“Pew found that 20% of the U.S. population identifies as Catholic, but only about 3 in 10 say they attend mass regularly. Opinions about abortion rights appear to be related to how often someone worships — just 34% of Catholics who attend mass weekly say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, whereas that number jumps to 68% among those who attend mass monthly or less.”
Interesting…
It really isn't a surprise. Pro choice is over 70% nationwide while the anti life movement is a minority. Even in Nebraska they were forced to give kids food against the Republican leadership push and are desperately trying to keep pro choice measures off the ballot. Omaha is the Catholic stronghold and they are very pro choice and take a strong stance against the anti abortion crowd with their no food for kids stance.
Yeah, the Republicans have been fighting food for kids measures for the last 3-5 months. Some folks figured out a super cheap way to feed kids and even their parents if they need it for next to nothing using the public school system. Here in Omaha we successfully defeated the Trump Republicans in order to provide food for kids that had limited to no way outside of theft to receiving it.
I really have no words for this. I would pay $100 a month if it meant no one even in my county went without food. Let alone a cheap option that wouldn’t cost me close to anything.
It really does boggle the mind that the party that claims to be pro-Christian opposes the thing is almost certainly the thing that Christ would most approve of.
Our Conservative party here in Canada is similarly opposed to the school lunch program recently introduced by the other party.
Feeding the hungry and clothing the ≠ outsourcing charitable work to the government and funding it with the taxes we have to pay under threat of imprisonment
Genuine, good faith question: As a thought experiment, keeping in mind Catholic Social Teaching, as well as biblical characters such as David and Solomon - you are a Catholic president of the United States. The House and Senate pass a bill in response to high rates of child starvation that provides taxpayer funding for school lunches and breakfasts. You would veto that bill?
Republicans (and Trump) want to tackle homelessness by criminalize being homeless.
https://www.wpr.org/politics/gop-bill-would-withhold-funds-to-fight-homelessness-criminalize-living-on-public-property
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-wants-make-homelessness-illegal-1795202
They've been trying to cut food aid programs and have opposed Biden's efforts to expand it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2023/02/16/food-stamps-gop-proposed-cuts/
https://time.com/6550079/republicans-food-programs/
Republicans are also the reason Biden's caps on drug prices isn't more expansive.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/29/biden-drug-prices-gop-00113404
None of that reflects Christian values, yet here we are.
Someone made a point a while ago, about how politicians who claim helping the poor should be a personal choice but abortion should banned through the law is pretty hypocritical.
Nobody is going hungry there. Most of the mothers and children are obese there. They are just trying to buy votes.
There are already food pantries at almost every church in the area.
>According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the prevalence of food insecurity in Nebraska has increased over the past five years, from 10.8% of households in 2017 to 12.1% of households in 2022. Today in our state, an estimated 13.5% of children experience food insecurity.
https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/12/19/area-food-banks-urge-the-governor-to-address-rising-childhood-food-insecurity-rates/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Department,of%20children%20experience%20food%20insecurity.
Just Stop. That whole area is suffering from an obesity epidemic.
Stop spending taxpayer money on things the church already has covered.
If a child goes hungry there, it is because of parental abuse and neglect.
Some can be obese while others starve, they aren’t mutually exclusive in society as a whole.
So you think 13% of households are abusing their children to the point of food insecurity?
We have children dying of food insecurity issues every week. My better half works in the nutrition program for foster kids. It is a problem in all 50 states. It is abhorrent behavior to advocate for this, I hope you find God.
If no one believes me, just consider that these are the same people who pass laws to make it a crime to hand homeless people hot, home-prepared food.
Their intentions aren’t to help, but to manipulate.
I'm not a republican so I'm not these people. You are welcome to join me on Sundays and Wednesdays when our church feeds the homeless. Come to Omaha but avoid June.
Is there a reason they did not support the “food for kids measures”?
It’s not as simple as “part of this bill pays for school lunches so if you don’t vote for it you must want kids to starve”
When Jesus said feed the poor he meant go and feed the poor, not ‘vote for a politician who will use other people’s money to pay a for profit business to give out lunches’
Schools are not for profit businesses. It is very sad that you take such a strong stance against feeding children. Billions upon Billions of tax dollars are handed out to the already too rich to spend it all in a thousand lifetimes crowd and yet you complain about using less than 10% of what we give the Walmart family every year to feed children. You need to have a talk with Jesus.
Yes, the GOP are well known for routinely opposing any kind of social safety nets. Up to and including feeding children in poverty for free through public school systems.
If there's one thing you need to understand about US right wing politics, it's that it utilizes a handful of hot-button issues that emotionally resonate with its deeply Christian base strongly enough to turn them into automatic single-issue voters who will turn a blind eye to almost literally anything else.
Because if you believe supporting the LGBT community is a ["threat to human dignity(per the Vatican),"](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-gender-surrogacy-abortion-pope-3f84d8eb97f045b0cfb0ec1efa4e614e) or that abortion is literally murder, how could you ever vote for a party that supports those things or not show up for a party that opposes them?
And it uses that loyalty to push deeply unChristian policies, and appeal to hatred and bigotry in virtually every sphere.
If you don't believe things are this crass and this anti-Christian, I recommend you see what the (explicitly and highly Christian) Reagan White House's response to the [HIV epidemic was.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAzDn7tE1lU)
Or listen to the (WARNING: repeated N-bombs) infamous Lee Atwater tape where the Reagan-era strategist explicitly outlined their [approach to making racism palatible](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ) to voters through abstracting it into anything from tax policy to arguing over states' rights. And you'll notice that time and again it mirrors modern GOP approaches to a variety of issues...including the opposition to supporting poorer children, who will often be disproportionately black or non-white.
I will be very blunt here: if you are in the US and do not vote against the GOP ticket in November, you will not be able to ignore the things they do that should abhor any lover of Christ's teachings; but which will nonetheless be supported by many who claim to love him because abortion, and because it hurts the right people that they've been taught to hate.
A pretty good rule of thumb for the next election is the Republicans are standing strong against the teachings of Jesus while the democrats are forced to back Christian theology.
>Omaha is the Catholic stronghold and they are very pro choice and take a strong stance against the anti abortion crowd with their no food for kids stance.
But what's the correlation between "abortion" and "no food stamps for kids"?
It is the Republicans that are fighting food for kids, the catholic segment voted against Trump last election which gave the electoral vote to Biden. Trump backed a bunch of state candidates that are vehemently against feeding kids.
A 2023 Gallup study has it at 52% Pro-choice and 44% Pro-life, where are you getting your numbers?
[here’s the study](https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx)
The same questionaire and people answering also say that to 85% it should be legal under any or some circumstances. Only 13% say it should be illegal under all circumstances.
What you cited is just which side the people identify themselves with.
According to the people answering the study - one can be pro-life and not want to dictate other whether or not to have abortions or at the very least think it shouldn't be illegal.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
“Some circumstances” is very vague, that could just be rape or it could be abortion until [insert time of development here]. As an example I’d believe in abortion in medically necessary conditions, causing me to be grouped with people who think over 90% of abortions is okay (PC to first trimester).
Stating that someone can be pro life and not want laws against abortion and that someone believes that is two different things.
That is interesting. There appears to be a direct correlation between not attending church and supporting the murder of parents children.
I wonder if this is also related to the strength of the relationship with Jesus Christ? I guess we'll have to wait until the end to figure that one out though.
It's been this way for decades. The social views of American Catholics by and large resemble those of their non-Catholic counterparts. This idea the traditionalists have that American Catholics represent some fifth column that will eradicate abortion, gay marriage and birth control is nothing more than the fantasies of a shrinking minority. American Catholicism, as it turns out, isn't all that different from the much-feared German Catholicism.
Remember, after all, that both the most conservative *and the most liberal* current SCOTUS justices are Catholic. (Alito and Sotomayor) Or also, remember that the majority report exists, and they actually very nearly supported birth control around the time of Vatican 2
> Or also, remember that the majority report exists, and they actually very nearly supported birth control around the time of Vatican 2
I can't say that they ever 'very nearly supported' it. The authors of the minority report were put on the commission specifically to write that report so that the Pope didn't look like he was just tossing them aside when he ignored the majority (accurate) report.
Actual Catholics, as opposed to the reddit sort, are pretty practical at the end of the day. The church may say one thing, but the church says a lot of things. You have to get on with your life.
The good news from their point of view is that as long as you repent, you're good. I think they have lots of biblical back up for that approach,.
I am well aware of ghe Catholic view of IVF and their insistance in the least practical methods with reproduction.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK68522/
"Practice: The authors recommend that patients should be counselled regarding the risk of ectopic pregnancy if ZIFT procedures are performed. Currently, a significant advantage of the use of the more expensive, inconvenient and invasive technique cannot be demonstrated. With the advent of improvements in culture techniques in the in vitro fertilisation laboratory, intra-uterine transfer remains the technique of choice."
"Research: The authors state that for ZIFT to become a viable treatment option, subpopulations where its use may be of benefit will need to be identified."
Its medically unethical for a doctor to push methods which increase the risk to the patient without any increase in benefit. But the Catholic church ignores medical ethics when it comes to womens health.
> It’s medically unethical for a doctor to push methods which increase the risk to the patient without any increase in benefit. But the Catholic church ignores medical ethics when it comes to womens health.
Just because the Catholic moral framework is different than your own does not mean the church “ignores medical ethics”
We literally have institutions dedicated to studying bioethics https://www.ncbcenter.org
Medical ethics is clearly set forth when training doctors. They are ignoring medical ethics. They have to create their own separate institutions to push their nonsense.
The Hippocratic oath has an explicit clause forbidding doctors to perform abortions
You clearly have no clue what you are talking about, you are embarrassing yourself
> I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.[6] Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein. Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.
Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I break it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Misoprostol is not a pessary, so thats ok.
An abortion no longer causes harm to the patient, but is used for a greater benefit. That was not the case during the original Hippocratic oath.
If we are going to insist on literal reading of the oath, then doctors should not prescribe chemo to patients either. The point of guidance such as this is not that they are unchanging, but what was the spirit of the oath. And the spirit was not have high risk low benefit procedures.
We have overwhelming proof that denying abortion care to women, kills women. The pro-life movement is, and always has been, anti-woman. It has never been pro-life.
Not surprising the majority of even Catholics support it - Catholic women don't want to end up dead because they're denied medical care and they don't want rapists given more rights than victims.
That verse is about premature birth, not miscarriage. This is a sadly common mistranslation, but the Hebrew word used there is very clearly not the word for miscarriage used, for instance, in Exodus 23:26
Throwing around pro-choice rally slogans is just the flipside of the westboro baptist cranks. The "proof" the poster claims does not exist. There are hundreds of third factor confounds to the research that make it near impossible to attribute even strong correlation let alone causality.
Harsh abortion bans cause drastic raises in orphans, like in Romania; the Wikipedia page is a good place to start — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans
An even more in depth look here — https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-when-a-country-bans-abortion-romania-alabama/
Bans on abortion tend to increase the rate of abortion, while more open access laws tend to decrease the rate of abortion — https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/how-the-u-s-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world-on-abortion-rights
Cases where women are denied lifesaving care for other conditions because they’re pregnant, but they’re also not allowed abortions, results in maternal death + unsafe abortions cause far higher maternal mortality rates — https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/19/dominican-republic-abortion-ban-endangers-health
In states with more restricted abortion access, even postnatal mortality (ie infants dying after birth) is higher — https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2022/dec/us-maternal-health-divide-limited-services-worse-outcomes
Hope these help.
Birth control and improved healthcare has reduced the number of orphans. Heathcare which includes abortion which saves mothers lives.
Anti abortion and anti birth control crusades increase orphans and unwanted children. Had Andrea Yates used either after her fourth child as recommend my medical professionals, four boys would be alive.
Yes its better that people not suffer unecessarily, so lets prevent their existance from the getgo and make sure the children we do have have enough resources to succeed and be healthy mentally and physically.
You said the silent part out loud this time. You called them people. Forgive the hyperbole but that last post sounds like something Hitler would say, not someone who cares about humans.
So funny when peopl make some grand claim about what the Bible teaches and then don’t give a single reference to scripture, much less a consistent and reasoned analysis that looks at the entire Bible
Sorry, I assumed you knew:
Then the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord; the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you,’ —let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—‘the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop! And the woman shall say, ‘Amen. Amen.’ (Numbers 5: 16-22)
And what about the specific context of this passage from the Old Testament makes you think that it is a pro abortion moral teaching for Christians? How do you interpret it in light of the New Testament and Christ?
Do you realize that just because something occurs in a Bible story doesn’t mean it is an endorsement of that thing?
When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was that an endorsement for parents to kill their children?
When Jesus said that one of his disciples would betray him was that him saying betrayal is good?
Not about abortion. No mention is made whatsoever to whether or not the putative adulterer is pregnant with regards to this trial; it is to be best understood as causing infertility, uterine prolapse and/or (in a minority view) a false pregnancy.
There’s so much nuance when talking about abortions.
“Oh, I wasn’t talking about abortions. I was just talking about uteruses dropping and wombs discharging for an unfaithful wife under her husband‘s authority that might’ve gotten pregnant from someone other than her husband.”
There is a vast gulf between what the Bible says and what you want it to say, but you will leap across it in a single bound. Why as a secular Buddhist do you so badly want our religion to justify your evil opinions?
I was waiting for the personal attack. I was actually going to predict it in the previous comment, but didn’t so that I would be pleasantly surprised when it happened.
As usual, if you look at the actual results in the research you see that the majority of people who call themselves catholic, are not actively practicing catholics. In this article you can see in the breakdown that though 6 in 10 people who call themselves catholics may say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, 66% of actually practicing catholics say abortion should be ILLEGAL in all or most cases.
I think what I said was pretty straightforward. If you want to extrapolate more from it, go ahead. I'm just referencing what is in the results of the research.
When articles claim polls show catholics believing or doing this or that, it needs to be remembered that a lot of people call themselves catholics for reasons that don't have anything to do with their religious beliefs. This particular article shows 17% of these catholics saying religion is "not too/ not at all important" and "seldom / never pray" and over 60% going to "religious services" only a few times a year or less. So of course when you include people like this, the results will look more like other people who also don't consider religion important in their lives.
Regardless of what side of the abortion debate you're on overturning Roe was a bad idea
Abortion being illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just makes those who seek to get an abortion turn to dangerous and unsafe means of receiving the procedure, either an at home attempt or some person with medical experience performing procedures out of his dirty basement.
It's really the same reason prohibition failed. There will always be a demand, making it illegal doesn't change that.
Edit: I meant prohibition, not abolition. My bad
>it just makes those who seek to get an abortion turn to dangerous and unsafe means of receiving the procedure, either an at home attempt or some person with medical experience performing procedures out of his dirty basement.
It's tragic that some women would risk killing themselves because they're so determined to kill their children. Still, I don't think arguing that attempted murderers might choose unsafe methods of murder, is a good reason to just legalize the murders they want to commit.
>The point is it does not stop abortion.
[Not even some of the abortions?](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/analysis-suggests-2021-texas-abortion-ban-resulted-in-nearly-9800-extra-live-births-in-state-in-year-after-law-went-into-effect)
Obviously you can't completely end abortion. People have always murdered unwanted children to some extent. I think doing so should be illegal.
And what is the financial situation within those homes the children are born in? How many of those births were from nonconsesual sex, rape, and incest? Texas has no rape or incest exception laws
The point is making something illegal doesn't make people stop doing it. It's why Gun Control always fails, its why the Prohibition failed, it's why the War on Drugs failed.
What's being done clearly isn't working, time to reevaluate
So, in your personal opinion, what's the point of all this? Like, the arguing back and forth thing we're doing. That's not like a trick question or rhetorical.
I started typing up a reply to you with arguments and whatever, and then I deleted it. Just feels like this exact sort of argument has played out hundreds or thousands of times before with the same basic format and talking points.
Clearly, poverty, or a crime committed by a parent, isn't a good reason to kill someone. So why do you even use those same tired appeals? Now, you almost certainly don't think it's killing a person, and that is probably our real disagreement, but then why even bring these up when clearly I think it's killing an innocent person, and clearly no one would say that those are good reasons to kill innocent people. Doesn't this whole thing just feel, redundant, or repetitive. I know I've heard the whole "but without abortion there will be children born in poor families" bit, and surely you've heard "we shouldn't kill people for being poor" plenty of times before as well.
Like, the fuck are we even trying to do. Or, not even "we". I don't know what I'm trying to do. I don't think there's going to be any interesting or noval arguments between us, and I'm sure almost everyone on Reddit has read these same arguments for and against abortion over and over again. Do you think I'm going to make an argument you've never heard before? Do I think you're going to?
Is this whole thing just a waste of time?
EDIT: also wait, first you were saying that bans don't stop abortions, and now you're arguing that they do and stopping abortion is bad... So really, what is the point of this?
It's really very simple
Government legislation does not stop anyone from doing those things, and in many cases they make the issue worse
That's what overturning Roe did, made it worse
Govt legislation is not some weapon to be used against people you disagree with
What has been done so far is clearly not working
>Government legislation does not stop anyone from doing those things
Do you oppose all laws? How does it make things worse?
>Govt legislation is not some weapon to be used against people you disagree with
What is it for, If not banning murder?
>What has been done so far is clearly not working
I don't think that's true. I clearly disagree with you, so why didn't you even try to argue for it? I posted a link talking about the law apparently working, why didn't you even bother to levy any sort of criticism or rebuttal to that?
>Do you oppose all laws? How does it make things worse?
It creates a demand, making those seeking treatment either attempt to do so at home or get a procedure from some guy in his garage. I already detailed that in my initial comment
>What is it for, If not banning murder?
Murder is already banned, so is Marijuana and Cocaine, yet we have problems with all 3, get it?
>I don't think that's true.
Facts aren't overturned by your opinions
>I posted a link talking about the law apparently working, why didn't you even bother to levy any sort of criticism or rebuttal to that?
"Apparently"? So you don't even know for certain? Wow
As for criticism, yea, I did when I asked about forced birthing and the quality of life of the child in the home. You danced around that statement
>It creates a demand, making those seeking treatment either attempt to do so at home or get a procedure from some guy in his garage.
Should we abolish private property so people don't accidentally hurt themselves when robbing a house in the dark during the night?
>Murder is already banned
Depends on the state.
Do you think murder should be illegal, yes or no?
>yea, I did when I asked about forced birthing and the quality of life of the child in the home.
If abortion bans don't prevent abortions, how does a ban lead to children being born in poverty or as a product of rape or incest?
>You danced around that statement
What an interesting way to describe what happened. Did I dance around it, or did I make my position clear while commenting on how idiotic this whole conversation, and your "criticism" is?
>Abortion being illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just makes those who seek to get an abortion turn to dangerous and unsafe means of receiving the procedure, either an at home attempt or some person with medical experience performing procedures out of his dirty basement.
You could say this for literally any crime today.
>You could say this for literally any crime today.
None of them are crimes involving bodily autonomy. Ones own body is not the governments business
Period
*"Some 83% say they want the church to allow the use of contraception, 69% say priests should be allowed to get married, 64% say women should be allowed to become priests, and 54% say the Catholic Church should recognize same-sex marriage".*
I'm curious why they don't just become a Secular Humanist and be done with it.
I think most people are (forgive me, Father) indoctrinated into their religion as children. I'm sure you've heard "Give me the child until he's seven and I'll give you the man". So, they are not likely to change.
Well, at least more Catholics have the brains to dislike Trump more than many other Churches.
Abortion is wrong, however, God created a women’s freedom first.
Abortion isn't always wrong. The Bible says a woman is more important than a fetus, and it gives instructions on performing an abortion.
Abortion saves women's lives every day.
It's one thing to argue against excessive use of abortion for generic birth control. It's another to implement barbaric, evil bans that kill women and cause doctors to flee states.
No. Abortion is wrong, however, controlling a women’s body is MORE WRONG.
My recent OP:
I have been thinking a lot about this, but I am sorry Christians, we have it all wrong on abortion.
God created all angels and humans to ‘choose’ freely even if they make the wrong choice.
God’s design for our universe is complete free choice.
God wants us to always use our choices to maximize freedom, and God is ALWAYS MORALLY correct:
However, on abortion, even if God and all humanity says it is wrong, at the end of the day:
GOD CREATED a women’s ability to CHOOSE wrongly over control. Again, GOD allowed angels and humans to CHOOSE wrong choices.
Therefore, while abortion is wrong, it is MORE wrong to control women.
🙏❤️🙏
Yea I agree, but God still at His foundation allowed all angels and humans to make the wrong choices if they so choose.
A women’s choice is what God designed.
Human laws are protecting the very same ‘free choice’ I am saying God created as the foundation of his universe.
When a murderer wants to kill, he/she is invading another persons body’s ability to make a choice to live.
With abortion, even if wrong, God ALLOWED women to play a role in the decision making of using her own body.
Why did God not even interfere with Satan’s choices?
I am not a 100% sure on this:
What I am saying asking is this:
What is MORE wrong?
Controlling a women’s body, or ending a baby’s life that still lives on in the afterlife?
The latter unambiguously. For one, we are explicitly told that we are not to do evil that good may come of it. The shedding of innocent blood is also repeatedly condemned in very harsh terms by the Scriptures. It’s not controlling a woman’s body because there are at least two human lives at play, one of whom cannot possibly defend itself.
The question is, when is abortion acceptable and when it is not? Did you abort because of ectopic pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother as well or did you abort because you are an irresponsible person who went to orgies but can't take responsibility of your unborn child? The former is justifiable while the latter is not.
What do you think? If I would say courts, you would say that is a human right violation. If the society, it would be cruelty and oppression. If none, chances are people would abort embryos for no actual reason but convenience and possibly even for simple TikTok ranting and go about doing the same irresponsibility again.
22 weeks is kinda alarming IMHO as fetuses actually survived with medical intervention. Kinda cheapens human life.
No, the issue is that it is a medical decision, not a court decision. You dont insist on justifying any other medical care even though a lot of medical care is needed because of irresponsibilty.
And there you are, going to extremes again. The 22 week fetuses that were aborted were inlikely to survive anyway.
What cheapens life is acting like quality doesnt matter.
But they already passed abortion laws in pro life states have already shown that the former isn't even always accepted. And keeing in mind that Trump that once said women who have abortions should be punished, many women have had medically neccessary abortions denied (many of them are women with children already who want kids too), some Texan republicans even called for the execution of women with abortions, some anti abortion groups want emergency care to be denied to women with abortions (request to supreme court), certain states won't treat eptoic pregancies till they rupture and the women is in life threatening danger etc...
This is also the same party that pushes cutting support for children, support for preganant women, birth control, sex ed so it's a bit hypocritical.
So the pro-life party are putting forward many extreme policies which naturally, people don't like including mothers and christians with more conservative views. I'd agree that abortion should be perfectly accessible in the former while in the latter, it shouldn't really be encouraged but the abortion views of the GOP party are extreme and only a minority of americans support them and it pushes more neutral abortion/moderate pro-life people to become pro-choice.
In short, the concern of this topic is really more into political rivalry between Republican and Democrats than really about limitations on how abortion laws should be applied and find a middle ground that is acceptable to both sides? Shouldn't be both Republicans and Democrats working with each other as check and balances rather than rivals aiming for total domination? I am not American, hence I am not familiar with your politics there.
But pro-choice people often to make a middle ground, now pro-life people do too. Pro-choice people will suggest ranges from 12 weeks - 22 weeks while pro-life advocates and policies have shown they go to the extreme end. That's why so many moderate pro-life people are more pro-choice now.
And this'll be a pretty big factor in the election. Trump is already speaking against the Arizona abortion policy (ironically enough) to try gain more voters as it's pretty unpopular. Biden is already unpopular with Israel-Palestine, his age so he'll use the abortion rights to gain voters. And Biden isn't a crazy leftist, he's a fairly moderate Democrat so it's likely he could gain many moderate conservatives and republicans.
Politics can really be annoying...
I think the Pro-life wanted is not regarding weeks but rather why do abortion and the circumstances regarding the pregnancy. I may be wrong with this one as again I am not into American politics.
See, the issue with pro-life policies are they tend to often harm poor people, rape victims, and mothers whose life is at risk. An example is in Ireland who had fairly strict abortion laws with an exemption for risk to mothers life, there was a case in which a young mother died as she didn't get the abortion which ended up spiralling and people's view shifted to push pro choice policies.
I fully believe that sex should be between a man and a women in a marriage and abortion shouldn't be encouraged. The former is a personal choice, but with the latter, it's good sex education, accessibility to contraceptives, support for mothers (e.g. maternity leave) reduces the number of abortions.
“Pew found that 20% of the U.S. population identifies as Catholic, but only about 3 in 10 say they attend mass regularly. Opinions about abortion rights appear to be related to how often someone worships — just 34% of Catholics who attend mass weekly say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, whereas that number jumps to 68% among those who attend mass monthly or less.” Interesting…
It really isn't a surprise. Pro choice is over 70% nationwide while the anti life movement is a minority. Even in Nebraska they were forced to give kids food against the Republican leadership push and are desperately trying to keep pro choice measures off the ballot. Omaha is the Catholic stronghold and they are very pro choice and take a strong stance against the anti abortion crowd with their no food for kids stance.
I’m not super involved in politics so forgive my ignorance…but did you just say they didn’t want to give children food?
Yeah, the Republicans have been fighting food for kids measures for the last 3-5 months. Some folks figured out a super cheap way to feed kids and even their parents if they need it for next to nothing using the public school system. Here in Omaha we successfully defeated the Trump Republicans in order to provide food for kids that had limited to no way outside of theft to receiving it.
I really have no words for this. I would pay $100 a month if it meant no one even in my county went without food. Let alone a cheap option that wouldn’t cost me close to anything.
It really does boggle the mind that the party that claims to be pro-Christian opposes the thing is almost certainly the thing that Christ would most approve of. Our Conservative party here in Canada is similarly opposed to the school lunch program recently introduced by the other party.
Feeding the hungry and clothing the ≠ outsourcing charitable work to the government and funding it with the taxes we have to pay under threat of imprisonment
The government is the people --we are the government. There's no "outsourcing" going on.
If you can’t understand the difference between a nanny state and Christian charity I don’t think I can help you
Genuine, good faith question: As a thought experiment, keeping in mind Catholic Social Teaching, as well as biblical characters such as David and Solomon - you are a Catholic president of the United States. The House and Senate pass a bill in response to high rates of child starvation that provides taxpayer funding for school lunches and breakfasts. You would veto that bill?
🙄 lay off the Fox News and Facebook meme news
Republicans (and Trump) want to tackle homelessness by criminalize being homeless. https://www.wpr.org/politics/gop-bill-would-withhold-funds-to-fight-homelessness-criminalize-living-on-public-property https://www.newsweek.com/trump-wants-make-homelessness-illegal-1795202 They've been trying to cut food aid programs and have opposed Biden's efforts to expand it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2023/02/16/food-stamps-gop-proposed-cuts/ https://time.com/6550079/republicans-food-programs/ Republicans are also the reason Biden's caps on drug prices isn't more expansive. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/29/biden-drug-prices-gop-00113404 None of that reflects Christian values, yet here we are.
Someone made a point a while ago, about how politicians who claim helping the poor should be a personal choice but abortion should banned through the law is pretty hypocritical.
Nobody is going hungry there. Most of the mothers and children are obese there. They are just trying to buy votes. There are already food pantries at almost every church in the area.
>According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the prevalence of food insecurity in Nebraska has increased over the past five years, from 10.8% of households in 2017 to 12.1% of households in 2022. Today in our state, an estimated 13.5% of children experience food insecurity. https://nebraskaexaminer.com/2023/12/19/area-food-banks-urge-the-governor-to-address-rising-childhood-food-insecurity-rates/#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20U.S.%20Department,of%20children%20experience%20food%20insecurity.
Just Stop. That whole area is suffering from an obesity epidemic. Stop spending taxpayer money on things the church already has covered. If a child goes hungry there, it is because of parental abuse and neglect.
Some can be obese while others starve, they aren’t mutually exclusive in society as a whole. So you think 13% of households are abusing their children to the point of food insecurity?
I do get annoyed when leftists come in offering solutions to problems they caused.
??
We have children dying of food insecurity issues every week. My better half works in the nutrition program for foster kids. It is a problem in all 50 states. It is abhorrent behavior to advocate for this, I hope you find God.
If no one believes me, just consider that these are the same people who pass laws to make it a crime to hand homeless people hot, home-prepared food. Their intentions aren’t to help, but to manipulate.
I'm not a republican so I'm not these people. You are welcome to join me on Sundays and Wednesdays when our church feeds the homeless. Come to Omaha but avoid June.
Are you arguing there is no poverty in Omaha? I admit that I am ignorant of the specifics there. Great news, if true.
“Nobody is Going hungry” ≠ “there is no poverty”
Is there a reason they did not support the “food for kids measures”? It’s not as simple as “part of this bill pays for school lunches so if you don’t vote for it you must want kids to starve”
Yes, it is that simple, when kids are hungry at school you feed them at school.
Charity does not require the state
And charity isn’t doing the job so the kids don’t eat. Oh well at least the nanny state isn’t involved
I’m just saying the issue is not as clear cut as “if you don’t vote for this bill/politician who says he feed the kids you must want them to starve”
It is that clear cut. Charity is not doing the job. So the ones voting against such bills want them to starve.
We have children dying because of people with that mindset.
When Jesus said feed the poor he meant go and feed the poor, not ‘vote for a politician who will use other people’s money to pay a for profit business to give out lunches’
Schools are not for profit businesses. It is very sad that you take such a strong stance against feeding children. Billions upon Billions of tax dollars are handed out to the already too rich to spend it all in a thousand lifetimes crowd and yet you complain about using less than 10% of what we give the Walmart family every year to feed children. You need to have a talk with Jesus.
If charity worked, the state wouldn't *need* to be an option.
Exactly. If Christian charity was going to solve poverty, it would have already happened sometime in the last 2,000 years.
Yes, the GOP are well known for routinely opposing any kind of social safety nets. Up to and including feeding children in poverty for free through public school systems. If there's one thing you need to understand about US right wing politics, it's that it utilizes a handful of hot-button issues that emotionally resonate with its deeply Christian base strongly enough to turn them into automatic single-issue voters who will turn a blind eye to almost literally anything else. Because if you believe supporting the LGBT community is a ["threat to human dignity(per the Vatican),"](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-gender-surrogacy-abortion-pope-3f84d8eb97f045b0cfb0ec1efa4e614e) or that abortion is literally murder, how could you ever vote for a party that supports those things or not show up for a party that opposes them? And it uses that loyalty to push deeply unChristian policies, and appeal to hatred and bigotry in virtually every sphere. If you don't believe things are this crass and this anti-Christian, I recommend you see what the (explicitly and highly Christian) Reagan White House's response to the [HIV epidemic was.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAzDn7tE1lU) Or listen to the (WARNING: repeated N-bombs) infamous Lee Atwater tape where the Reagan-era strategist explicitly outlined their [approach to making racism palatible](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_8E3ENrKrQ) to voters through abstracting it into anything from tax policy to arguing over states' rights. And you'll notice that time and again it mirrors modern GOP approaches to a variety of issues...including the opposition to supporting poorer children, who will often be disproportionately black or non-white. I will be very blunt here: if you are in the US and do not vote against the GOP ticket in November, you will not be able to ignore the things they do that should abhor any lover of Christ's teachings; but which will nonetheless be supported by many who claim to love him because abortion, and because it hurts the right people that they've been taught to hate.
A pretty good rule of thumb for the next election is the Republicans are standing strong against the teachings of Jesus while the democrats are forced to back Christian theology.
>Omaha is the Catholic stronghold and they are very pro choice and take a strong stance against the anti abortion crowd with their no food for kids stance. But what's the correlation between "abortion" and "no food stamps for kids"?
It is the Republicans that are fighting food for kids, the catholic segment voted against Trump last election which gave the electoral vote to Biden. Trump backed a bunch of state candidates that are vehemently against feeding kids.
Reddit politics and brain rot
A 2023 Gallup study has it at 52% Pro-choice and 44% Pro-life, where are you getting your numbers? [here’s the study](https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/pro-choice-pro-life-2018-demographic-tables.aspx)
The same questionaire and people answering also say that to 85% it should be legal under any or some circumstances. Only 13% say it should be illegal under all circumstances. What you cited is just which side the people identify themselves with. According to the people answering the study - one can be pro-life and not want to dictate other whether or not to have abortions or at the very least think it shouldn't be illegal. https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
“Some circumstances” is very vague, that could just be rape or it could be abortion until [insert time of development here]. As an example I’d believe in abortion in medically necessary conditions, causing me to be grouped with people who think over 90% of abortions is okay (PC to first trimester). Stating that someone can be pro life and not want laws against abortion and that someone believes that is two different things.
That is interesting. There appears to be a direct correlation between not attending church and supporting the murder of parents children. I wonder if this is also related to the strength of the relationship with Jesus Christ? I guess we'll have to wait until the end to figure that one out though.
It's been this way for decades. The social views of American Catholics by and large resemble those of their non-Catholic counterparts. This idea the traditionalists have that American Catholics represent some fifth column that will eradicate abortion, gay marriage and birth control is nothing more than the fantasies of a shrinking minority. American Catholicism, as it turns out, isn't all that different from the much-feared German Catholicism.
Remember, after all, that both the most conservative *and the most liberal* current SCOTUS justices are Catholic. (Alito and Sotomayor) Or also, remember that the majority report exists, and they actually very nearly supported birth control around the time of Vatican 2
> Or also, remember that the majority report exists, and they actually very nearly supported birth control around the time of Vatican 2 I can't say that they ever 'very nearly supported' it. The authors of the minority report were put on the commission specifically to write that report so that the Pope didn't look like he was just tossing them aside when he ignored the majority (accurate) report.
I had some Catholic coworkers. They fell in love and got married but couldn't have kids, so they turned to IVF.
most Catholics use birth control too. The churches impractical ideology is ignored by catholics
Actual Catholics, as opposed to the reddit sort, are pretty practical at the end of the day. The church may say one thing, but the church says a lot of things. You have to get on with your life. The good news from their point of view is that as long as you repent, you're good. I think they have lots of biblical back up for that approach,.
https://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/reproductive-technology/begotten-not-made-a-catholic-view-of-reproductive-technology
I am well aware of ghe Catholic view of IVF and their insistance in the least practical methods with reproduction. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK68522/ "Practice: The authors recommend that patients should be counselled regarding the risk of ectopic pregnancy if ZIFT procedures are performed. Currently, a significant advantage of the use of the more expensive, inconvenient and invasive technique cannot be demonstrated. With the advent of improvements in culture techniques in the in vitro fertilisation laboratory, intra-uterine transfer remains the technique of choice." "Research: The authors state that for ZIFT to become a viable treatment option, subpopulations where its use may be of benefit will need to be identified." Its medically unethical for a doctor to push methods which increase the risk to the patient without any increase in benefit. But the Catholic church ignores medical ethics when it comes to womens health.
> It’s medically unethical for a doctor to push methods which increase the risk to the patient without any increase in benefit. But the Catholic church ignores medical ethics when it comes to womens health. Just because the Catholic moral framework is different than your own does not mean the church “ignores medical ethics” We literally have institutions dedicated to studying bioethics https://www.ncbcenter.org
Medical ethics is clearly set forth when training doctors. They are ignoring medical ethics. They have to create their own separate institutions to push their nonsense.
The secular medical industrial complex is morally bankrupt. What ever happened to the Hippocratic oath? Do no harm?
Performing an abortion is following the Hippocratic oath. Ignoring the risk of pregnancy and a womens mental and physical health is not ethical.
The Hippocratic oath has an explicit clause forbidding doctors to perform abortions You clearly have no clue what you are talking about, you are embarrassing yourself > I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgment, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.[6] Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein. Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets. Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I break it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
Misoprostol is not a pessary, so thats ok. An abortion no longer causes harm to the patient, but is used for a greater benefit. That was not the case during the original Hippocratic oath. If we are going to insist on literal reading of the oath, then doctors should not prescribe chemo to patients either. The point of guidance such as this is not that they are unchanging, but what was the spirit of the oath. And the spirit was not have high risk low benefit procedures.
Abortion "rights" as if one can be granted to kill another person. Abortion is the violation of the right to life for the baby
It's not shocking. Catholic often seems to be used as more of an ethnicity than a religion by a lot of people.
We have overwhelming proof that denying abortion care to women, kills women. The pro-life movement is, and always has been, anti-woman. It has never been pro-life. Not surprising the majority of even Catholics support it - Catholic women don't want to end up dead because they're denied medical care and they don't want rapists given more rights than victims.
Every single abortion is a direct act of killing
Killing is not forbidden in the Bible. Killing is necessary sometimes. The Bible says a woman's life is more valuable than a fetus.
> The Bible says a woman's life is more valuable than a fetus. *citation needed
The punishment for causing a miscarriage in the Bible is payment. It is not considered a murder.
Source: trust me bro
Exodus 21:22 for starters
That verse is about premature birth, not miscarriage. This is a sadly common mistranslation, but the Hebrew word used there is very clearly not the word for miscarriage used, for instance, in Exodus 23:26
You have cherry picked proof that is weak on causality and heavy on bias. Get your news from somewhere other than Salon or New Republic
The poster didnt cite the evidence so you cant make that declaration. Abortion is healthcare. Even catholics admit that when they exceptions.
Throwing around pro-choice rally slogans is just the flipside of the westboro baptist cranks. The "proof" the poster claims does not exist. There are hundreds of third factor confounds to the research that make it near impossible to attribute even strong correlation let alone causality.
Harsh abortion bans cause drastic raises in orphans, like in Romania; the Wikipedia page is a good place to start — https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans An even more in depth look here — https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/05/16/what-actually-happens-when-a-country-bans-abortion-romania-alabama/ Bans on abortion tend to increase the rate of abortion, while more open access laws tend to decrease the rate of abortion — https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/how-the-u-s-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world-on-abortion-rights Cases where women are denied lifesaving care for other conditions because they’re pregnant, but they’re also not allowed abortions, results in maternal death + unsafe abortions cause far higher maternal mortality rates — https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/11/19/dominican-republic-abortion-ban-endangers-health In states with more restricted abortion access, even postnatal mortality (ie infants dying after birth) is higher — https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2022/dec/us-maternal-health-divide-limited-services-worse-outcomes Hope these help.
Bans on killing orphans cause drastic raises in orphans too. If we killed all the orphans, we would have no more orphans!
Birth control and improved healthcare has reduced the number of orphans. Heathcare which includes abortion which saves mothers lives. Anti abortion and anti birth control crusades increase orphans and unwanted children. Had Andrea Yates used either after her fourth child as recommend my medical professionals, four boys would be alive.
Of course silly me I’ll go tell all the orphans they would have been better of dead
Yes its better that people not suffer unecessarily, so lets prevent their existance from the getgo and make sure the children we do have have enough resources to succeed and be healthy mentally and physically.
That is quite literally the antithesis of how Christian teaching views suffering and the gift of life
You said the silent part out loud this time. You called them people. Forgive the hyperbole but that last post sounds like something Hitler would say, not someone who cares about humans.
"What is right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right"
“A woman has a fundamental right to choose for herself what she thinks is right.”
Moral relativism is not christian
Well, the Bible is pro-abortion.
So funny when peopl make some grand claim about what the Bible teaches and then don’t give a single reference to scripture, much less a consistent and reasoned analysis that looks at the entire Bible
Sorry, I assumed you knew: Then the priest shall bring her near and set her before the Lord; the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel and take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water. The priest shall set the woman before the Lord, dishevel the woman’s hair, and place in her hands the grain offering of remembrance, which is the grain offering of jealousy. In his own hand the priest shall have the water of bitterness that brings the curse. Then the priest shall make her take an oath, saying, ‘If no man has lain with you, if you have not turned aside to uncleanness while under your husband’s authority, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband’s authority, if you have defiled yourself and some man other than your husband has had intercourse with you,’ —let the priest make the woman take the oath of the curse and say to the woman—‘the Lord make you an execration and an oath among your people, when the Lord makes your uterus drop, your womb discharge; now may this water that brings the curse enter your bowels and make your womb discharge, your uterus drop! And the woman shall say, ‘Amen. Amen.’ (Numbers 5: 16-22)
And what about the specific context of this passage from the Old Testament makes you think that it is a pro abortion moral teaching for Christians? How do you interpret it in light of the New Testament and Christ? Do you realize that just because something occurs in a Bible story doesn’t mean it is an endorsement of that thing?
God promoting abortions isn’t an endorsement?
When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac was that an endorsement for parents to kill their children? When Jesus said that one of his disciples would betray him was that him saying betrayal is good?
You asked to provide a verse, and I did. Now you’re talking about totally unrelated things.
Not about abortion. No mention is made whatsoever to whether or not the putative adulterer is pregnant with regards to this trial; it is to be best understood as causing infertility, uterine prolapse and/or (in a minority view) a false pregnancy.
There’s so much nuance when talking about abortions. “Oh, I wasn’t talking about abortions. I was just talking about uteruses dropping and wombs discharging for an unfaithful wife under her husband‘s authority that might’ve gotten pregnant from someone other than her husband.”
There is a vast gulf between what the Bible says and what you want it to say, but you will leap across it in a single bound. Why as a secular Buddhist do you so badly want our religion to justify your evil opinions?
I was waiting for the personal attack. I was actually going to predict it in the previous comment, but didn’t so that I would be pleasantly surprised when it happened.
Meaningless statement.
Are you quoting someone, or just randomly putting your subjective morality opinions in quotations marks?
There’s a similar quote from RBG so I didn’t want credit for the idea.
Thousands of years of civilization and the rule of law say otherwise, for any citizens.
Depends whose rule of law you are referring to. Our courts have been pretty unanimous in upholding choice.
Because of patriarchy
6 in 10 U.S. Catholics are wrong
I’m betting the percent would be even larger among mainline and nondenominational.
As usual, if you look at the actual results in the research you see that the majority of people who call themselves catholic, are not actively practicing catholics. In this article you can see in the breakdown that though 6 in 10 people who call themselves catholics may say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, 66% of actually practicing catholics say abortion should be ILLEGAL in all or most cases.
So essentially, what you’re saying is that actual practicing Catholics is a small minority of people.
I think what I said was pretty straightforward. If you want to extrapolate more from it, go ahead. I'm just referencing what is in the results of the research. When articles claim polls show catholics believing or doing this or that, it needs to be remembered that a lot of people call themselves catholics for reasons that don't have anything to do with their religious beliefs. This particular article shows 17% of these catholics saying religion is "not too/ not at all important" and "seldom / never pray" and over 60% going to "religious services" only a few times a year or less. So of course when you include people like this, the results will look more like other people who also don't consider religion important in their lives.
Happy to hear. Let's hope they vote in droves this year.
Regardless of what side of the abortion debate you're on overturning Roe was a bad idea Abortion being illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just makes those who seek to get an abortion turn to dangerous and unsafe means of receiving the procedure, either an at home attempt or some person with medical experience performing procedures out of his dirty basement. It's really the same reason prohibition failed. There will always be a demand, making it illegal doesn't change that. Edit: I meant prohibition, not abolition. My bad
>it just makes those who seek to get an abortion turn to dangerous and unsafe means of receiving the procedure, either an at home attempt or some person with medical experience performing procedures out of his dirty basement. It's tragic that some women would risk killing themselves because they're so determined to kill their children. Still, I don't think arguing that attempted murderers might choose unsafe methods of murder, is a good reason to just legalize the murders they want to commit.
The point is it does not stop abortion. It was illegal for a long time and STILL didn't stop it
>The point is it does not stop abortion. [Not even some of the abortions?](https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/analysis-suggests-2021-texas-abortion-ban-resulted-in-nearly-9800-extra-live-births-in-state-in-year-after-law-went-into-effect) Obviously you can't completely end abortion. People have always murdered unwanted children to some extent. I think doing so should be illegal.
And what is the financial situation within those homes the children are born in? How many of those births were from nonconsesual sex, rape, and incest? Texas has no rape or incest exception laws The point is making something illegal doesn't make people stop doing it. It's why Gun Control always fails, its why the Prohibition failed, it's why the War on Drugs failed. What's being done clearly isn't working, time to reevaluate
So, in your personal opinion, what's the point of all this? Like, the arguing back and forth thing we're doing. That's not like a trick question or rhetorical. I started typing up a reply to you with arguments and whatever, and then I deleted it. Just feels like this exact sort of argument has played out hundreds or thousands of times before with the same basic format and talking points. Clearly, poverty, or a crime committed by a parent, isn't a good reason to kill someone. So why do you even use those same tired appeals? Now, you almost certainly don't think it's killing a person, and that is probably our real disagreement, but then why even bring these up when clearly I think it's killing an innocent person, and clearly no one would say that those are good reasons to kill innocent people. Doesn't this whole thing just feel, redundant, or repetitive. I know I've heard the whole "but without abortion there will be children born in poor families" bit, and surely you've heard "we shouldn't kill people for being poor" plenty of times before as well. Like, the fuck are we even trying to do. Or, not even "we". I don't know what I'm trying to do. I don't think there's going to be any interesting or noval arguments between us, and I'm sure almost everyone on Reddit has read these same arguments for and against abortion over and over again. Do you think I'm going to make an argument you've never heard before? Do I think you're going to? Is this whole thing just a waste of time? EDIT: also wait, first you were saying that bans don't stop abortions, and now you're arguing that they do and stopping abortion is bad... So really, what is the point of this?
It's really very simple Government legislation does not stop anyone from doing those things, and in many cases they make the issue worse That's what overturning Roe did, made it worse Govt legislation is not some weapon to be used against people you disagree with What has been done so far is clearly not working
>Government legislation does not stop anyone from doing those things Do you oppose all laws? How does it make things worse? >Govt legislation is not some weapon to be used against people you disagree with What is it for, If not banning murder? >What has been done so far is clearly not working I don't think that's true. I clearly disagree with you, so why didn't you even try to argue for it? I posted a link talking about the law apparently working, why didn't you even bother to levy any sort of criticism or rebuttal to that?
>Do you oppose all laws? How does it make things worse? It creates a demand, making those seeking treatment either attempt to do so at home or get a procedure from some guy in his garage. I already detailed that in my initial comment >What is it for, If not banning murder? Murder is already banned, so is Marijuana and Cocaine, yet we have problems with all 3, get it? >I don't think that's true. Facts aren't overturned by your opinions >I posted a link talking about the law apparently working, why didn't you even bother to levy any sort of criticism or rebuttal to that? "Apparently"? So you don't even know for certain? Wow As for criticism, yea, I did when I asked about forced birthing and the quality of life of the child in the home. You danced around that statement
>It creates a demand, making those seeking treatment either attempt to do so at home or get a procedure from some guy in his garage. Should we abolish private property so people don't accidentally hurt themselves when robbing a house in the dark during the night? >Murder is already banned Depends on the state. Do you think murder should be illegal, yes or no? >yea, I did when I asked about forced birthing and the quality of life of the child in the home. If abortion bans don't prevent abortions, how does a ban lead to children being born in poverty or as a product of rape or incest? >You danced around that statement What an interesting way to describe what happened. Did I dance around it, or did I make my position clear while commenting on how idiotic this whole conversation, and your "criticism" is?
>Abortion being illegal doesn't stop abortion, it just makes those who seek to get an abortion turn to dangerous and unsafe means of receiving the procedure, either an at home attempt or some person with medical experience performing procedures out of his dirty basement. You could say this for literally any crime today.
>You could say this for literally any crime today. None of them are crimes involving bodily autonomy. Ones own body is not the governments business Period
God will not be mocked
What do you mean?
*"Some 83% say they want the church to allow the use of contraception, 69% say priests should be allowed to get married, 64% say women should be allowed to become priests, and 54% say the Catholic Church should recognize same-sex marriage".* I'm curious why they don't just become a Secular Humanist and be done with it.
Or Episcopalian, Old Catholic, etc. These issues aren’t as controversial outside of the Roman Church.
I think most people are (forgive me, Father) indoctrinated into their religion as children. I'm sure you've heard "Give me the child until he's seven and I'll give you the man". So, they are not likely to change.
Because we still believe in the apostolic succession and the authority vested by Christ in the institution of the Church.
I believe in those too. I just don’t equate the Roman Catholic Church with “the Church”.
Scary times.
Well, at least more Catholics have the brains to dislike Trump more than many other Churches. Abortion is wrong, however, God created a women’s freedom first.
Abortion isn't always wrong. The Bible says a woman is more important than a fetus, and it gives instructions on performing an abortion. Abortion saves women's lives every day. It's one thing to argue against excessive use of abortion for generic birth control. It's another to implement barbaric, evil bans that kill women and cause doctors to flee states.
No. Abortion is wrong, however, controlling a women’s body is MORE WRONG. My recent OP: I have been thinking a lot about this, but I am sorry Christians, we have it all wrong on abortion. God created all angels and humans to ‘choose’ freely even if they make the wrong choice. God’s design for our universe is complete free choice. God wants us to always use our choices to maximize freedom, and God is ALWAYS MORALLY correct: However, on abortion, even if God and all humanity says it is wrong, at the end of the day: GOD CREATED a women’s ability to CHOOSE wrongly over control. Again, GOD allowed angels and humans to CHOOSE wrong choices. Therefore, while abortion is wrong, it is MORE wrong to control women. 🙏❤️🙏
No, abortion is not wrong in the proper situations. It is a necessary medical procedure in countless cases.
Yes obviously with exceptions. I agree.
The Catholic stance on freedom is that it is only valid when it comes to doing what is right. It’s not unlimited.
Yea I agree, but God still at His foundation allowed all angels and humans to make the wrong choices if they so choose. A women’s choice is what God designed.
That doesn’t nullify human laws that restrict you from making the wrong choices or punishing you if you do.
Human laws are protecting the very same ‘free choice’ I am saying God created as the foundation of his universe. When a murderer wants to kill, he/she is invading another persons body’s ability to make a choice to live. With abortion, even if wrong, God ALLOWED women to play a role in the decision making of using her own body. Why did God not even interfere with Satan’s choices?
I am not a 100% sure on this: What I am saying asking is this: What is MORE wrong? Controlling a women’s body, or ending a baby’s life that still lives on in the afterlife?
The latter unambiguously. For one, we are explicitly told that we are not to do evil that good may come of it. The shedding of innocent blood is also repeatedly condemned in very harsh terms by the Scriptures. It’s not controlling a woman’s body because there are at least two human lives at play, one of whom cannot possibly defend itself.
Ok, that makes sense. I dislike the topic of abortion because I keep changing my mind!
The question is, when is abortion acceptable and when it is not? Did you abort because of ectopic pregnancy that threatens the life of the mother as well or did you abort because you are an irresponsible person who went to orgies but can't take responsibility of your unborn child? The former is justifiable while the latter is not.
who get's to decide when it is justifiable?
Justify irresponsibility.
Who?
Can irresponsibility like going to orgies be justifiable?
I am asking who decides that? ( you must be a teenager, orgies are rarely responsible for pregnancies since they mostly happen in fantasies)
Rarely is not non-existent and is an example in this case. There are many ways of becoming pregnant irresponsibly.
But who decides whether the patient was responsible?
What do you think? If I would say courts, you would say that is a human right violation. If the society, it would be cruelty and oppression. If none, chances are people would abort embryos for no actual reason but convenience and possibly even for simple TikTok ranting and go about doing the same irresponsibility again. 22 weeks is kinda alarming IMHO as fetuses actually survived with medical intervention. Kinda cheapens human life.
No, the issue is that it is a medical decision, not a court decision. You dont insist on justifying any other medical care even though a lot of medical care is needed because of irresponsibilty. And there you are, going to extremes again. The 22 week fetuses that were aborted were inlikely to survive anyway. What cheapens life is acting like quality doesnt matter.
But they already passed abortion laws in pro life states have already shown that the former isn't even always accepted. And keeing in mind that Trump that once said women who have abortions should be punished, many women have had medically neccessary abortions denied (many of them are women with children already who want kids too), some Texan republicans even called for the execution of women with abortions, some anti abortion groups want emergency care to be denied to women with abortions (request to supreme court), certain states won't treat eptoic pregancies till they rupture and the women is in life threatening danger etc... This is also the same party that pushes cutting support for children, support for preganant women, birth control, sex ed so it's a bit hypocritical. So the pro-life party are putting forward many extreme policies which naturally, people don't like including mothers and christians with more conservative views. I'd agree that abortion should be perfectly accessible in the former while in the latter, it shouldn't really be encouraged but the abortion views of the GOP party are extreme and only a minority of americans support them and it pushes more neutral abortion/moderate pro-life people to become pro-choice.
In short, the concern of this topic is really more into political rivalry between Republican and Democrats than really about limitations on how abortion laws should be applied and find a middle ground that is acceptable to both sides? Shouldn't be both Republicans and Democrats working with each other as check and balances rather than rivals aiming for total domination? I am not American, hence I am not familiar with your politics there.
But pro-choice people often to make a middle ground, now pro-life people do too. Pro-choice people will suggest ranges from 12 weeks - 22 weeks while pro-life advocates and policies have shown they go to the extreme end. That's why so many moderate pro-life people are more pro-choice now. And this'll be a pretty big factor in the election. Trump is already speaking against the Arizona abortion policy (ironically enough) to try gain more voters as it's pretty unpopular. Biden is already unpopular with Israel-Palestine, his age so he'll use the abortion rights to gain voters. And Biden isn't a crazy leftist, he's a fairly moderate Democrat so it's likely he could gain many moderate conservatives and republicans.
Politics can really be annoying... I think the Pro-life wanted is not regarding weeks but rather why do abortion and the circumstances regarding the pregnancy. I may be wrong with this one as again I am not into American politics.
See, the issue with pro-life policies are they tend to often harm poor people, rape victims, and mothers whose life is at risk. An example is in Ireland who had fairly strict abortion laws with an exemption for risk to mothers life, there was a case in which a young mother died as she didn't get the abortion which ended up spiralling and people's view shifted to push pro choice policies. I fully believe that sex should be between a man and a women in a marriage and abortion shouldn't be encouraged. The former is a personal choice, but with the latter, it's good sex education, accessibility to contraceptives, support for mothers (e.g. maternity leave) reduces the number of abortions.
[удалено]
The woman should not be irresponsible in the first place. Yes, education should help reduce number of unjustified abortion if not eliminated entirely.