It is not about judging those who have an abortion

[Mark Dohle]

It is not about judging those who have an abortion

This Act is an extreme measure, allowing for the abortion of unborn life at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason. It sends a message to everyone in our state that life is cheap. This is a truly sad day for Illinois. We will continue to make our case against such callous disregard for human life whenever it appears in society.

Catholic Conference Statement on
House Passage of “Reproductive Health Act”​

I talked to a good friend last night, her name is Claire, and a very good Christian woman (Catholic), who lives her faith in a courageous but respectful manner. She is strong in speaking what she feels is ‘truth’, and is involved in politics. I always feel like a first-grader talking to a college graduate when it comes to politics with her. I have never really understood politics, except for the fact that it is a highly emotional topic. I doubt anyone is immune from that. We argue and fight over what is important to us. That goes for religion as well.

I am not a one-issue voter. Or maybe I am, not sure. I do know that the pro-life stance, which is in reality a movement to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, is not just one issue among others. However, it is not about judging those who have an abortion, the blame can be spread thin. The state of the world as always been precarious, and how we deal with problems is often short-sighted and leads only to further problems as the fruit of decisions becomes apparent.

There is no way I can cast a vote for anyone in the Democratic Party because of their policies on abortion. When in 2016 at the Democratic convention women got up and bragged about getting abortions, and how happy they were about it, it was then that I knew that there is no way I could ever vote for a Democratic President.

Liberal changes in the law do not remain in some sort of static state. They evolve, grow until we now have the mind-numbing mantra that “it is a woman’s right”. Peter Singer wants to make it legal for parents to euthanize their children up to the third month. Why? Because it is not until the third month (in his humble opinion) that an infant becomes self-aware.

From "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

Accordingly, from "Should the Baby Live?": "It does not seem wise to add to the burden on limited resources by increasing the number of severely disabled children." –Peter Singer

Shocking? Well maybe now, but in a few years it will become more evident to many, that yes, why should not parents have the right to make that choice if a one to a three-month-old child is not yet self-aware? If such a law came to pass, it would be a matter of time for it to become even more liberal, allowing parents to decide even if the infant is perfect to be quietly done away with.

Perhaps Christian need to think more deeply about how we present our faith in such a way that people will at least listen to us, and not try to blend in so completely. The fruit of such a strategy, blending in, is being played out before us today.--BrMD

 

[Brian2]

View attachment 42998

It is not about judging those who have an abortion

This Act is an extreme measure, allowing for the abortion of unborn life at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason. It sends a message to everyone in our state that life is cheap. This is a truly sad day for Illinois. We will continue to make our case against such callous disregard for human life whenever it appears in society.

Catholic Conference Statement on
House Passage of “Reproductive Health Act”​

I talked to a good friend last night, her name is Claire, and a very good Christian woman (Catholic), who lives her faith in a courageous but respectful manner. She is strong in speaking what she feels is ‘truth’, and is involved in politics. I always feel like a first-grader talking to a college graduate when it comes to politics with her. I have never really understood politics, except for the fact that it is a highly emotional topic. I doubt anyone is immune from that. We argue and fight over what is important to us. That goes for religion as well.

I am not a one-issue voter. Or maybe I am, not sure. I do know that the pro-life stance, which is in reality a movement to protect the most vulnerable members of our society, is not just one issue among others. However, it is not about judging those who have an abortion, the blame can be spread thin. The state of the world as always been precarious, and how we deal with problems is often short-sighted and leads only to further problems as the fruit of decisions becomes apparent.

There is no way I can cast a vote for anyone in the Democratic Party because of their policies on abortion. When in 2016 at the Democratic convention women got up and bragged about getting abortions, and how happy they were about it, it was then that I knew that there is no way I could ever vote for a Democratic President.

Liberal changes in the law do not remain in some sort of static state. They evolve, grow until we now have the mind-numbing mantra that “it is a woman’s right”. Peter Singer wants to make it legal for parents to euthanize their children up to the third month. Why? Because it is not until the third month (in his humble opinion) that an infant becomes self-aware.

From "Practical Ethics": "Human babies are not born self-aware, or capable of grasping that they exist over time. They are not persons." But animals are self-aware, and therefore, "the life of a newborn is of less value than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee."

Accordingly, from "Should the Baby Live?": "It does not seem wise to add to the burden on limited resources by increasing the number of severely disabled children." –Peter Singer

Shocking? Well maybe now, but in a few years it will become more evident to many, that yes, why should not parents have the right to make that choice if a one to a three-month-old child is not yet self-aware? If such a law came to pass, it would be a matter of time for it to become even more liberal, allowing parents to decide even if the infant is perfect to be quietly done away with.

Perhaps Christian need to think more deeply about how we present our faith in such a way that people will at least listen to us, and not try to blend in so completely. The fruit of such a strategy, blending in, is being played out before us today.--BrMD

We have euthanasia laws coming up in Parliament in Tasmania Australia very soon. It seems to be an experiment with a proposal in the Bill for euthanasia laws to be extended to the killing of children, presumably at their request, unlike the abortion case that extends after birth.
Human lives, our kids being treated as our property with no rights of their own.
The slippery slope principle warned against last century when more libertarian laws were starting to be passed is coming to fruition.
But yes it is not about judging people. Even Peter Singer is no doubt just following his logic to it's conclusion without holding back.

 

[metis]

There is no way I can cast a vote for anyone in the Democratic Party because of their policies on abortion.

I am pro-life, but just a reminder that abortion is just one of many pro-life issues. As Father Martin recently wrote in "America", climate change probably will have a far greater impact on creating hardship and death than abortion over this century, and we are already seeing this happen. Thus, why single out just abortion when considering whom to vote for?

Here in the States, we have a president whose disregard for basic science dealing with this pandemic has without much of a doubt led to the premature death of at least tens of thousands of Americans, maybe even over 100,000. We have a bit over 4% of the worlds population but almost 25% of the world's deaths by covid, and our terribly inept response to covid is the main reason.

But besides this, there are other pro-life affiliated issues as well.

 

[pearl]

I am not a one-issue voter. Or maybe I am, not sure. I do know that the pro-life stance,

My problem with a political answer to abortion, all to often the so-called 'pro-life stance' is not 'pro'life at all but anti-abortion. If we believe in the Church's teaching on social justice, that some would like to pretend does not exist, or at the very least, not to be taken literally, pro-life issues does not end post uterus.

Shocking? Well maybe now, but in a few years it will become more evident to many, that yes, why should not parents have the right to make that choice if a one to a three-month-old child is not yet self-aware? If such a law came to pass, it would be a matter of time for it to become even more liberal, allowing parents to decide even if the infant is perfect to be quietly done away with.

Have the abortion laws been riding a liberal tide and should certainly be considered anew, absolutely. this was never the intention of Roe v Wade, but decided in subsequent cases. There is so much more that could reduce a woman's seeking abortion as her only option, prevention through education, considering the consequences of our practical and moral choices etc., but its easier to strike down the law and more importantly, the assurance she is not alone, 'you made your bed, now lay in it', help seeing her through her pregnancy and beyond either with raising the child or allowing her/him to be adopted.
You are correct in that we are no longer single issue voters. As for judging I don't think anyone judges more than some women who have had an abortion, but they are forgiven. I remember there was a time when only the Bishop could offer absolution, now a priest may. I know a woman, an active voice against abortion, who did make such judgements, until her daughter became pregnant and it interfered with her plans for college, she brought her daughter to the clinic for an abortion. None of us can ever be sure as to how we will act in any given circumstance, only how we hope to act, until we are faced with it.

 

[GardenLady]

I would like to offer another perspective to consider, as one who does plan to vote for a democrat. Do not think that I believe abortion is "okay" or morally neutral--that is not the case. But I do believe that, living in secular constitutional republic, we cannot force others to live according to our beliefs concerning the unborn, any more than we would want to be forced to live by the beliefs of other religious. I believe in this area, we must persuade, not legislate.

But beyond that, I see in the current GOP policies many intentions and actions that are anti-life. The handling of the pandemic has resulted in far more deaths than would have occurred with responsible and scientific leadership. The GOP wants to kill the ACA, or at least cripple it, get rid of Medicaid expansions, and so on, which will result in needless death. Even as I type this, there are people now dying because they could not get health care before the ACA. Some will say, "they" (those "others") can go to an emergency room when they are sick. But people are dying now, not due to acute conditions, but for lack of mammograms or colonoscopies or A1C tests years ago and due to denial of treatment for pre-existing conditions years ago. The GOP would have us go back to a day when insurance companies more concerned with profit than health could deny my husband coverage because he has had open-heart surgery.

Policies that lead to death are not only in the realm of abortion legislation. (And by the way, we generally have fewer abortions in Democratic administrations.) On balance, I find that the weight of policies concerning life fall on the democratic side and not the GOP side.