Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Apr 11, 2014.
pretty strong words. anyways, what do you guys think.
Perhaps it's a good thing he doesn't make laws then.
Killing someone is isn't it?
Pro-life is still a stance that doesn't get you fired, right?
He's welcome to have his own opinion.
Edit: I think many agree most, not all, of abortions are an abomination.
The Pope is a Head of State. Vatican City is its own sovereignty. Maybe if his holiness really has an issue with it, he'll tell his flock to vote GOP. That would be the death blow to the Democrats. It'll never happen but it would be a shocker.
I can see where this will be a uniquely interesting, original, and non-repititious discussion. I'm sure that the same folks will not repeat the same arguments issued ten thousand times before here on PRSI.
I can't wait for the new, fresh, original discussion to start.
Agreed. No one is wrong, this is differing opinions. Unlike the gay rights thing, there's no right or wrong, just a lot of disagreement.
Unlike other silly arguments, abortion is a very debatable topic, I feel. It really just depends on when you believe life is created, and there's no way to prove either way.
Not being Catholic, I don't care what the Pope thinks about this.
I think the catholic church is an anachronistic abomination that needs aborting.
The thing is that it's not just the life of the fetus that must be considered, but also that of the mother. For instance my own mother received an abortion after one of the two twins she was carrying died in the womb, making it quite dangerous to try and carry the other one to term.
Arguments can certainly be made about whether it is right to use abortion simply as a means of birth control, but bans and severe restrictions on the practice put woman's lives at risk!
plenty of Christians seem to feel that way. NOT calling/implying you are Christian, simply making an observation.
at conception is when life begins, VIABLE life is a completely different story, then again some claim life begins when the kids leave home
just guessing here, but I would dare say most people have no issues with abortion in the cases or rape/incest/medically necessary. as a means of BC most would say is disgusting.
Are sperm and eggs dead?
Most would say this is a disgusting view of women. How many women do you think would voluntarily opt to undergo incredible invasive and personal procedures instead of using other forms of cheaper, private, and readily available contraception?
I'll just point to my post in an earlier thread:
Here's an extract:
Considered as living cells of human origin, I see no discernible point at which I became alive. Before fertilization, the egg and sperm cells existed and were alive. Unless you want to argue that those cells were dead (not alive), but I don't think that's a viable argument.
Furthermore, this continuum stretches back through the conception events of my father and mother, their fathers and mothers, and so on. There is no point in the existence of my ancestors where I could realistically say there is a transition between "not alive" and "alive". There's just an unbroken stream of "aliveness" all the way back to whatever primeval thing first made the transition from "not alive" to "alive"; whether that was a deity operating on lifeless matter or just chemistry matters not.
Focusing around the "me", as in the question "When do I suppose I became alive?", I think requires a definition of what constitutes a person or self, especially an actual as distinct from a potential person or self.
I also think it's useful to consider a negated question, e.g. "When do I suppose there wasn't a me?". I think one of the essential characteristics of a self (sine qua non, Latin "without which not") is a working brain, i.e. a brain with neural activity.
Without a working brain, there can be no "self", and without a self there can be no person, no "me". Note that I'm not saying that a working brain is sufficient for self-hood, only a necessity. So my answer to that negated question would be that there was definitely no actual "me" before I had a working brain. There was still something alive that was a potential "me" before I had a brain, but potentiality isn't the same as actuality.
I think the distinction between potentiality and actuality is essential. Every sperm or egg cell has potentiality, and every such cell is also plainly "alive" (as distinct from "not alive" or "dead), but I can't see how it's sensible to call every such cell an actual person or an actual human being. Potentiality is what something can become, not what it is at a specific moment in time. So a fertilized egg, a blastula, an embryo, etc. are all potential persons under a "needs a working brain" requirement, but are not yet actual persons. I will also stipulate that each one of these potential persons is alive and of human origin.
In that thread, there were no replies that countered or disputed my post, nor provided an explanation of the opposing viewpoint. I was quite disappointed, because I really was hoping for a well-written reply that laid out the opposing viewpoint.
You clearly do not know very much about how the Catholic Church works, Catholics do not blindly follow what the Church tells them to do, nor do most of them really care what political statements the Church, or the Pope makes. They are also not " his flock ", Catholics do not worship nor do they really listen to what the Pope has to say.
Also, I doubt Francis would ever say that, considering most of the GOP talking points are in conflict with the GOP platform.
Lets also keep in mind that Catholics typically but not always vote Democrat by a slim margin
Just because the GOP is Pro Choice, and so is the Church, does not make the church in line with GOP talking points, because it isn't.
If he feels that way, the he should not have one.
Actually, it would be interesting, if not funny, if, for once, each one of us would take the other side of the discussion.
EASY for me to do, I can see the "need" for it as pointed out above & at the same time be against it if its just used as a measure of BC..
So if we accept this to be the case, what all wouldn't we be willing to do to prevent it? For example, sex education, birth control, and baby desirability*. If we knew a list of specific changes would cut the abortion rate by more than half, what is stopping us? And I don't know how effective illegality was but for the purposes of this question, lets say its not possible. What other options would we have and why wouldn't we want to implement all of them for such an important cause?
*not sure what to call this. Basically, change society around so anyone who found themselves pregnant would want to bring the baby to term. Reduce most of the consequences of being pregnant and giving birth and having children.
it is a shame to see many who are against abortion are also against sex Ed and BC. I don't get it, easiest way to stop abortion is getting people educated AND provide easy access to BC.
as a father of a girl (now 15) I did tell her that she can start having sex 5 years AFTER she gets married
so far there is not BF on the scene , hope she does not make a stupid mistake because she is in "love", at the same time I remember making plenty of mistakes because I was in "love".
They don't strictly show a majority of the biological traits of life, not taken by themselves.
The thing is, NO girl enjoys having an abortion. If you want to lower abortion rates, so it's not used a BC, spend money and time teaching real sex-ed, but it has to be a possibility, and an easy one at that.
never claimed they enjoyed an abortion. I do seriously doubt ALL abortions are due to rape/incest/or because they are medically necessary.
If men could get pregnant, how different might the arguments be, I wonder?
Them women might be against it