Viker
Häxan
It is. They are noticing the cultist nature of current political climates. There's something else going on besides pro-life, in other words.Is this a kind of deflection?,abortion is still a no no for the Vatican,isn’t it?.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is. They are noticing the cultist nature of current political climates. There's something else going on besides pro-life, in other words.Is this a kind of deflection?,abortion is still a no no for the Vatican,isn’t it?.
He basically said that being pro-life is taking care about every life. And this is done through planning in advance.
Universal healthcare, prevention, efficient adoption system and do on.
I assume that the Pope finds "murdering" fetusesThis is what I was thinking as well. Abortion bans have an atrociously detrimental effect from a humanitarian and medical standpoint, but the Vatican's statement seems to beat around the bush and refuse to directly address that.
I think in context, it is important to bear in mind that the Vatican speaks from an already assumed 'pro-life' (to use the American political jargon) perspective and starts from that as a presupposition.
In the OP, the Vatican editorial was critiquing the stance of American pro-lifers from its own pro-life standpoint - for their failure to apply a consistent ethic of life and for their preoccupation with the prohibition of abortion to the exclusion of the protection of life at all stages and in every form; as the appalling rise in mortality rates of mothers, support for firearms, the death penalty etc. which the Vatican cites, amply evidences.
The key is this line:
In a media editorial on the United States Supreme Court's ruling to end the constitutional right to abortion, Andrea Tornielli said those who oppose abortion could not pick and choose pro-life issues.Thus, the Vatican editorial states:
For life, always - Vatican News
A serious and shared reflection on life and the protection of motherhood would require us to move away from the logic of opposing extremisms and the political polarization that often—unfortunately—accompanies discussion on this issue, preventing true dialogue.
A serious and shared reflection on life and the protection of motherhood would require us to move away from the logic of opposing extremisms and the political polarization that often—unfortunately—accompanies discussion on this issue, preventing true dialogue.
Being for life, always, for example, means being concerned if the mortality rates of women due to motherhood increase. In the United States, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the maternal mortality rate has gone from 20.1 deaths of women per 100,000 live births in 2019 to 23.8 per 100,000 in 2020. And, strikingly, the maternal mortality rate for black women in 2020 was 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, 2.9 times the rate for white women.
Being for life, always, means asking how to help women welcome new life. According to one statistic in the United States, about 75 per cent of women who have abortions live in poverty or have low wages. And only 16 per cent of employees in private industry have access to paid parental leave, according to a study published in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry on 9 March 2020. Almost one in four new mothers who are not entitled to paid leave are forced to return to work within ten days of giving birth.
Being for life, always, also means defending it against the threat of firearms, which unfortunately have become a leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the US.
We can hope, therefore, that the debate on the US Supreme Court ruling will not be reduced to an ideological confrontation, but will prompt all of us—on both sides of the ocean—to reflect on what it means to welcome life, to defend it, and to promote it with appropriate legislation.
I assume that the Pope finds "murdering" fetuses
to be the greater detriment to humanity.
We must recognize that this is all based upon his
presumption that human life has a very specifically
defined beginning, one not shared by billions of
other people. This isn't even clear per Bible based
arguments I've yet heard. Yet he imposes this upon
believers & nons alike.
After criticism, they saw the light.
It all smacks of justifying prohibiting abortion.
Beforehand, children were just nascent Catholics.
There is an old Arabic saying I greatly appreciate: "If you cannot speak truth, do not speak falsehood." If the Vatican can't stand by the position that has demonstrable medical and life-saving benefits, it seems to me that it is better for them to stay silent and out of politics than be tacitly complicit in enabling the harms of abortion bans by not condemning them.
It is. They are noticing the cultist nature of current political climates. There's something else going on besides pro-life, in other words.
We have this phrase, "follow the money". This is the how and the why. And now they have the largest and most effective cult in American history behind them.There is something else and it smells like farmyard material,the DOJ has done nothing to bring the orange bb to justice.
Not a presumption, but a basic biological fact.We must recognize that this is all based upon his
presumption that human life has a very specifically
defined beginning
I don't think you actually ever apply this logic. If people disagree, human rights violations aren't a problem? "Well, it's one thing to believe (Jews, Blacks, women, etc.) are human, but it's another to embroil it in politics"?Exactly. It is one thing to hold such a view; it is quite another to embroil it in politics and political statements.
Oh, that's not a problem at all.So, we're upset that the Catholic position is consistently pro-life and not just anti-abortion?
It isn't a fact that a human life with all the rights of a person beginNot a presumption, but a basic biological fact.
That is illogical because it ignores the premisesI don't think you actually ever apply this logic. If people disagree, human rights violations aren't a problem? "Well, it's one thing to believe (Jews, Blacks, women, etc.) are human, but it's another to embroil it in politics"?
We have this phrase, "follow the money". This is the how and the why. And now they have the largest and most effective cult in American history behind them.
None of this would be nearly the issue it is, if we weren't actively syphoning off wealth from the middle class to feed the insatiable greed appetite at the top. Fill the coffers of the middle class again, and then maybe employers could afford to pay livable wages and maternity leaves? Systemic causation. What a concept!Ya know....the Catholic Church has such great wealth.
Yet "paid parental leave" to him means that employers
pay for it. How about the Pope letting loose his luscious
lucre for this purpose, eh. Or pay for pre natal care.
It would be so "pro life".
So, we're upset that the Catholic position is consistently pro-life and not just anti-abortion?
I don't think you actually ever apply this logic. If people disagree, human rights violations aren't a problem? "Well, it's one thing to believe (Jews, Blacks, women, etc.) are human, but it's another to embroil it in politics"?
I think in context, it is important to bear in mind that the Vatican editorial speaks from an already assumed 'pro-life' (to use the American political jargon) perspective and starts from that as a presupposition.
In the OP, the Vatican editorial was critiquing the stance of American pro-lifers from its own pro-life standpoint - for their failure to apply a consistent ethic of life and for their preoccupation with the prohibition of abortion to the exclusion of the protection of life at all stages and in every form; as the appalling rise in mortality rates of mothers, support for firearms, the death penalty etc. which the Vatican cites, amply evidences.
The key is this line:
In a media editorial on the United States Supreme Court's ruling to end the constitutional right to abortion, Andrea Tornielli said those who oppose abortion could not pick and choose pro-life issues.Thus, the Vatican editorial states:
For life, always - Vatican News
A serious and shared reflection on life and the protection of motherhood would require us to move away from the logic of opposing extremisms and the political polarization that often—unfortunately—accompanies discussion on this issue, preventing true dialogue.
Being for life, always, for example, means being concerned if the mortality rates of women due to motherhood increase. In the United States, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the maternal mortality rate has gone from 20.1 deaths of women per 100,000 live births in 2019 to 23.8 per 100,000 in 2020. And, strikingly, the maternal mortality rate for black women in 2020 was 55.3 deaths per 100,000 live births, 2.9 times the rate for white women.
Being for life, always, means asking how to help women welcome new life. According to one statistic in the United States, about 75 per cent of women who have abortions live in poverty or have low wages. And only 16 per cent of employees in private industry have access to paid parental leave, according to a study published in the Harvard Review of Psychiatry on 9 March 2020. Almost one in four new mothers who are not entitled to paid leave are forced to return to work within ten days of giving birth.
Being for life, always, also means defending it against the threat of firearms, which unfortunately have become a leading cause of death of children and adolescents in the US.
We can hope, therefore, that the debate on the US Supreme Court ruling will not be reduced to an ideological confrontation, but will prompt all of us—on both sides of the ocean—to reflect on what it means to welcome life, to defend it, and to promote it with appropriate legislation.
So, we're upset that the Catholic position is consistently pro-life and not just anti-abortion?
No, it would still be an issue because of religion.None of this would be nearly the issue it is, if we weren't actively syphoning off wealth from the middle class to feed the insatiable greed appetite at the top. Fill the coffers of the middle class again, and then maybe employers could afford to pay livable wages and maternity leaves? Systemic causation. What a concept!
The beginning of life is biological, denying their rights based on quasi-mystical non-empirical concepts like personhood is another thing entirely.It isn't a fact that a human life with all the rights of a person begin
when the Pope says.
I suggested that @Debater Slayer never puts the principle 'if there is disagreement about which humans are deserving of rights, you should keep your belief that the controversial humans do deserve rights out of politics' into practice under any other premises. If the logic doesn't apply universally, then it really isn't a logic, but special pleading. Different premises don't get different logic.That is illogical because it ignores the premises
that are in dispute.
Do they not acknowledge the medical and humanitarian cost of abortion bans, or do they consider them a necessary part of ending a denial of human rights? Consider the cost extending human rights, if it is high don't offer rights?No, my criticism is that the Vatican's position, by not acknowledging the medical and humanitarian cost of abortion bans, is not consistently "pro-life"
So, no? You don't ever apply that logic that people should keep their mouth shut about human rights violations and stay out of rectifying it through political means. You use a completely different set of determinations.We can't properly assess the value or justifiability of a premise in isolation of its practical outcomes.
That's a subjective determination based on your, in my view, warped calculus. I think that denying human rights and allowing for the targeting killing of individuals while denying those individuals any recourse is a fundamental degradation of humanity. Such policies cannot be called humanitarian because they by nature deny a segment of the human population their very identity as humans.And so we're back, we disagree on who gets to identify as human, and in such an argument there is no place for sitting down and shutting up when you see human lives being arbitrarily snuffed out.As a major religious organization, the Catholic Church's injection of specific beliefs into politics has a lot of detrimental effects.
Maybe the church should pay for all the unwanted babies who will be mistreated and abused and abandoned. Babies cost money and most of the families who are denied abortions are poor and can not afford more nanies. Let the church put its money where it will help.