Sanctity of Life (Abortion Megathread)

lazygal

cattolico wrote: »

Do that justifies kill a child does it? Why should one child have a right to life and another not?

You're harping on about abstinence. Do you think suggesting abstinence to people in committed relationships is appropriate? Why is it ok to bring children abroad to kill them?
I know you won't answer this. Or you'll give a stock answer on how we can't control women killing children elsewhere, as you have under your other guises.

Overheal

cattolico wrote: »

don't want to be pregnant?? Condom, pill, morning after pill, ..

Kev W wrote: »

Less than 100% effective, less than 100%effective, less than 100 % effective.

And disavowed by the RCC. I thought you were a christian????

cattolico

Overheal wrote: »

And disavowed by the RCC. I thought you were a christian????

Yes I am a christian. I am also a human being. I believe a human being a rights that everyone should respect. And one of those rights is life.

Kev W

cattolico wrote: »

Yes I am a christian. I am also a human being. I believe a human being a rights that everyone should respect. And one of those rights is life.

I'll say this for you, while I may disagree with what you say, at least you have the guts to go against Catholic doctrine.

Of course most hardcore anti-choice catholics tend to ignore things like "judge not lest ye be judged", "thou shalt not bear false witness" etc, so I guess it's not that special.

Nick Park

Kev W wrote: »

I'll say this for you, while I may disagree with what you say, at least you have the guts to go against Catholic doctrine.

Of course most hardcore anti-choice catholics tend to ignore things like "judge not lest ye be judged", "thou shalt not bear false witness" etc, so I guess it's not that special.

I don't think cattolico is going against Catholic doctrine. He/she may be a Catholic, observe Catholic doctrine in their own life, but still take the entirely reasonable view that we live in a democratic State and that Catholic dogma should not be forced upon other people by the law.

cattolico

Kev W wrote: »

I'll say this for you, while I may disagree with what you say, at least you have the guts to go against Catholic doctrine.

I'm not going against catholic doctrine... I'm just not going to force it on others who are not Catholic. Saying the unborn child should be respected is not just a Catholic Doctrine. Its a human right. Thats the point I am making. we need to respect human rights. To intentionally target the unborn simply because they exist is wrong. Its wrong in China where too many girls are aborted, its wrong in the US where a disproportionate number of black children are aborted. Its wrong in the UK where 70% of Down Syndrome children are aborted. The unborn child has rights. While Catholics believe in the sanctity of life, we don't fundament our respect for life just on our Faith. Your reason will also tell you that killing is wrong.

How people who are not Catholic live their sex life is up to them. However respecting the dignity of the human person in all its stages of development is universal.

Delirium

cattolico wrote: »

How people who are not Catholic live their sex life is up to them. However respecting the dignity of the human person in all its stages of development is universal.

Unless that person is a pregnant woman who for whatever reason requires a abortion.

Overheal

cattolico wrote: »

Yes I am a christian. I am also a human being. I believe a human being a rights that everyone should respect. And one of those rights is life.

If we're discussing respect for the human being, what respect would a maldeformed individual have, or a child raised into poverty or a broken home?

Its wrong in China where too many girls are aborted, its wrong in the US where a disproportionate number of black children are aborted. Its wrong in the UK where 70% of Down Syndrome children are aborted.

I must have surely mentioned it to one of your previous masks but in 2000 we reached 6 billion people on the planet. Before 1900 the world never sustained more than 2 billion people. At present, there are 7.3 billion - 1.3 billion people in just 15 years.

In 2100, the UN has calculated the spread: if we begin curtailing our out of control population growth, we can bring the population back down to 6 billion. Unchecked for the sake of 'human dignity and the sanctity of life' we could have as many as 16 billion; the more realistic projection based on human behavior pits us at going for 10 billion people.

We live on a pale blue dot in space. Ecologically, I can't see how the planet can sustain the course we are on. Geopolitically, a blind cry for more dignified births will create the tinder that will spark the next great world war, when resources get more precious and humans continue to encroach on one another. What happened in California? Besides the effects of global climate change piled on by human influences, California's groundwater is already dramatically depleted. Ancient water basins in some places have all but vanished, and ground subsidence has kicked in (see image below showing historical ground elevation), and it is physically impossible to reverse that action, once those basins are collapsed there is no way to refill them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_in_California



Just one example. We could also looked at China's awful pollution if we wanted to, or the real threats to Canada's wilderness, which accounts for a significant proportion of the globe's CO2 -> Oxygen conversion.

As much as I see abortion as an everyday preservation of the right to control her own body - she can inseminate herself as much as terminate - I see it as a truly necessary freedom, one that will in part help determine the fate of our great grandchildren. How sanctified will life be, if in 100 years we implode on ourselves? More life will be secured if we engage in more sustainable practices for our civilization.

cattolico

Overheal wrote: »

If we're discussing respect for the human being, what respect would a maldeformed individual have, or a child raised into poverty or a broken home? I must have surely mentioned it to one of your previous masks but in 2000 we reached 6 billion people on the planet. Before 1900 the world never sustained more than 2 billion people. At present, there are 7.3 billion - 1.3 billion people in just 15 years.

In 2100, the UN has calculated the spread: if we begin curtailing our out of control population growth, we can bring the population back down to 6 billion. Unchecked for the sake of 'human dignity and the sanctity of life' we could have as many as 16 billion; the more realistic projection based on human behavior pits us at going for 10 billion people.

We live on a pale blue dot in space. Ecologically, I can't see how the planet can sustain the course we are on. Geopolitically, a blind cry for more dignified births will create the tinder that will spark the next great world war, when resources get more precious and humans continue to encroach on one another.

As much as I see abortion as an everyday preservation of the right to control her own body - she can inseminate herself as much as terminate - I see it as a truly necessary freedom, one that will in part help determine the fate of our great grandchildren. How sanctified will life be, if in 100 years we implode on ourselves? More life will be secured if we engage in more sustainable practices for our civilization.

You must have missed last weeks headline. Jean-Claude Juncker. Europe is dying.

I find your argument that we should kill people as a means of population control...well I find them very extreme.

If there is no respect to human dignity and human rights then we as a planet are doomed.

Also most of the population growth is in the 3rd world. Are you saying we should kill the poor?

Overheal

cattolico wrote: »

You must have missed last weeks headline. Jean-Claude Juncker. Europe is dying.

Sounds like politics, EU politics, and more to do with islamaphobia than population concerns. If it was the same number of bright young talented male Canadians fleeing to the EU, nobody would be crying about it.

I find your argument that we should kill people as a means of population control...well I find them very extreme.

If there is no respect to human dignity and human rights then we as a planet are doomed.

Also most of the population growth is in the 3rd world. Are you saying we should kill the poor?

It's really not that extreme. Look at the microcosm: would you keep carrying pregnancies to term if you couldn't sustain 12 children? Hold that thought.

You also just slammed China for the one-child policy - which has been lifted - and now are moving the goalposts to the third world.

Saying we should "kill the poor" is an inflammatory, trollish, and dickish way of getting to the point: yes, if you can't provide for a child, you shouldn't be having more children. As for that, have you ever studied the reasons why third world countries have higher birth rates? It's because of life expectancy: parents cannot be sure their first, fourth, or seventh child will not die off from malaria or some other disease and if they die, the community dies when nobody is around to carry on the next generation. Go ahead, talk to your local sociologist/anthropologist, they will tell you the same essential truth. It's not because they thing the tribe can sustain a growth from say 8 adults to a jump of 64, it's because they honestly expect half or more of the children they birth to die.



If you think the planet is doomed now, wait until we have 10 billion children who don't look much healthier than that above.

cattolico

overheal.. So basically what you are saying is that humanity's rights are subjective to various circumstances. If you follow your logic then the only countries that should have kids are the rich first world countries. Killing a human being because its not wanted is never the answer.

The Randy Riverbeast

This whole human life is precious is a lovely idea but we are still left with the question on if a woman should be allowed to not be pregnant. We've already decided that the life of the unborn is worth less when the mother's life is at risk and that we can choose not to donate an organ to save someones life.

Overheal

cattolico wrote: »

overheal.. So basically what you are saying is that humanity's rights are subjective to various circumstances.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Humanity has every right to breed itself into extinction. However, it should not be forced to, through mandating live birth in the event of a pregnancy.

cattolico

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

This whole human life is precious is a lovely idea but we are still left with the question on if a woman should be allowed to not be pregnant. We've already decided that the life of the unborn is worth less when the mother's life is at risk and that we can choose not to donate an organ to save someones life.

As regards when the Mothers life is at risk, The child still has its dignity intact. Nobody has set out to kill that child, its still respected. Nobody challenges the necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. This is not putting the child second, its treating both equally. When they say on the airline to put on your own oxygen mask first before putting on your child's, it does not mean the child is secondary, does it?

the life of the unborn is not worth less, There are not conflicts of rights here.

cattolico

Overheal wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Humanity has every right to breed itself into extinction. However, it should not be forced to, through mandating live birth in the event of a pregnancy.

Europe/Russia and other countries have a Population decline. Your population explosion is not what is happening in reality. Irelands population increased, but mainly due to immigration. If you take Poland you would be hard pressed lots of families above 2 kids.

Overheal

cattolico wrote: »

As regards when the Mothers life is at risk, The child still has its dignity intact. Nobody has set out to kill that child, its still respected

A lost child that furthers our medical understanding is not a disrespected child, it is an honored child.

La Fenetre

Overheal wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. Humanity has every right to breed itself into extinction. However, it should not be forced to, through mandating live birth in the event of a pregnancy.

We've heard this overpopulation excuse for terminating children, particularly female children, in China and Arabia. Yet the entire worlds population could live in the sate of Texas, if it was populated at the same density as New York.

Overheal

cattolico wrote: »

Europe/Russia and other countries have a Population decline. Your population explosion is not what is happening in reality. Irelands population increased, but mainly due to immigration. If you take Poland you would be hard pressed lots of families above 2 kids.

I wouldn't just pull the numbers out of my ass, when google is one tab over on my web browser..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

The Randy Riverbeast

cattolico wrote: »

As regards when the Mothers life is at risk, The child still has its dignity intact. Nobody has set out to kill that child, its still respected. Nobody challenges the necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. This is not putting the child second, its treating both equally. When they say on the airline to put on your own oxygen mask first before putting on your child's, it does not mean the child is secondary, does it?

the life of the unborn is not worth less, There are not conflicts of rights here.

Lots of lovely little soundbites about respect and dignity but nothing of real substance.

You cant kill one person to save another and claim they are equal.

cattolico

Overheal wrote: »

I wouldn't just pull the numbers out of my ass, when google is one tab over on my web browser..

Abortion as population control is the weakest argument I have heard yet. Its what china used for years and it hasn't work.

Overheal

La Fenetre wrote: »

We've heard this overpopulation excuse for terminating children, particularly female children, in China and Arabia. Yet the entire worlds population could live in the sate of Texas, if it was populated at the same density as New York.

As sardines?! Do you appreciate the living conditions in New York? Spanned across the size of Texas a) you couldn't do it, because the infrastructure would hardly tolerate it b) you'd have a Judge Dredd/Robocop OCP dystopian megacity that would act as some twisted smokestack on the planet's face. And it would have to be sustained by a proportionate amount of additional land, agriculture, forestry, and other resource sources.

Just on the pollution alone: what would happen there..

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/china-tries-to-cut-smog-ahead-of-world-summit/

cattolico

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Lots of lovely little soundbites about respect and dignity but nothing of real substance.

You cant kill one person to save another and claim they are equal.

Who said anything about killing? Terminating a pregnancy to save the life of the mother does not always mean the child dies. You can terminate at 25 weeks are hope the child survives.

Its not soundbite. Its respect for the rights and dignity of the person. No doctor who is treating a serious risk to a mothers life will say the child is secondary. But risks need to be managed and this sadly means that you can't always save the child.

cattolico

Overheal wrote: »

As sardines?! Do you appreciate the living conditions in New York? Spanned across the size of Texas a) you couldn't do it, because the infrastructure would hardly tolerate it b) you'd have a Judge Dredd/Robocop OCP dystopian megacity that would act as some twisted smokestack on the planet's face. And it would have to be sustained by a proportionate amount of additional land, agriculture, forestry, and other resource sources.

Just on the pollution alone: what would happen there..

The whole population of Ireland could live in Dublin and there still would be lots of green fields. Have you been to singapore? Personally I am not calling for dozens of kids per family, just sustainable population, average 3 kids as Pope Francis called for.

However abortion should never be allowed as population control.

Overheal

cattolico wrote: »

Abortion as population control is the weakest argument I have heard yet. Its what china used for years and it hasn't work.

Actually it worked spectacularly, except for its totalitarian strictness. It worked so well they had to/were able to lift it.

Let me say first off that the one child policy was as much a violation of a woman's right as it is to prevent her from having abortions. And more distinctly the 1CP killed healthy, live infants. That is not what we are talking about, here.

The reason China lifted the policy (as you would see in my link about it in my earlier post) was sadly less about the morality of killing live infants, but is because by 2030 they are expecting a dramatic population decrease which, ironically, will put them into a long recessionary phase in contrast to the boom of the last 100 years which saw their economy grow almost overnight to one of the largest in the world, to the point where they were just off building cities for the heck of it.

Overheal

cattolico wrote: »

The whole population of Ireland could live in Dublin and there still would be lots of green fields. Have you been to singapore? Personally I am not calling for dozens of kids per family, just sustainable population, average 3 kids as Pope Francis called for.

However abortion should never be allowed as population control.

How is 3 kids sustainable? Assuming everyone lives to be a parent, that's still population growth. A 2 child guideline seems more appropriate; given that many people will spread between 0-3 children, that works out relatively well at maintaining/shrinking the current population trend over time.

I doubt your claim about Dublin is accurate, or has been at all thought out. Is that an informed comment and if so, what study have you seen about it?

The Randy Riverbeast

cattolico wrote: »

Who said anything about killing? Terminating a pregnancy to save the life of the mother does not always mean the child dies. You can terminate at 25 weeks are hope the child survives.

Its not soundbite. Its respect for the rights and dignity of the person. No doctor who is treating a serious risk to a mothers life will say the child is secondary. But risks need to be managed and this sadly means that you can't always save the child.

It is impressive how pro life people can convince themselves abortion is ok when they say it is because they are just ending the pregnancy and anything else is just an unfortunate side effect while if anyone else wants an abortion it is because they enjoy killing the precious babies. What ever happened to letting nature take over?

The child is clearly secondary when it is ok to kill them is certain situations or to travel abroad to kill them.

anothernight

Overheal wrote: »

I doubt your claim about Dublin is accurate, or has been at all thought out. Is that an informed comment and if so, what study have you seen about it?

In fairness, he's probably right that the population of Ireland could live in Dublin (county, not city) and be fine. Many European capitals have larger populations in their greater area than Ireland in the whole country.


What I can't see is how a woman is supposed to limit herself to 3 children and still manage to follow Catholic policy on contraception (I'm making this assumption because of his username, obviously).

cattolico

anothernight wrote: »

What I can't see is how a woman is supposed to limit herself to 3 children and still manage to follow Catholic policy on contraception (I'm making this assumption because of his username, obviously).

Did I say anywhere that the whole world has to be catholic and follow its religious teaching?

I'm against the killing of the unborn.

FYI.. I voted for the SSM referendum as it was a civil matter. That does not mean I agree with SSM, however I thought it was important the couples had legal protection in law.

anothernight

cattolico wrote: »

Did I say anywhere that the whole world has to be catholic and follow its religious teaching?

No, which is why I specifically mentioned that I'm making a wild assumption based on your username.

It was just a comment anyway. A lot of (real, not just cultural) catholics who are against abortion are also against contraception. It wasn't particularly directed at you and I have no interest in entering the discussion properly, which is why I didn't even bother to address you.

Delirium

cattolico wrote: »

Did I say anywhere that the whole world has to be catholic and follow its religious teaching?

Poster didn't say that you said that.

I'm against the killing of the unborn.

And you'd support imposing that position on those that don't share your opposition to abortion.

FYI.. I voted for the SSM referendum as it was a civil matter. That does not mean I agree with SSM, however I thought it was important the couples had legal protection in law.

Apples and oranges. You've not expressed any support for abortion being available so I don't see what relevance your position to SSM has to do with the discussion.