn are NOT whole, distinct, complete human beings, from the earliest moments of conception. If you can prove me wrong, I would help argue your cause from that point forward and I would debate with the pro-death case, with you by my side. Or you could be honest, using logic and using modern science, to realize the death of a child is never acceptable.
[/quote]
You know I’m not an advocate for abortion right?
I am simply stating there is no causal link between the abortion procedure and mental health issues. I feel like a broken record.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
So can I expect an answer from you soon?
[/quote]
For what? A position I don’t disagree with?
Okay, I agree.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
The Universal Church speaks on behalf of the voiceless, defenseless embryo, just as it speaks on behalf of other “silent” victims. The Church seeks to bring down the upper legal limit on abortion in order to reach a point where abortion is no longer practiced.
At the same time, the Church seeks to promote public awareness of the fragility and value of unborn life and to offer real choices to women frightened by unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. The Church wants to work toward creating a society where all life is welcomed and valued.
Embryos are the early stage of human life; they are vulnerable and need protection from the law.
The real good news is the rapid progress made in adult stem-cell research. All the major developments have been in adult stem cells, not embryonic ones.
Claims made for embryonic stem-cell research are exaggerated and wishful - the result of hype by corporations and research labs seeking publicity and funding.
To re-iterate my points and to go deeper on the above, the Catholic Church is a major investor in adult stem-cell research - Vatican labs, Catholic hospitals, &c.
All science is governed by an ethical framework - good science and good ethics go together (embryonic stem-cell research has been marred by scandals: it is dangerous). There are powerful corporate interests behind embryonic stem-cell research. Unborn life is a powerless plaything in the hands of those interests.
Church wants to work toward creating a society where all life is welcomed and valued. This is not a matter of the rights of women versus other rights. There are others involved - men and the unborn life. The rights of women are best protected by ensuring that pregnant women are supported in every way possible.
[/quote]
+1 like
Lets look at that article you posted about 90% of children with DS being aborted.
90% of children with DS aren’t actually aborted, rather when a test for DS is taken, 90% choose to have an abortion. However only a very small amount of women actually take this test.
Now because the study cited does not cover every woman with a child whose been diagnosed with DS, would it be wrong to draw conclusions from the study?
“Many women elect to have prenatal screening tests, but, according to Henry Greeley, writing for Nature (January 2011), only 2% go on to have an amnio. As a result, most babies born with Down syndrome were not prenatally diagnosed.”
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< advocates of legal abortion do not see it primarily as an ideological issue of women’s rights or of personal autonomy, but as the best of alternatives. Abortion, they believe, frees a woman from an unplanned pregnancy; and keeping it legal at least prevents back-street abortions. So, I’d suspect their motives are well placed. >>>[/quote]I suspect you are very honorably naive.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Let me say this another way for you - The Germans thought the exact same way as they justified the slaughter of six million Jews.
[/quote]
Hey, get this, I heard the German’s believed 2+2+4. So does that mean it equals 5 now?
Why is the “if you disagree with my point I will compare you to a Nazi” fallacy so prevalent on this board?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You will likely hit the powerball… twice… before ever facing that situation.
[/quote]
Yeah, I’m getting snipped in August, so, bring on powerball, haha.[/quote]
Not to stick my nose where it does not belong, but have you thought of the moral implications of sterilizing yourself? [/quote]
No worries, I posted it so it isn’t like I am afraid of talking about it.
Here is the thing: it is in the best interest of everyone involved we stop having kids.
I have no issues with it morally, as they aren’t always 100% effective and my body still produces sperm, it is just the bullets never leave the clip. I’m not sterile, I’m just misfiring.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< advocates of legal abortion do not see it primarily as an ideological issue of women’s rights or of personal autonomy, but as the best of alternatives. Abortion, they believe, frees a woman from an unplanned pregnancy; and keeping it legal at least prevents back-street abortions. So, I’d suspect their motives are well placed. >>>[/quote]I suspect you are very honorably naive.
[/quote]
Yes, I’ve only been working in the pro-life movement in the Southwest for 4 years. I know nothing.
Further, nice chop job of my quote, if you go back to the beginning, I said most. Obvious there are those who understand the realities of what it is that they do. However, a good chunk of people don’t realize what it is that happens during abortion.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Let me say this another way for you - The Germans thought the exact same way as they justified the slaughter of six million Jews.
[/quote]
Hey, get this, I heard the German’s believed 2+2+4. So does that mean it equals 5 now?
Why is the “if you disagree with my point I will compare you to a Nazi” fallacy so prevalent on this board?
[/quote]
Not sure otherwise, maybe because the Nazis were the only one’s the Allies prosecuted, even though one of the Allies, the USSR had killed more Ukrainians than the number of Jews killed by the Nazis.
I think it is also one of the closest examples of genocide that people have in mind. Obviously there are others in history, but none that are neuralgic as Nazi Germany and the Jews.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< advocates of legal abortion do not see it primarily as an ideological issue of women’s rights or of personal autonomy, but as the best of alternatives. Abortion, they believe, frees a woman from an unplanned pregnancy; and keeping it legal at least prevents back-street abortions. So, I’d suspect their motives are well placed. >>>[/quote]I suspect you are very honorably naive.
[/quote]
Yes, I’ve only been working in the pro-life movement in the Southwest for 4 years. I know nothing.
Further, nice chop job of my quote, if you go back to the beginning, I said most. Obvious there are those who understand the realities of what it is that they do. However, a good chunk of people don’t realize what it is that happens during abortion. [/quote]The vast majority of abortions are sought to selfishly escape responsibility for an act we both agree is immoral. I would not assault a young girl who is scared and confused with accusations of murder. To say nothing of a woman who’s been raped, but most of the “advocates”, like some we have here, are not on some honorable but misguided campaign of good will. Even the women.
They are promoting their godless libertine sensibilities as normative for the society. If you do not see that then these 4 years have not taught you as much as you think. BTW, I was doing clinic marches in the 80’s when I was your age. The opposition always shows up too. I never met one with godly intentions gone wrong.
One, mother’s who have abortions are not the same thing as advocates. Mother’s are the second victim of abortion. This has been the legal precedent in America and European law for quite sometime.
Two, I said most advocates because of looking at polls and the fact that I have gotten to in my 4 years, to go to college quads and discuss this with anywhere from a few dozen to 1000’s of students in a weeks time. Once you get passed the rhetoric and sound bites, their positive intentions comes out.
Three, I am in communication with the big full-time pro-life people in the movement currently. Most agree with this sentiment.
These people have collectively talked to more people about abortion than any one person has ever done, 10 times over. If people like Abby Johnson, who was deep in the abortion industry herself–director of the largest Texas PP I believe, and Lila Rose agree with this I’m going to go with that it is not naive to believe this and that the biggest names and the biggest movers in the movement just didn’t pay attention to all those people they have persuaded to be pro-life.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I have, but I also have a tendency to have civil discourses with people. And try to go beyond rhetoric and sound bites.[/quote]You’ll learn to tailor the message to your audience Chris. Your very weak Catholic(big C)hamartiology is showing.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
One, mother’s who have abortions are not the same thing as advocates. Mother’s are the second victim of abortion. This has been the legal precedent in America and European law for quite sometime.
Two, I said most advocates because of looking at polls and the fact that I have gotten to in my 4 years, to go to college quads and discuss this with anywhere from a few dozen to 1000’s of students in a weeks time. Once you get passed the rhetoric and sound bites, their positive intentions comes out.
Three, I am in communication with the big full-time pro-life people in the movement currently. Most agree with this sentiment.
These people have collectively talked to more people about abortion than any one person has ever done, 10 times over. If people like Abby Johnson, who was deep in the abortion industry herself–director of the largest Texas PP I believe, and Lila Rose agree with this I’m going to go with that it is not naive to believe this and that the biggest names and the biggest movers in the movement just didn’t pay attention to all those people they have persuaded to be pro-life.[/quote]ok
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Your very weak Catholic(big C)hamartiology is showing.
[/quote]
If you have a problem with my hamamrmsfdlkasgoutology, it is above my pay grade. I am not able to change it nor do I wish to change how Jesus did it. Nor do I even understand what that is.
If you think Jesus and the Apostles did it wrong/came up with weak hamamrmsfdlkasgoutology and you can do better, please refer all suggestions and queries to their office. I, however, highly doubt that they will concur and change the commandments of the Almighty King. Just my guess.
P.S. I’ve heard they have a very open door policy about such things. Though it does not seem like they are even so much as tempted to change any of their doctrines or dogmas because of the mere complaining by stiff necked and stubborn folk. Good luck trying to persuade them.