|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Limits on Abortion | |||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Crashfrog writes: And, what? You honestly can't figure out why national organizations that claim to oppose abortion are completely uninterested in promoting policies that reduce abortions? Apparently, no one has figured it out. If you know the answer, why is this question even still a question?
Really? You've never before in your life encountered a situation where an entity's actions were completely contradictory to their stated goals? You really have no idea what to think in such a situation, or what conclusions could possibly be reached? Well, what do you think in this situation, and what conclusion have you reached?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Ringo writes: I'm sorta opposed to abortions in general - but that doesn't give me the right to make the decision for somebody else. (I'm sorta opposed to vanilla ice cream, but not to the point of banning it.) Well, let the record show, I have never said that I am NOT pro-choice, but I will say I am fundementally, theoretically, idealistically pro-life, and I would try to spread this ideal enoguh to hope that it would catch on, and at least that some people would seek help and alternatives to abortion, and that women in general would not feel that sex made them worthwhile. Being a woman, I am absolutely positively sure that men do consider an unyielding partner 'cold, undesirable, prudish, scared' etc. I think that this is wrong, and I do not blame all men, but in my experience it is a real trait of many men.
It's not about being opposed. It's about offering an alternative. You have no right to be opposed to abortion unless you're willing to adopt the babies yourself Like I said, I have no idea where the issue is in the questions being asked here. I need more stats or info. All I know, is that the clinics and hospitals that I have attended, run by the Fransiscans of St Mary Medical Center, have signs EVERYWHERE, in the bathroom, in the offices, in the waiting rooms, stating that any child will be adopted and cared for NO QUESTIONS ASKED even if it is just left outside the building. The staff ask many questions to determine if the mother is ok with the pregnancy, both before and after the delivery, they provide free medical care, free day care, free diapers and clothes, etc, free pediatrics, and WIC programs, as well as counseling for prevention of future pregnancies if they are not deisred, depression, everything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Straggler writes: As stated earlier I too adhere to the independent existence concept (to which Raz pointed out some inconsistencies)BUT I know it is an arbitary cutoff point (like all others) and that there are going to be potential inconsistencies regards adult humans who are dependent on life support etc. Yes, I understand. It is ALL arbitrary. The logical thing as far as religion teaches, is 'don't mess with it'. But that is still not possible entirely. When it comes to end-of-life issues, obviously there is as much confusion about what God would want...a 'natural' death, or a 'saved' life, so like I said, technology has brought us some very big choices that were just not there when we had no means of preserving life artificially, or creating it. Abortion, for example, could be much more wrong when we had no idea how a baby developes, now, we have all of these arbitrary positions based on our information.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Straggler writes: Then you oppose contraception on logical religious (not two words I put together often) grounds I assume?Contraception surely constitutes 'messing with it' in this context? Correct, and still not easy. See, we have all of this technology and knowledge...Catholics are taught the Natural Family Planning method, and well, coitus interuptus comes into play...and this is all 'messing' to an extent. There is nothing really for it except to keep pushing for a better world where abstinance can be practiced in lieu of a desire for children...which may sound rude, but I mean in the case of women who are having sex without a partner who will 'stick around' so to speak, where there are financial opportunities and support available from parents and others, for girls who are afraid to take on a pregnancy alone...many things are vital. I can say that christianity is pushing for a world where folks are married, established, commited, etc before any sexual activiety takes place, and where no one would be raped as well. A perfect world. Christians do not want to alleviate one problem by relaxing the ideal, but the world is just not ideal, is it? In that sense, I am pro-choice, but again, idealistically, I am pro-life.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Straggler writes: We both agree that a liver transplant is a good thing if it alleviates suffering.I believe that an abortion is equally justified for the same reasons. Hm... false dilemma, I think. A liver transplant, whish I am sort of opposed to anyway as part of this 'messing' does not alleviate suffering as a primary goal. It saves lives. Abortion destroys lives.
All the evidence suggests that you will be fighting a losing battle against human nature and it's most ingrained needs and desires. Is there any evidence at all for any such society ever existing anywhere ever? Nope, as there is no evidence for a society where any evil doesn't exit. Doesn't mean we should give up, does it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5981 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Straggler writes: Intriguing. So would removing cancerous growths, providing medication for pain relief and treatments to hold off the onset of AIDS also constitute 'messing' and would you be opposed to all of those too? What medical pratices are not 'mesing'?? Are you opposed to medicine on principle? Oh, no, not at all. I am only a bit weird about transplants, since they involve the same type of arbitrary 'when is life no longer life?' problems.
Well we are back to our arbitrary definition of the start of human life again. I could claim that male masturbation destroys lives too. And is another no-no in the RCC.
Not at all. But defining as evil things that are deeply ingrained in human nature will almost inevitably lead to conflict, hypocrisy and a failure to eradicate that behaviour. There absolutely is a conflict, although I am not sure what is ingrained in human nature in the case of abortion?
If you are going to take that path you sould have very good reasons for doing so. I am not convinced your reasons for enforcing the sexual morality you outline are good enough to be either workable or desirable given that you are opposing the most basic elements of human nature. Some people do think that resepcting all life without slicing and dicing around the arbitrary details is a very good goal. Whether something is ideally desirable, and whether it is enforcable in a not-so-ideal world, is a tough question. Is it possible? Yes, and no. It is not so ideal that none can live a life that is based on these committments to children if and when they are desired, or that none can control themselves until children are desired, but at the same time, life is just not easy. I have been down so many roads myself, and enough that I truly believe in my ideals, but not everyone is in the same place as I am. Like I said, I am not committed to enforcing my ideals in any way which prevents people from having a choice.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024