Abortion

[Walker]

Archbishop Cordileone bars Nancy Pelosi from Communion until she ends abortion support
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... e=hs_email

Comment:
- Apparently, one cannot be an abortion advocate, and also be a Catholic. Who knew? (everyone)
- I'd wager she got, gets, and will get away with religious hypocrisy through the power to quietly, ostensibly say, no more soup for you *.
- Why should she break form when it works in pushing Congress around? Her abortion advocacy is quite significant, and she can't even give birth.
- The clump of cells that Pelosi was as a birthing entity decades ago, was long ago replaced by other cells appropriate to her stage of human development.

* The Church

[Sculptor]

Archbishop Cordileone bars Nancy Pelosi from Communion until she ends abortion support
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news ... e=hs_email

Comment:
- Apparently, one cannot be an abortion advocate, and also be a Catholic. Who knew? (everyone)

But you can be a paedophile and get promoted to another parish when caught. And you can cover up widespread paedophilia for decades too and still be Catholic.

[Sculptor]

Yes, we kill humans, because we have deemed it necessary to do so.

Too broad.

Better: yes, we kill people before they're born, and -- most of the time -- we kill 'em simply becuz they're inconvenient.

How many have you adopted?

[henry quirk]

sculptor,

How many have you adopted?

One.

My turn...

You say: a foetus is not a human being.

So: when does the fetus become a human being?

[iambiguous]

You say: A foetus is not a human being.

when does the fetus become a human being?

Indeed, just Google "when do human beings begin?": https://www.google.com/search?q=when+do ... nt=gws-wiz

Tons and tons of links. All manner of conflicting opinions.

But the crucial distinction is always the same. Those fulminating fanatic objectivists like Henry who insist that only their own answers count. Those who settle on answers that fall somewhere between conception and birth. Those who suggest that in the absence of God or a definitive scientific proof, any answer is largely a subjective leap of faith rooted existentially in particular political prejudices.

So, for the Henrys among us, whatever they tell you the answer is doesn't really matter nearly as much as that they adamantly insist that it must be their answer.

In other words, back again to this: the psychology of objectivism: What must I think myself into believing in order to anchor my Self -- my Soul -- to the One True Path? And thus to sustain the comfort and consolation I derive from objectivism all the way to the grave.

Then of course those who link the One True Path to immortality and salvation.

Or so "here and now" it [still] seems to me.

[promethean75]

Screenshot_2022-05-22-09-19-57-790.jpg

Wouldja lookit those numbas. Note the sudden reversal of the trend in 2017.

Discuss.

[iambiguous]

It's a question of what are the minimum requirements for someone/something to be considered a human being.

A clump of cells with human DNA does not seem to be sufficient. There's got to be more to it.

Okay, but the fact is there is not a single one of us here who was not first that clump of cells with DNA before we became your own subjective rendition of a human being. There's just no getting around the biological sequence -- conception to birth -- here.

The moral sequence on the other hand -- okay to kill, not a human being/not okay to kill, human being -- is, in my view, the manifestation of the particular political prejudices we acquire existentially as daseins.

He says "there's got to be more to it"...seemingly as though he can in fact demonstrate to us that this is, in fact, objectively true.

And with him, I've never been able to pin down his own understanding of God and morality. I think that his beliefs are somewhere in the vicinity of Christianity, but maybe not. And any number of Christians insists that abortion is a mortal Sin that God will judge harshly at the Pearly Gates.

[Sculptor]

Screenshot_2022-05-22-09-19-57-790.jpg


Wouldja lookit those numbas. Note the sudden reversal of the trend in 2017.

Discuss.

And to what would you attribute this trend?

[Sculptor]

sculptor,

How many have you adopted?

One.

And was that child the result of a rape?

My turn...

You say: a foetus is not a human being.

So: when does the fetus become a human being?

When the law says so.

[Sculptor]

image_2022-05-22_173916637.png

Grounds in the UK for termination

[phyllo]

And any number of Christians insists that abortion is a mortal Sin that God will judge harshly at the Pearly Gates.

Let's not dump this on Christians in general.

The worldwide trend is towards legalization. The religious trend is towards legalization.

The Republic of Ireland is 85% Christian.

It legalized abortion in 2018 after a referendum in which 60.4% voted for legalization.

In the USA, 56% of Catholics, 60% of white Protestants(non-evangelical) and 66% of black Protestants think abortion should be legal in all or most cases.(Pew survey 2022).

In the USA, the only major religious group against abortion is white evangelical Protestants (74% against abortion, 24% for).

The USA is going in the opposite direction to everyone else and it's being pushed by evangelical Protestants, which is only 24% of the US population (Pew survey 2021).

IOW a minority group is behind a move to make abortion illegal.

[henry quirk]

And was that child the result of a rape?

I don't know.

How many qualifiers will you attach, I wonder?

You understand how many have you adopted? (if you haven't adopted you ought not speak against abortion) is on par with if you haven't taken care of potential murder victims you ought not speak against murder or if you haven't offered rides to all the carless you ought not protest when someone comes to steal your car.

It's a non-starter.

When the law says so.

So: if legislators can get away with exempting, say, blacks from personhood we can legally exterminate them.

Or jews, or asians, or the old, or the infirm, or...

If personhood is solely bestowed, and solely bestowed by law makers, it can also be taken away.

Even if you are right -- a person is what that law sez it is -- (you're not) surely you can see the inherent problem.

He looks like me, talks like me, seems to think like me, has interests and goals and agendas, takes offense at bein' leashed, but the legislators say nope, he's not a person, so I can do with him as I like.

This seems right to you.

[henry quirk]

DABD1AD2-1B15-4630-9510-45E9035576BC.png

Here, where legal, abortion is on-demand (the right of a woman to have an abortion during the first six months of a pregnancy. an abortion performed on a woman solely at her own request.)

Kudos to you Brits for recognizin' and respectin' the baby as person not to be off'd solely cuz he's inconvenient.



Mental Health, though, that there is a tricky designation...dependin' on the assessor, inconvenience could be interpreted as a mental health threat.

Mebbe you Brits only deserve half a thumbs up.

[iambiguous]

...but the fact is there is not a single one of us here who was not first that clump of cells with DNA before we became your own subjective rendition of a human being. There's just no getting around the biological sequence -- conception to birth -- here.

The moral sequence on the other hand -- okay to kill, not a human being/not okay to kill, human being -- is, in my view, the manifestation of the particular political prejudices we acquire existentially as daseins.

He says "there's got to be more to it"...seemingly as though he can in fact demonstrate to us that this is, in fact, objectively true.

And with him, I've never been able to pin down his own understanding of God and morality. I think that his beliefs are somewhere in the vicinity of Christianity, but maybe not. And any number of Christians insists that abortion is a mortal Sin that God will judge harshly at the Pearly Gates.

Let's not dump this on Christians in general.

Come on, whatever religious or spiritual path that you are on, you either believe that you will be judged for the behaviors you choose on this side of the grave or you don't. And abortion is a particularly controversial behavior.

Here's a snapshot of religion in regard to what the different faiths believe about abortion: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/re ... -abortion/

On the other hand, as I note over and over and over again, it's not what someone believes about abortion and religion, but what they are able to actually demonstrate that all rational and virtuous human beings are obligated to believe as well.

It's not what worldwide trends are but, given the manner in which someone connects the dots between morality here and now and immortality and salvation there and then, what they believe the trends ought to be. And then how they go about providing evidence of this.

[phyllo]

The worldwide trends and surveys reveal what people actually want.

It's not necessarily demonstrable that everyone ought to want the same thing.

It's even possible that not everyone ought to want the same thing. Diversity is useful for survival.