Would It Still Be An Abortion If...

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
No, [right and wrong] is objective sir.
Then it can be proven without appeal to opinion.

Please give the "correct" definition of immoral - proving that it is correct - choose some immoral action and prove that it is immoral, without asking my opinion, giving your own opinion, or citing anybody else's opinion.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
Then it can be proven without appeal to opinion.

Please give the "correct" definition of immoral - proving that it is correct - choose some immoral action and prove that it is immoral, without asking my opinion, giving your own opinion, or citing anybody else's opinion.
Or God's opinion. Or someone else's opinion on God's opinion.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Then it can be proven without appeal to opinion.

Please give the "correct" definition of immoral - proving that it is correct - choose some immoral action and prove that it is immoral, without asking my opinion, giving your own opinion, or citing anybody else's opinion.
Its objective for us in terms of God's purposes, your view of immorality would be subjective and relativist. Other that that we cant prove its correct anymore than the relativist position where different people have criteria.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
All of them because the entire point is the unborn dies.
Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't even read the OP, the entire point of which is that the fetus does not die.

All are stages of development of the human being so to whom are you referring to as 'they', 'babies', 'fetuses' and 'embryos'? The same entity or different species?
Irrelevant.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
You know--I love you moral relativists. You want to argue that morality is all a matter of opinion---until it is your ox that gets gored.

In other words---the moral relativists will argue that values are subjective---until for example---someone steals from them or cheats them or does something to them. Then the same moral relativists behaves as if moral values are objective and will argue that what was done to them isn't right, fair or just.
This is just a caricature. Moral relativists do not behave as if moral values are objective - that's just nonsense. If someone steals from me, I act as if legal values are objective - which they are. I fully understand and accept that in the thief's eyes, perhaps theft is moral. I don't care. I just want my stuff back, which is why I call the police. No decision about whether or not morality is subjective is even needed.

Even the interactions of small children disprove relativism. You see, children, even before they are taught moral concepts will often appeal to some objective set of values when something happens, they do not like. "No fair!" they might say.
You are just begging the question. You claim that children will "appeal to some objective set of values" without even demonstrating that such a thing exists. Children appeal to what they have been taught.
So, sir, you can take your moral relativist baloney and stick it. You know darn well there are objective moral values. Now, we may disagree on what those values are, but you know darn well they exist.
No, moral relativists do not 'know' that there are objective moral values. We believe that there are none. What we do know is that neither you nor anybody else can demonstrate the existence of any.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Thanks for demonstrating that you didn't even read the OP, the entire point of which is that the fetus does not die.


Irrelevant.
Well that is a valid point except that you would have to call it something different to abortion because it isnt killing the offspring, which negates your claim anyway.

BTW the human being in the womb has three stages basically, zygote, embryo and foetus and pro-choice abortion terminates the human being at any of those stages so you just saying fetus, is not entirely accurate
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Part the First (again)
Well, you see, in America, there is this thing called the Constitution. This Constitution grants something called religious liberty to its citizens. Because of this, Christian parents have the right to exempt their children from things they find morally objectionable.

So it has nothing to do with the "strength" of the Christian "right" and everything to do with religious freedom.
It has everything to do with the strength of the Christian right. If I tell my local education authorities that my religion finds the idea that 2+2=4 to be morally objectionable, can I get my child exempted from mathematics? How about if my religion says that matter is not made up of atoms - can I get my child exempted from chemistry?

The answer to both is, of course, no. But if my religion was politically powerful, then we collectively might well be able to get changes made to school curricula and get exemptions for our children from being taught certain facts.

When exempting children from learning objective facts is likely to lead to harm to them, there should be no ability for parents to exempt children from learning those facts. Such is the case with comprehensive sex education, among other subjects.

The funny thing with liberals--the Muslim religion actually shares many of the moral values of the Christian religion--yet you never hear liberals whine or moan about unwoke Muslims. Just Christians and Jews.
This is a very old and tired point. The reason you "only ever" hear liberals complain about Christians is because America, where the bulk of online conversation of this kind originates, is predominantly a Christian society. It is Christianity that has led to the formation of many of our laws, not Islam. It is Christians who are agitating to change other laws, not Muslims. We don't protest against Islam because in our country, it's not Muslims who are trying to take away our freedoms and rights - it is Christiansi.

Why should I have to pay for a woman's birth control? I am not involved in her choices.
Why should I have to pay for a family's school expenses? I'm not involved in their choices.

Society. We all pay for everything. That's how it works.

No, they attempt to shirk responsibility entirely by taking their poor choices out on their unborn child---as if it is the pregnancy that is the problem.
No, the take responsibility and with it do something with which you disagree. That does not mean that they do not take responsibility.

I doubt the pro-life posters on this website are blowing up abortion clinics.
That's exactly the point. The pro-life posters on this website aren't extremists. Yet their every post is full of insults and attacks rather than even attempts at rational argument or discussion. To claim, as you did, that it is the pro-life 'extremists' who are constantly "throwing around idiotic falsehoods like 'baby-killer' and talking of pro-lifers having no morals" is simplky false.

Fine. How much more would you like to tax the American citizen for all the free stuff you want to give away?
If we actually taxed fairly, zero. The average American citizen would actually be taxed less, if we did things like tax large corporations correctly and taxed churches (and other, similar organisations that are exempt).

Isn't the gas tax supposed to pay for roads? What about toll roads? If I am not driving a car, I am not getting gas, which means I am not paying for road upkeep. If I am not driving a car, I am not paying tolls.
Neither the gas tax nor road tolls come even close to paying for the upkeep of our road system. We all pay for that with out taxes, whether you drive a car or not.

Yeah--and look how great the education system is in this country...
I don't see what that has to do with it. Are you suggesting that if education wasn't publicly funded (i.e., in the end, funded by you, me, that other bloke over there, etc., whether we have children or not) it would be of a higher standard? A great many countries have public education that is funded the same way and produce far better educated students. I can only agree that the US education system is terrible, but I do not think that the fact that it is funded (in the end) by our citizens is the problem.

Even still, we all benefited from it because we all went to school. Besides--property taxes are supposed to pay for the schools. If you do not own property, you aren't directly paying for education.
No, we didn't all go to school. There are increasing numbers of adults who were homeschooled or unschooled. And many of us did go to school but didn't do so here. And property taxes don't come close to paying for schools. Again, they are paid for out of our taxes.

Actually---in my opinion, any "boyfriend" who does not respect the wishes of his girlfriend is not a boyfriend worth having. If the man truly loves his girlfriend he would want to respect her wishes--more then he wants to have sex without a condom. The greater problem here is with the woman's taste in men! She needs to ditch that looser and find a better man! Any man who tells his girlfriend that she will not be his girlfriend if she does not have sex with him without a condom--is not a man worth having.
That might well be true. It doesn't change the fact. The "if it's not on, it's not on" campaigns don't work.

What pro-lifers? I don't care who is having sex with who and how often.
Of course you do. Your every post says something about it. Of course, you say something about it in this very post.

What I care about is ABORTION.
And the sex that can lead to it.

That is a fact: if people would stop using their sexuality in irresponsible ways, there would be fewer abortions.
See? Two paragraphs above you said you don't caer who is having sex with who and how often. Now you state that you do care.

Plus, of course, what you should have said is that if people would stop using their sexuality in ways that YOU deem irresponsible, there would be fewer abortions. Again, that you think something is irresponsible does not make it so.

But I am practical enough to know that this is not going to happen.
And yet you won't get behind efforts to reduce abortion that take that fact into account.

You miss the point. Pregnancy is a natural part of the bodily process. Pregnancy is healthy. Pregnancy is what is supposed to happen when people have sex. Crashes are NOT a natural part of the driving process--that is---they are NOT supposed to happen.
No, I don't miss the point. I acknowledge it. I asked what difference it makes. Whether a given circumstance arises through natural, unnatural or artificial means, it must be dealt with. Why difference does how it came about make?
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
When a woman gets pregnant because she had sex---everything is working as it should. When someone is involved in a crash-that happened because something went wrong. As I said, pregnancy is not a disease to be eradicated. To the extent possible, crashes are to be eradicated.
See above. To the extent possible unwanted pregnancies are to be eradicated.

Supposed to--meaning that when a woman gets pregnant, she didn't get pregnant because something went wrong. It is a natural part of the bodily process when people have sex.
Again, so what?

So what? So------my point-----is that your crash analogy fails. Crashes happen because things go wrong. Pregnancy happens because that is natural=--nothing is wrong.
That doesn't make the analogy fail. In both circumstances, an activity was performed that the participants knew could have an adverse consequence. They guarded against that adverse consequence to the best of their ability, but it happened anyway. The analogy is quite sound.

Both are unwanted, but with pregnancy, a person's subjective desires, whims and intentions do not change that pregnancy is a natural bodily process resulting from the sexual act. When a pregnancy happened---it didn't happen because something is wrong.
Yet again, so what? That makes no difference.

Not only is a crash not wanted, but crashes are also not a natural result of driving responsibly. Crashes happen because something goes wrong, someone makes a mistake, or something went wrong with the car.
see above.

This isn't a question of personal taste, sir. You act like the decision to have an abortion vs. not have an abortion is just a matter of personal taste--akin to--well--you like vanilla, I like chocolate. You act as if the reason I am against abortion--is just a matter of personal whim--sort of like "Well, I would not choose to have an abortion, therefore neither should you because I am right."
That's precisely what it is. Your moral beliefs say that abortion is wrong. My moral beliefs say that abortion is not wrong. Morality, like beauty, is completely subjective. You are entirely saying that because you think abortion is morally wrong, nobody should be able to have one.

My stance on abortion is not based on personal whim, taste, etc, any more than my stance on racism is a matter of personal taste or whim. Certain things are right and wrong, they are not subject to opinion.
That's simply and obviously wrong. Moral beliefs and opinions are just that - opinions. They change over time among individuals, societies and societal bodies (like religions). Your stance on abortion is based entirely and completely on your personal moral opinion (which, in your case, is fueled by/founded upon, your religious belief). There is no basis whatsoever to say that X is absolutely right or wrong and not subject to opinion. Every moral belief is subject to opinion because everybody can have a different opinion on it.

What went wrong? Was there some biological function that went wrong and caused the pregnancy? What, medically speaking went wrong that needs to be treated or corrected?
In many cases, some form of contraception went wrong.

You are confusing subjective intentions with objective reality. Sex is for reproduction. That is why it exists. Just like eating is for survival. When people eat, they may not have a conscious intention that they are eating to survive, or even eating because they are hungry. Maybe they are just at a social, etc. That doesn't change the fact that eating is for survival. Sex is analogous. The people having intercourse may not be objectively conscious that this is for reproductive purposes. That does not change that sex is for reproduction. Thus, pregnancy is of the natural course.
Yet again again, so what? Not being able to see is of the natural course. So is getting sick. We take steps against those. On the other hand, flying is not of the natural course. Nor is driving. Nor, for that matter, is typing on a computer. Whether something is of the "natural course" is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

They want to help people!? Then why do they support abortion? How does abortion help the unborn? They could help a whole lot of people right now by not supporting abortion!
Yup, they want to help people, and one of the many things they they do to do that is support abortion. It provides a great deal of help to women who do not want to be pregnant.

Please! The poor! Democrats act as if the only people seeking abortions are poor!
No, they do not. It is, however, a fact that the poor are always more severely affected by an restrictions on abortion. If abortion became illegal in my state, I can afford to fly to another state to procure one (for example, for my daughter). Or fly to another country. All options that would not be available to someone much less well off than I.

And churches have a lot of outreach to the poor, as do private charities. If the Democrats want to help the poor---they should work to lower taxes so people have more disposable income to donate to charities.
I'm sorry, but that's just laughable. It's a sort of perverse version of trickle-down economics. People with more disposable income don't donate it to charities - they buy more crap. The democrats want to help the poor and they know better than to rely on the good heart of everybody.

Why can't the woman bring the child to term and put the child up for adoption? Why is that so hard?
Are you serious? Have you ever had a child? Do you have the first idea of what it does to a person, physically, psychologically, emotionally, financially? And if (as I suspect - it seems to be the most popular demographic on here) you are a father of children, you might well say that you saw your wife go through it and it didn't seem that bad. To which I can only reply that you watched a woman go through a pregnancy to bear a wanted child, not one that she wanted no part of. And (I sincerely hope) you didn't see her go through the huge number of serious complications that can be hugely detrimental to the woman in both the short and life-long term. Women still die giving birth, even in this day and age. And (again, I sincerely hope) you didn't see her go through the pain of a pregnancy with no man in the picture, trying to work two minimum-wage jobs just to keep enough food in the fridge to remain healthy for as long as she could. You didn't see her go through a pregnancy at the age of sixteen, by herself, because her parents, enraged at her 'looseness' kicked her out of the house as soon as they found out.

The reasons why a woman cannot bear the child to term are as numerous, different and varied as the women ourselves, and until we go through a pregnancy and childbirth, neither you nor I have any basis to dismiss those reasons (I'm sorry, I just realised that I'm assuming you are male; as I look back on your posts you have nowhere said that you are. Obviously my assumption may well be incorrect. If it is, I apologise, I meant no insult by it).
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
See above. To the extent possible unwanted pregnancies are to be eradicated.
What is so hard about avoiding pregnancy in the first place through responsible sex?
That doesn't make the analogy fail. In both circumstances, an activity was performed that the participants knew could have an adverse consequence. They guarded against that adverse consequence to the best of their ability, but it happened anyway. The analogy is quite sound.
Pregnancy is NOT an "adverse consequence" of sex. That is what you do not seem to get. A Crash is a potential "adverse effect" of driving. Pregnancy is NOT a disease, sir. It is not an "adverse consequence." Pregnancy is what happens when people have sex---assuming nothing is defective or wrong with the body, or people are beyond childbearing age.
That's precisely what it is. Your moral beliefs say that abortion is wrong. My moral beliefs say that abortion is not wrong. Morality, like beauty, is completely subjective. You are entirely saying that because you think abortion is morally wrong, nobody should be able to have one.
No. I am saying that abortion is objectively wrong. THis is a fact. Those who support abortion do not understand this becasue they are blind or simply do not want to. It is analogous to the alcoholic who despite all evidence to the contrary insists they are not an alcoholic and they do not have a problem.
That's simply and obviously wrong. Moral beliefs and opinions are just that - opinions. They change over time among individuals, societies and societal bodies (like religions). Your stance on abortion is based entirely and completely on your personal moral opinion (which, in your case, is fueled by/founded upon, your religious belief).
Sir, again, WHEN in any of my posts did you see me argue that we need to outlaw abortion becasue 1) my god or gods say so, 2) my holy book says so, 3) my religion says so, 4) my religious leaders say so, 5) Matt Slick of CARM says so?

I am not so stupid as to try and argue like that--when I know I am arguing with people who may not be Christian or even theist. Please give me more credit than that!

What do you make of pro-life atheists? Abortion, like racism, is not solely a religious issue. True--Christians and Catholics are anti-abortion, and against racism--but one need not be religious to be anti-abortion, just like one need not be religious to be against racism.
There is no basis whatsoever to say that X is absolutely right or wrong and not subject to opinion. Every moral belief is subject to opinion because everybody can have a different opinion on it.
You confuse opinions with objectivity. Just becasue in one's opinion abortion is not morally wrong, facts do not care about feelings.

One may be of the opinion that the sky is black. The sky is blue. The sky is not black becasue someone with an opinion says so.
In many cases, some form of contraception went wrong.
If they work as an abortifacient, yes. HOWEVER, let's leave that discussion aside for now.
Yet again again, so what? Not being able to see is of the natural course. So is getting sick. We take steps against those. On the other hand, flying is not of the natural course. Nor is driving. Nor, for that matter, is typing on a computer. Whether something is of the "natural course" is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Sir, pregnancy is NOT a disease. When one gets pregnant, something did not go wrong.
Yup, they want to help people, and one of the many things they they do to do that is support abortion. It provides a great deal of help to women who do not want to be pregnant.
All it does is allow women to lie to themselves.
No, they do not. It is, however, a fact that the poor are always more severely affected by an restrictions on abortion. If abortion became illegal in my state, I can afford to fly to another state to procure one (for example, for my daughter). Or fly to another country. All options that would not be available to someone much less well off than I.
Well, sir, that is what self governance is. That is a consequence of the way America is set up. We are founded on the idea of self-governance. Thus, if, for example, the people of New York or CA love abortion, they can have it. On the other hand, if a majority of the people in Texas do not like abortion, they can restrict it or outlaw it. Self-governance is not going to make everyone happy.

There are options however. Use a condom. Condoms are not expensive. Or--the rich elites who support abortion can found a charity or charities where they give free birth control to the poor--and the rich elites can use THEIR MONEY rather than everyone else's to support their cause. Or Planned Parenthood can exist in states where abortion is banned and give out free birth control. If abortion is outlawed, it isn't like Planned Parenthood has to shut down you know. That just means they cannot provide abortions in states where abortion is illegal.
I'm sorry, but that's just laughable. It's a sort of perverse version of trickle-down economics. People with more disposable income don't donate it to charities - they buy more crap. The democrats want to help the poor and they know better than to rely on the good heart of everybody.
Spoken like a true liberal abortion supporting Democrat. "We cannot trust people to do the right thing." Ironically all the while insisting that "the right thing" is just a matter of opinion anyway.

Are you sure abortion supporters aren't just projecting? In other words---they insist on high taxes becasue THEY do not contribute to charities. They think by paying taxes they are doing their part and can assuage their guilty conscience?
Are you serious? Have you ever had a child? Do you have the first idea of what it does to a person, physically, psychologically, emotionally, financially?
What does that have to do with anything? Whether I have a child, children or not has no bearing on the question.
And if (as I suspect - it seems to be the most popular demographic on here) you are a father of children, you might well say that you saw your wife go through it and it didn't seem that bad. To which I can only reply that you watched a woman go through a pregnancy to bear a wanted child, not one that she wanted no part of. And (I sincerely hope) you didn't see her go through the huge number of serious complications that can be hugely detrimental to the woman in both the short and life-long term. Women still die giving birth, even in this day and age. And (again, I sincerely hope) you didn't see her go through the pain of a pregnancy with no man in the picture, trying to work two minimum-wage jobs just to keep enough food in the fridge to remain healthy for as long as she could. You didn't see her go through a pregnancy at the age of sixteen, by herself, because her parents, enraged at her 'looseness' kicked her out of the house as soon as they found out.
Single mothers are heros. They should be lauded for choosing life. As a Catholic, I stand for support of single mothers and I tell people that if they are pro-life, they cannot sit in judgement of single mothers. Pro-life Catholics are against sex outside of marriage, but as I have told people----once someone is pregnant, that isn't the time to scold them or judge them. They are with child--it is too little too late for the "Should have, could have, would have" Monday morning quarterbacking. The only question now is--how do we move forward in a positive way that respects life?

In the end, however, there is ALWAYS the option for adoption, sir. Abortion should not be necessary. That is what you continue not to grasp.
The reasons why a woman cannot bear the child to term are as numerous, different and varied as the women ourselves, and until we go through a pregnancy and childbirth, neither you nor I have any basis to dismiss those reasons (I'm sorry, I just realised that I'm assuming you are male; as I look back on your posts you have nowhere said that you are. Obviously my assumption may well be incorrect. If it is, I apologise, I meant no insult by it).
I am a male, but my gender has nothing to do with whether abortion is right or wrong.

Do I need to be the victim of racism to condemn it? Do I need to have had cancer to be against cancer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMS

Bob Carabbio

Well-known member
You know--I love you moral relativists. You want to argue that morality is all a matter of opinion---until it is your ox that gets gored.

In other words---the moral relativists will argue that values are subjective---until for example---someone steals from them or cheats them or does something to them. Then the same moral relativists behaves as if moral values are objective and will argue that what was done to them isn't right, fair or just.

Even the interactions of small children disprove relativism. You see, children, even before they are taught moral concepts will often appeal to some objective set of values when something happens, they do not like. "No fair!" they might say.

So, sir, you can take your moral relativist baloney and stick it. You know darn well there are objective moral values. Now, we may disagree on what those values are, but you know darn well they exist.
"Morality", and "Ethics" are human inventions, and based on NOTHING other than prevailing social mores du jour. A little study of United States History make that obvious. The Bible doesn't concern itself with such things, and concentrates on ABSOLUTES - i.e. SIN, and RIGHTEOUSNESS.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
It has everything to do with the strength of the Christian right. If I tell my local education authorities that my religion finds the idea that 2+2=4 to be morally objectionable, can I get my child exempted from mathematics? How about if my religion says that matter is not made up of atoms - can I get my child exempted from chemistry?
That is a question for a lawyer. I am not a lawyer. Suffice it to say, Christians do not object to math or chemistry. What they may object to, however, are when science teachers or math teachers jump to conclusions and then attempt to weigh in on philosophical or religious matters.
The answer to both is, of course, no. But if my religion was politically powerful, then we collectively might well be able to get changes made to school curricula and get exemptions for our children from being taught certain facts.
Actually--that is exactly what your side attempts to do. Both sides attempt to control the curriculum to reflect their belief systems.
When exempting children from learning objective facts is likely to lead to harm to them, there should be no ability for parents to exempt children from learning those facts. Such is the case with comprehensive sex education, among other subjects.
It isn't sex education persey--that one would object to. It is the implicit VALUES being taught that one might object to. If parents are trying to teach their children that sex is a sacred act between one man and one woman united in the covenant of marriage, you can understand why they would object to some government employee telling children to practice "safe sex" if they are going to shack up. That undermines the values parents are trying to teach their children.
This is a very old and tired point. The reason you "only ever" hear liberals complain about Christians is because America, where the bulk of online conversation of this kind originates, is predominantly a Christian society. It is Christianity that has led to the formation of many of our laws, not Islam. It is Christians who are agitating to change other laws, not Muslims. We don't protest against Islam because in our country, it's not Muslims who are trying to take away our freedoms and rights - it is Christians.
What laws are Christians trying to change? What freedoms are Christians attempting to take away?

There are atheists who are pro-life, sir.
Why should I have to pay for a family's school expenses? I'm not involved in their choices.
School "choice" meaning the right to choose your school and have the tax dollars go to that school. You talk about the poor. Why would you not want to empower them by helping them attend--elite schools only the rich can afford?
Society. We all pay for everything. That's how it works.
You just answered your question above.
That's exactly the point. The pro-life posters on this website aren't extremists. Yet their every post is full of insults and attacks rather than even attempts at rational argument or discussion. To claim, as you did, that it is the pro-life 'extremists' who are constantly "throwing around idiotic falsehoods like 'baby-killer' and talking of pro-lifers having no morals" is simply false.
Sir, abortion is baby killing. That is why pro-lifers object to it. Now, it is just that--I do not think it is terribly helpful to our cause to call abortion supporters "Baby killers." If you are trying to win someone over to your side, you should avoid insulting them like that.

But abortion supporters are just as guilty--calling pro-lifers misogynist, or otherwise making them look stupid and against women.

Part 2 later.
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
"Morality", and "Ethics" are human inventions, and based on NOTHING other than prevailing social mores du jour. A little study of United States History make that obvious. The Bible doesn't concern itself with such things, and concentrates on ABSOLUTES - i.e. SIN, and RIGHTEOUSNESS.
Sir, unless you support abortion, and I do not think you do, you do realize that on these boards we are on the same side? We are not enemies here. Here, we want the same thing: the conversion of abortion supporters.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
What is so hard about avoiding pregnancy in the first place through responsible sex?
Firstly, no amount of precautions can completely remove the chance of pregnancy. Secondly circumstances change, and a pregnancy that was initially welcomed, may later need to be aborted.

Pregnancy is NOT an "adverse consequence" of sex. That is what you do not seem to get. A Crash is a potential "adverse effect" of driving. Pregnancy is NOT a disease, sir. It is not an "adverse consequence." Pregnancy is what happens when people have sex---assuming nothing is defective or wrong with the body, or people are beyond childbearing age.
Wrong. If a couple seek to avoid pregnancy, but pregnancy happens, then something has gone wrong. Obesity is a natural consequence of eating. That doesn't make it something that should be welcomed, nor should efforts to remove it be discouraged on the grounds that it is natural. The vast majority of sexual encounters do not involve pregnancy, nor is pregnancy wanted or expected. For those for whom pregnancy is an unwelcome result of their sex, something has indeed gone wrong.

No. I am saying that abortion is objectively wrong. THis is a fact. Those who support abortion do not understand this becasue they are blind or simply do not want to. It is analogous to the alcoholic who despite all evidence to the contrary insists they are not an alcoholic and they do not have a problem.
Except that it is not a fact. You have shown no evidence that either objective morality exists at all or that abortion itself is immoral. All you have is your opinion.

Sir, again, WHEN in any of my posts did you see me argue that we need to outlaw abortion becasue 1) my god or gods say so, 2) my holy book says so, 3) my religion says so, 4) my religious leaders say so, 5) Matt Slick of CARM says so?
You argue that it is your opinion that it should be outlawed, and that your opinion is objective fact because your God says so.


What do you make of pro-life atheists? Abortion, like racism, is not solely a religious issue. True--Christians and Catholics are anti-abortion, and against racism--but one need not be religious to be anti-abortion, just like one need not be religious to be against racism.
There are individuals and churches that support the right to abortion. Ireland, an overwhelmingly Catholic country, recently voted overwhelmingly to liberalise its abortion laws. Your claim that "Christians and Catholics are anti-abortion," is demonstrably false. What you mean is that you are, and that you assume that your opinion should be binding over your fellow Catholics as well as society as a whole.

You confuse opinions with objectivity. Just becasue in one's opinion abortion is not morally wrong, facts do not care about feelings
.Just because, in your opinion, abortion is morally wrong does not alter the fact that morality is subjective and that others feelings on the matter differ. Facts do not care about your feelings either.

One may be of the opinion that the sky is black. The sky is blue. The sky is not black becasue someone with an opinion says so.
Of course not. It is black because it is night time. You are seeing the sky as blue because you are in a different time zone, and it is blue for you. That doesn't make it blue for everyone.

Sir, pregnancy is NOT a disease. When one gets pregnant, something did not go wrong.
This is obviously wrong. Breaking a leg playing rugby could be treated the same way. "If you do this to your bones, they will break nothing has gone wrong." For some, pregnancy is a more devastating consequence of sex than any STI could be. It is an unwelcome and damaging biological condition, that can be removed by medical means. It doesn't have to be formally labelled a disease for that to be the case. We are not ruled by our biology. If unwanted biological consequences occur from our actions, pregnancy, obesity, then removing those consequences are legitimate.
Single mothers are heros. They should be lauded for choosing life. As a Catholic, I stand for support of single mothers and I tell people that if they are pro-life.
Perhaps one of the reasons why the abortion referendum in Ireland went the way it did is because of the barbaric way that single mothers and their children were treated by the Catholic Church. Look up Magdalene Laundries if you are not aware of this.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Firstly, no amount of precautions can completely remove the chance of pregnancy. Secondly circumstances change, and a pregnancy that was initially welcomed, may later need to be aborted.
Correct, there is always a chance of conception which tells us what the purpose of it is.
Secondly, changing ones mind is abdicating responsibilty, especially if one knows the purpose.

You are wrong and out of touch with reality. As you said yourself no amount of precautions makes it 100% certain to avoid conception. Abstinence does of course.

Except that it is not a fact. You have shown no evidence that either objective morality exists at all or that abortion itself is immoral. All you have is your opinion.
Says the poster who cant even define what a woman is. :rolleyes:
 

romishpopishorganist

Well-known member
There are individuals and churches that support the right to abortion. Ireland, an overwhelmingly Catholic country, recently voted overwhelmingly to liberalise its abortion laws.
I know. That is disgusting. But, surely you realize that there is a world of difference between cultural Catholics and actual Catholics? Cultural Catholics are a dime a dozen. Joe Biden is the quintessential example cultural Catholic. Cultural Catholics have the external trappings of Catholicism, they go through the motions of Catholicism but they do not profess the Faith of Catholicism. They seem to believe that the mere trappings of Catholicism and going through the motions every week is what is going to save them. They do not understand that without Faith, those things are worthless. Faith is what saves: not Catholic trappings and the weekly motions of going to Mass or not eating meat in Friday in Lent.

And this is a different debate--but what the heck--as an aside--at this point I do not know who is worse: the Catholic bishops and Pope Francis for enabling these people, or the people themselves. In any case--actual Catholics are a far smaller group. These are the people who actually believe and profess the Faith of Catholicism.

In defense of the people of Ireland, however, the RCC sort of did bring that upon themselves with the sex abuse scandal. In other words--support of abortion is repudiation of the bishops---as they lost credibility with the people. That too is another debate.
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I know. That is disgusting. But, surely you realize that there is a world of difference between cultural Catholics and actual Catholics? Cultural Catholics are a dime a dozen. Joe Biden is the quintessential example cultural Catholic. Cultural Catholics have the external trappings of Catholicism, they go through the motions of Catholicism but they do not profess the Faith of Catholicism. They seem to believe that the mere trappings of Catholicism and going through the motions every week is what is going to save them. They do not understand that without Faith, those things are worthless. Faith is what saves: not Catholic trappings and the weekly motions of going to Mass or not eating meat in Friday in Lent.
You don't know what you are talking about. My soon to be daughter in law is a devout Irish Catholic, from a devout family, all of whom, without exception campaigned for the yes vote. I visit Ireland regularly. The Catholic Church has lost public confidence on this issue, not just because of the disgusting behaviour and abuses of the recent past, but also because of the death of Savita Halappanavar.

And this is a different debate--but what the heck--as an aside--at this point I do not know who is worse: the Catholic bishops and Pope Francis for enabling these people, or the people themselves. In any case--actual Catholics are a far smaller group. These are the people who actually believe and profess the Faith of Catholicism.
Ahh! The traditional No Troo Christian argument. Let me get this right. You don't claim to speak for all Christians, but any Christian who disagrees with you, isn't really a Christian. Is that how it goes?

In defense of the people of Ireland, however, the RCC sort of did bring that upon themselves with the sex abuse scandal. In other words--support of abortion is repudiation of the bishops---as they lost credibility with the people. That too is another debate.
It goes very much further than sex abuse. The Catholic Church in the South, mirroring the Presbyterians in the North, is out of touch with how the people actually think. Ireland is a young nation. They elected a popular openly gay man to lead them. They want equality for women and the whole gamut of sexuality and gender possibilities. Having perverted old white men with no legitimate sex life telling them how to live is no longer acceptable.
 

BMS

Well-known member
You don't know what you are talking about. My soon to be daughter in law is a devout Irish Catholic, from a devout family, all of whom, without exception campaigned for the yes vote. I visit Ireland regularly. The Catholic Church has lost public confidence on this issue, not just because of the disgusting behaviour and abuses of the recent past, but also because of the death of Savita Halappanavar.

Ahh! The traditional No Troo Christian argument. Let me get this right. You don't claim to speak for all Christians, but any Christian who disagrees with you, isn't really a Christian. Is that how it goes?

It goes very much further than sex abuse. The Catholic Church in the South, mirroring the Presbyterians in the North, is out of touch with how the people actually think. Ireland is a young nation. They elected a popular openly gay man to lead them. They want equality for women and the whole gamut of sexuality and gender possibilities. Having perverted old white men with no legitimate sex life telling them how to live is no longer acceptable.
Again, the truth is Jesus Christ, not this church or that church and their gender ideas
 

Temujin

Well-known member
I know. That is disgusting. But, surely you realize that there is a world of difference between cultural Catholics and actual Catholics? Cultural Catholics are a dime a dozen. Joe Biden is the quintessential example cultural Catholic. Cultural Catholics have the external trappings of Catholicism, they go through the motions of Catholicism but they do not profess the Faith of Catholicism. They seem to believe that the mere trappings of Catholicism and going through the motions every week is what is going to save them. They do not understand that without Faith, those things are worthless. Faith is what saves: not Catholic trappings and the weekly motions of going to Mass or not eating meat in Friday in Lent.

And this is a different debate--but what the heck--as an aside--at this point I do not know who is worse: the Catholic bishops and Pope Francis for enabling these people, or the people themselves. In any case--actual Catholics are a far smaller group. These are the people who actually believe and profess the Faith of Catholicism.

In defense of the people of Ireland, however, the RCC sort of did bring that upon themselves with the sex abuse scandal. In other words--support of abortion is repudiation of the bishops---as they lost credibility with the people. That too is another debate.
Incidentally, I do have some understanding of Catholicism in my own right. Unlikely as it seems, I taught Religious Education in a Catholic school in Cardiff for almost a year. I have a great deal of respect for both the faith itself and the clearly devout and committed teachers who led the school. I was always scrupulous in my teaching not to let my own lack of faith influence what was taught . As RE teacher, I was responsible for sex education, which in most schools is given by a biology teacher. Here too, I stuck to school policy on what I taught, but did answer pupils questions honestly. It was clear to me that this is one area in which schoolchildren are badly let down by Catholic schools. It isn't that they were given wrong information or even that they were told that such and such an act is sinful. They were just told nothing at all, particularly in the area of relationships, peer pressure, what is and is not consent etc. The assumption that no Catholic will have sex until they are married is just laughable, but that seems to be the basis of sex ed for Catholics.
 
Top