2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Ndaccountant]

But slavery was abolished because the majority found it to be moral to do so. As I said before, if the majority decided to abolish abortion..that's just how the Republic works and I am ok with that.

But Jesus does not vote.

 

[wizards8507]

-My personal definition of "when life begins" used to be at first breath...until my wife got pregnant and I heard my daughter's heart beat for the first time. I've since changed my definition to around 5-6 weeks, when the heart begins to beat and other organs develop. Basically, the first week a woman realizes she's pregnant, she should make a decision right then and there because waiting any longer, the baby is well into the fetal development phase.

People don't get to make "personal definitions" of objective truths. Life begins at conception. That's a self-evident, scientifically verifiable fact. People like to throw around the term "science denier" about folks who disagree with the theory of evolution or the theory of man-made climate change, but there's no greater example of the denial of science than people who claim that when life begins is a matter of personal opinion.

If you want to be pro-choice with that knowledge, then you need to be prepared to admit that you're okay with the voluntary termination of a human life. You don't get to assuage your guilt by convincing yourself that abortion is anything other than what it is.

 

[ACamp1900]

 

[BleedBlueGold]

People don't get to make "personal definitions" of objective truths. Life begins at conception. That's a self-evident, scientifically verifiable fact. People like to throw around the term "science denier" about folks who disagree with the theory of evolution or the theory of man-made climate change, but there's no greater example of the denial of science than people who claim that when life begins is a matter of personal opinion.

If you want to be pro-choice with that knowledge, then you need to be prepared to admit that you're okay with the voluntary termination of a human life. You don't get to assuage your guilt by convincing yourself that abortion is anything other than what it is.

Totally get what you're saying. It was an honest question I was throwing out there for opposition. But has science really came to a consensus on this subject? Because I was under the impression that it hasn't and that's the biggest reason for this debate.

*Edit: Let me revised my question: Has science came to a consensus on determining personhood? Perhaps that's more of a philosophical question. But equally as important, imo. Reps (if I could), btw, for responding.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

And I'm sure he doesn't recognize the irony of saying that he won't help a person in need because he's a Christian. And the additional irony that he's on board with a two-time divorcee who has had extra-marital affairs.

As we discussed yesterday, I think this is explained by the huge gap between identification and observance. For most who self-identify as Christian, it's just one of many tribal signifiers for them. Just like the cast of Jersey Shore is "Italian"; their ancestry may be mostly Italian, but they have no meaningful connection to actual Italian history or culture. Maintaining those connections, much like authentic Christianity, is difficult, so most don't do it.

I've been pro-choice for awhile because:

-My personal definition of "when life begins" used to be at first breath...until my wife got pregnant and I heard my daughter's heart beat for the first time. I've since changed my definition to around 5-6 weeks, when the heart begins to beat and other organs develop. Basically, the first week a woman realizes she's pregnant, she should make a decision right then and there because waiting any longer, the baby is well into the fetal development phase.

Glad you've revised your position. But there's not a medically or morally coherent way to define human life as beginning at any point other than conception. And we've seen the horrors that arise when governments are allowed to define certain vulnerable demographics outside the legal protections of full personhood.

-I've never felt it was my business to tell a woman what she can and can't do with her body, if it's within the law. I understand and respect the rights of the unborn child though, so I can see where this becomes a heated debate.

Would it be your business to tell a fellow American that she can't own another human being? Or a German that he can't liquidate Die Juden? The exact same principles apply here.

-The "Turnaway" study showed that 76% of women who were refused abortions ended up on welfare within two years. So I've felt that if it's so important to protect the unborn child from termination, then it should equally important to protect the born child if living in poverty. Yet there's sometimes seems to be a disconnect here. (I haven't looked up the statistics, but it's my personal experience that people who are pro-life, also are anti-government welfare programs and safety net programs. Maybe that's inaccurate, but it's what I've experienced.)

I agree with you entirely. The American pro-life movement was almost entirely Catholic during the early 20th century, and Catholics were reliably Democratic voters. Roe v. Wade split the Catholic vote along partisan lines, and evangelical Protestants started to take the lead in the pro-life movement, which also brought a lot of small-government baggage with it.

Those who are serious about protecting the unborn also need to be serious about making life easier for struggling mothers, through policies like paid maternity leave.

 

[wizards8507]

Those who are serious about protecting the unborn also need to be serious about making life easier for struggling mothers, through policies like paid maternity leave.

Um, what? That's like saying we need to give everyone a free car in order to combat auto theft.

 

[woolybug25]

Um, what? That's like saying we need to give everyone a free car in order to combat auto theft.

That's a terrible analogy. A better one would be that if government was serious about stopping auto theft, they would require auto makers to put theft deterrent systems in their vehicles.

Which is pretty accurate, albeit not a serious issue requiring government intervention.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

As we discussed yesterday, I think this is explained by the huge gap between identification and observance. For most who self-identify as Christian, it's just one of many tribal signifiers for them. Just like the cast of Jersey Shore is "Italian"; their ancestry may be mostly Italian, but they have no meaningful connection to actual Italian history or culture. Maintaining those connections, much like authentic Christianity, is difficult, so most don't do it.



Glad you've revised your position. But there's not a medically or morally coherent way to define human life as beginning at any point other than conception. And we've seen the horrors that arise when governments are allowed to define certain vulnerable demographics outside the legal protections of full personhood.



Would it be your business to tell a fellow American that she can't own another human being? Or a German that he can't liquidate Die Juden? The exact same principles apply here.



I agree with you entirely. The American pro-life movement was almost entirely Catholic during the early 20th century, and Catholics were reliably Democratic voters. Roe v. Wade split the Catholic vote along partisan lines, and evangelical Protestants started to take the lead in the pro-life movement, which also brought a lot of small-government baggage with it.

Those who are serious about protecting the unborn also need to be serious about making life easier for struggling mothers, through policies like paid maternity leave.

Thanks for the response. I understand what you and Wiz have pointed out. Being a father now, it's honestly hard for me to find an argument against "life begins at conception."

What about this though: "Does personhood begin at conception? Is a fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus a person with rights that trump those of the woman upon whose body it depends?" Shouldn't that be considered in the debate - Personhood as it pertains to ones rights?

And we've seen the horrors that arise when governments are allowed to define certain vulnerable demographics outside the legal protections of full personhood.

I'm not sure I follow. Which governments are you referring to? Clearly, I need to continue my reading.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Um, what? That's like saying we need to give everyone a free car in order to combat auto theft.

You're all justice and no mercy, wizards. Telling a poor single woman that just got pregnant, "Abortion is now illegal, so you'll have to at least carry this baby to term. But you'll get no support from us in doing so, because reasons. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, dummy!" is pure hypocrisy.

You understand the grave moral importance of ending abortion, but you're unwilling to dedicate any public resources toward helping struggling women without the social capital necessary to safely bring their babies into the world? It's that attitude that allows the pro-abortion lobby to paint us as anti-woman.

 

[dales5050]

Really?

Yes really. Crazy Christian ≠ Christian

You're the one who's been painting with a broad brush here and suggesting that a large swath of Americans should be disqualified from public office for being religious.

No. I am saying that someone's religion should not drive their public service if they decided to become an elected official. Huge difference.

Let me put it this way...

Christians are like healthy people who work out. They take care of themselves. They eat right. They work out. They are open to helping others get healthy. BUT they don't base their entire life around being healthy. They don't post about each run they do on Facebook. They don't bitch about options not to their diet at a friends BBQ.

Crazy Christians are like Crossfit people. They do all of the above but they put their lifestyle in the face of everyone else.

Obviously this is just me painting a picture but I hope you get the point. My entire family is Catholic. I was an Alter Boy. I find great value in the Catholic belief structure as a person when it's internalized. That said, I despise when anyone tries to project or even force that belief structure on others. That's just not how it's supposed to work.

Ah, yes. Let's look to Salon and HuffPo-- those beacons of objective political analysis-- for a fair and balanced description of religious conservatives.

There are hundreds of the same posts but I'll give you that Salon and HuffPo are bias often and in many ways.

That said, the core of the message in each of those and countless others, is the same. Fundamentalist Christians have ruined the GOP.

I believe in a separation between Church and State. I don't think Churches should be taxed. I think Catholic Charities is one of the best orgs in the nation. I think anyone should be able to think what they want.

It does not mean I can't have an opinion on it. But beyond this I don't think anyone has the right to force their belief structure on anyone else. Especially when it's done in such a way that it can't be discredited. Kim Davis is a perfect example of this. Hell, Kim Davis is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the mixture of religion, politics and public service.

Last warning. That's insulting, and not remotely accurate for the vast majority of Christians; particularly not the ones you're arguing with here.

Heh. Amusing. I had an interesting chat with a mod yesterday about an infraction I got from a conversation with another poster.

Was essentially told that it's OK to be insulting if you say things the right way or if you 'don't cross the line'. That it was ok for someone to insult me because they danced around language while I didn't. I think if you think something you should just say it and be ready to defend it rather than dancing around it so that you still get to insult someone without a 'penalty'...

This is common everyone online and in public. We are now in a place where it's not - Don't be a jerk. Don't insult people. - But just insult people in a way where you don't cross the line.

Frankly, why should I care if you're insulted by my words? You have thrown several shots my way. Just why do you deserve some sort of protected status from my personal opinions when it's clear you are not open to others.

I also notice nobody has tried to refute the claim itself....

 

[pkt77242]

As we discussed yesterday, I think this is explained by the huge gap between identification and observance. For most who self-identify as Christian, it's just one of many tribal signifiers for them. Just like the cast of Jersey Shore is "Italian"; their ancestry may be mostly Italian, but they have no meaningful connection to actual Italian history or culture. Maintaining those connections, much like authentic Christianity, is difficult, so most don't do it.



Glad you've revised your position. But there's not a medically or morally coherent way to define human life as beginning at any point other than conception. And we've seen the horrors that arise when governments are allowed to define certain vulnerable demographics outside the legal protections of full personhood.



Would it be your business to tell a fellow American that she can't own another human being? Or a German that he can't liquidate Die Juden? The exact same principles apply here.



I agree with you entirely. The American pro-life movement was almost entirely Catholic during the early 20th century, and Catholics were reliably Democratic voters. Roe v. Wade split the Catholic vote along partisan lines, and evangelical Protestants started to take the lead in the pro-life movement, which also brought a lot of small-government baggage with it.

Those who are serious about protecting the unborn also need to be serious about making life easier for struggling mothers, through policies like paid maternity leave.

I think that this has been one of my biggest struggles with the pro-life movement, many of the "pro-lifers" only care about the child before it is born, afterwards, they don't want to expend the capital to give it a better life. Many pro-life people that I know want to drastically cut taxes because they don't want to pay for welfare, medicaid, unemployment, etc. To me that says that they are anti-abortion not pro-life.


*I know that you are different Whiskey, and this isn't meant towards you.

On a barely related note, Whiskey I know that you talk about the lack of native birth rate in the US, but I think part of that is the cost of raising a child here for middle class families. My wife and I spend about 25K (2 children in full time daycare and 1 child in after school and summer programs) a year on daycare, and if we want to have another child it will push our cost closer to 35K.

 

[woolybug25]

You're all justice and no mercy, wizards. Telling a poor single woman that just got pregnant, "Abortion is now illegal, so you'll have to at least carry this baby to term. But you'll get no support from us in doing so, because reasons. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, dummy!" is pure hypocrisy.

You understand the grave moral importance of ending abortion, but you're unwilling to dedicate any public resources toward helping struggling women with the social capital necessary to safely bring her baby into the world? It's that attitude that allows the pro-abortion lobby to paint us as anti-woman.

Perfectly stated.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

You're all justice and no mercy, wizards. Telling a poor single woman that just got pregnant, "Abortion is now illegal, so you'll have to at least carry this baby to term. But you'll get no support from us in doing so, because reasons. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, dummy!" is pure hypocrisy.

You understand the grave moral importance of ending abortion, but you're unwilling to dedicate any public resources toward helping struggling women with the social capital necessary to safely bring her baby into the world? It's that attitude that allows the pro-abortion lobby to paint us as anti-woman.

Not to mention the public resources that can help a child, so unlucky to be born into poverty, have the basic necessities of life in food/water/clothes/shelter.

 

[gkIrish]

Heh. Amusing. I had an interesting chat with a mod yesterday about an infraction I got from a conversation with another poster.

Was essentially told that it's OK to be insulting if you say things the right way or if you 'don't cross the line'. That it was ok for someone to insult me because they danced around language while I didn't. I think if you think something you should just say it and be ready to defend it rather than dancing around it so that you still get to insult someone without a 'penalty'...

This is common everyone online and in public. We are now in a place where it's not - Don't be a jerk. Don't insult people. - But just insult people in a way where you don't cross the line.

Frankly, why should I care if you're insulted by my words? You have thrown several shots my way. Just why do you deserve some sort of protected status from my personal opinions when it's clear you are not open to others.

I also notice nobody has tried to refute the claim itself....

As the mod you are referring to, I must speak up:

1) Private messages are private. If I wanted to tell the board what you say I told you, I would have done so publicly.

2) I absolutely did not tell you it was okay to insult people. What I said was there is a line that should not be crossed and that certain posters do a good job of expressing frustration with what a poster says without crossing that line.

3) If a mod warns you once to stop doing something, they are telling you that you are right at that line and that you might be about to cross it. By responding with language similar to the language that got you a warning you are basically throwing up a middle finger and asking for a ban.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Thanks for the response. I understand what you and Wiz have pointed out. Being a father now, it's honestly hard for me to find an argument against "life begins at conception."

What about this though: "Does personhood begin at conception? Is a fertilized egg, blastocyst, embryo, or fetus a person with rights that trump those of the woman upon whose body it depends?" Shouldn't that be considered in the debate - Personhood as it pertains to ones rights?

As you intuited above, the concept of personhood is philosophical/ theological, and cannot be answered by science alone. What makes human beings special? Christians think it's the imago dei, which means all human life is sacred. So for Christians, "personhood" and the legal protections it affords is intrinsic to humanity, which begins at conception.

You could try to ground personhood in something else, like a certain level of cognitive function, racial characteristics, earning power, etc. But each of those definitions would logically justify actions that we intuitively recoil from, like destroying the mentally handi-capped, the elderly, or the infirm. The only logically coherent position that rules out such horrors is one that attaches legal protections to humanity itself.

I'm not sure I follow. Which governments are you referring to? Clearly, I need to continue my reading.

Slavery and Nazi genocide. In both cases, a vulnerable demographic (slaves in the former and Jews in the latter) were legally defined as something less than persons, which permitted Western governments within the recent past to deny them crucial legal protections. What followed were the two greatest moral catastrophes in modern Western history.

 

[NDgradstudent]

I agree with you entirely. The American pro-life movement was almost entirely Catholic during the early 20th century, and Catholics were reliably Democratic voters. Roe v. Wade split the Catholic vote along partisan lines, and evangelical Protestants started to take the lead in the pro-life movement, which also brought a lot of small-government baggage with it.

Catholics started voting Republican in large numbers soon after World War II in the 1952 and 1956 elections. After a return to the Dems with JFK and LBJ, Catholics moved right, and by 1972 were voting like the rest of the country.

When New York liberalized its abortion law in 1970, the fact that a Republican (Nelson Rockefeller) signed the bill is often taken as evidence that the GOP was the "pro-choice" party. In fact, about two-thirds of Republicans in the NY legislature opposed the bill, and two-thirds of Democrats supported it (it only passed by a couple of votes). Bear in mind that as now the NY GOP known for being fairly liberal. I'm sure you know all of this, but there is a new book out making this sort of 'Democrats were the pro-life party' argument, and so I want to put a response out there.

As for welfare, conservative reactions to the Great Society programs (from people like Charles Murray and James Q. Wilson) led to GOP opposition to welfare as counter-productive. These appeals were not based on a rights-based theory but on a consequences-based theory. The basic argument was that welfare programs frequently have unintended and counter-productive effects by creating incentives for behaviors that are not conducive to a pro-life culture in general. That goes a longer way toward explaining the attitude of many conservatives toward welfare programs than any "small government baggage" brought by Evangelicals.

To quote Michael New, a political scientist who occasionally writes for NR (emphasis and comments added):

Most importantly, there is not one peer-reviewed study which shows that greater spending on welfare or other social programs reduces the abortion rate. Some analysts point to lower abortion rates in European countries which tend to have more generous public benefits for low-income earners. However, the abortion rate in many of these countries is rising, while the abortion rate in the United States has been falling. [Note too that abortion is significantly more restricted in almost every European country than it is in the U.S., and that there are many different demographic variables in these countries that also explain the lower rate.] Pro-lifers should certainly advertise the excellent work pregnancy resource centers are doing in meeting the needs of many women facing unplanned pregnancies. That said, expanding welfare benefits is a strategy that probably will be less successful than advertised.

Those who are serious about protecting the unborn also need to be serious about making life easier for struggling mothers, through policies like paid maternity leave.

That particular policy is a good idea, but as long as out-of-wedlock births are a big problem, abortion will be a big problem. To take an extreme case, in Japan both the abortion and the out-of-wedlock-birth rates are much lower than in the U.S. The stigma on out-of-wedlock childbearing plays a role in decisions people make in Japan. (Of course, Japan does not have a huge underclass as we do in the U.S., nor very much immigration.) Other than creating incentives, there is not much that the government can do to fix the out-of-wedlock birth rate problem. It requires a cultural change.

I continue to believe that artificial wombs will be developed relatively soon, and that this will radically change the abortion debate, as ND alum Christopher Kazcor has argued. It will create its own set of problems, but they will still be preferable to abortion.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

As you intuited above, the concept of personhood is philosophical/ theological, and cannot be answered by science alone. What makes human beings special? Christians think it's the imago dei, which means all human life is sacred. So for Christians, "personhood" and the legal protections it affords is intrinsic to humanity, which begins at conception.

You could try to ground personhood in something else, like a certain level of cognitive function, racial characteristics, earning power, etc. But each of those definitions would logically justify actions that we intuitively recoil from, like destroying the mentally handi-capped, the elderly, or the infirm. The only logically coherent position that rules out such horrors is one that attaches legal protections to humanity itself.

If we're using Christian doctrine/beliefs to define personhood, then aren't we back to the debate on Church and State? Not all religions agree:

The issue of “personhood” is a theological and personal rather than medical or scientific question. While current teaching by the Vatican is that a fertilized egg is a “person” with full rights under the law, other religious traditions disagree. Jewish law and tradition does not recognize an egg, embryo, or fetus as a person or full human being, but rather “part and parcel of the pregnant women’s body,” the rights of which are subjugated to the health and well-being of the mother until birth. The United Methodist Church recognizes the primacy of the rights and health of women. Islamic scholars, like Jewish scholars, have debated the issues of “ensoulment” and personhood, and continue to do so with no over-riding consensus.

Life Begins At Conception. That's Not the Point - Rewire
Social Principles: The Nurturing Community | The United Methodist Church


It's because of this lack of clarity and debate that I continue to fall back on the viability of the fetus as determined by medicine that a baby can survive w/o the mother once the 23rd week arrives (with the use of modern medicine, of course). It's my personal belief (based on my own experience in the ultrasound room) that a heartbeat dictated my daughter's personhood (I know Wiz, my own beliefs don't matter). Anyways, until Roe v Wade decision is changed, if the only foundation for the "life" and "personhood" debate is based on the theological beliefs of Christianity, I will struggle to completely jump over to the pro-life bus (consider me having one foot in each at the moment).

Slavery and Nazi genocide. In both cases, a vulnerable demographic (slaves in the former and Jews in the latter) were legally defined as something less than persons, which permitted Western governments within the recent past to deny them crucial legal protections. What followed were the two greatest moral catastrophes in modern Western history.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

It's because of this lack of clarity and debate that I continue to fall back on the viability of the fetus as determined by medicine that a baby can survive w/o the mother once the 23rd week arrives (with the use of modern medicine, of course). It's my personal belief (based on my own experience in the ultrasound room) that a heartbeat dictated my daughter's personhood (I know Wiz, my own beliefs don't matter). Anyways, until Roe v Wade decision is changed, if the only foundation for the "life" and "personhood" debate is based on the theological beliefs of Christianity, I will struggle to completely jump over to the pro-life bus (consider me having one foot in each at the moment).

That's fair, though I don't think one needs to buy into the theological argument to accept the pro-life position. As I mentioned above, it has the advantage of being intuitive (humanity and personhood begin simultaneously) and that, consistently applied, it would have effectively precluded catastrophes like slavery and genocide.

Or you could come to the pro-life position on purely sociological grounds. The native birth rate plummets far below replacement value in societies that normalize contraception and abortion, so for the simple sake of avoiding demographic collapse/ in the interest of national survival, it should be illegal.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

As for welfare, conservative reactions to the Great Society programs (from people like Charles Murray and James Q. Wilson) led to GOP opposition to welfare as counter-productive. These appeals were not based on a rights-based theory but on a consequences-based theory. The basic argument was that welfare programs frequently have unintended and counter-productive effects by creating incentives for behaviors that are not conducive to a pro-life culture in general. That goes a longer way toward explaining the attitude of many conservatives toward welfare programs than any "small government baggage" brought by Evangelicals.

I wanted to focus on just this:

I completely understand the conservative mindset here. Almost to the point of agreeing with it at times. However, in this particular situation, a "lazy person on welfare" can choose to maintain that lifestyle even if the funding is cut. Those that do will fall to the very bottom of society, while the creme rises. Lets say everyone is okay with that hypothetical. The problem arises when said person is responsible for children (who have no say in the matter) and still decides to fall to the bottom voluntarily. The kids are the ones who suffer most and that's where our focus should be.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That particular policy is a good idea, but as long as out-of-wedlock births are a big problem, abortion will be a big problem. To take an extreme case, in Japan both the abortion and the out-of-wedlock-birth rates are much lower than in the U.S. The stigma on out-of-wedlock childbearing plays a role in decisions people make in Japan. (Of course, Japan does not have a huge underclass as we do in the U.S., nor very much immigration.) Other than creating incentives, there is not much that the government can do to fix the out-of-wedlock birth rate problem. It requires a cultural change.

Poland is poised to completely outlaw abortion in the near future. It's arguably the most devoutly Catholic nation in the world right now (thanks, JPII!), which supports your cultural argument, but it's still a remarkable occurrence within the modern West.

 

[NDohio]

You're all justice and no mercy, wizards. Telling a poor single woman that just got pregnant, "Abortion is now illegal, so you'll have to at least carry this baby to term. But you'll get no support from us in doing so, because reasons. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, dummy!" is pure hypocrisy.

You understand the grave moral importance of ending abortion, but you're unwilling to dedicate any public resources toward helping struggling women without the social capital necessary to safely bring their babies into the world? It's that attitude that allows the pro-abortion lobby to paint us as anti-woman.

Well said Whiskey.

 

[dales5050]

As the mod you are referring to, I must speak up:

1) Private messages are private. If I wanted to tell the board what you say I told you, I would have done so publicly.

2) I absolutely did not tell you it was okay to insult people. What I said was there is a line that should not be crossed and that certain posters do a good job of expressing frustration with what a poster says without crossing that line.

3) If a mod warns you once to stop doing something, they are telling you that you are right at that line and that you might be about to cross it. By responding with language similar to the language that got you a warning you are basically throwing up a middle finger and asking for a ban.

1) I didn't reference you. Just said a mod. Didn't think it was an issue and don't recall being told that before. Many sites are different.

2) I said 'was essentially told'.... I did not say you told me it was OK to insult people.

I accept that my language was out of line. I should do a better job how I phrase things because words matter. But I stand by my point regarding intent of words.

For example, I can understand why a MB would not want a poster calling another poster a moron or stupid. It's the online equivalent of kicking dirt. But we are humans with emotions and sometimes tempers flair.

But how is the intent any different than someone saying "I'd suggest a battle of wits but I refuse to fight an unarmed opponent" or any other variation of a nice way to call someone stupid?

The intent is the same.

Shouldn't we just strive to not find ways around calling others names? Shouldn't the line be there rather than words that trigger?

 

[dales5050]

Or you could come to the pro-life position on purely sociological grounds. The native birth rate plummets far below replacement value in societies that normalize contraception and abortion, so for the simple sake of avoiding demographic collapse/ in the interest of national survival, it should be illegal.

In a vacuum maybe.

First, this assumes that a spike in birth rates would all fall into the category of contributing members of society. When I think it's safe to say that many who make the choice to have an abortion do so because they are not able to raise a child as a child needs to be raised in order to become such a person.

Second, this implies that our nation's survival is based on one without any form of immigration, when in fact, the success of our nation is based on immigrants. It's not like someone born in Uganda or Mexico can't eventually become a citizen.

Third, it also does not factor in at all the fact that beyond national borders we live in a global society and resources are not infinite...yet.

 

[woolybug25]

Question.... and I'm not asking facetiously, but in a world where overpopulation is becoming an ever increasing environmental issue, why is a decrease in birth rates a negative?

Not saying it should be a positive for pro choice, just interested in why that's a suggested angle for pro life.

 

[GATTACA!]

Okay Mr. Scientist, let's use science. SCIENCE tells us that a distinct human being with a unique DNA structure is created when an ovum is fertilized by a sperm cell. Deliberately ending the life of a human being is murder.

The science is no more complicated than that. There's absolutely no intellectually consistent defense of elective abortion that also condemns "normal" murder.

Notice: I didn't need to quote the Bible or the Catechism.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Question.... and I'm not asking facetiously, but in a world where overpopulation is becoming an ever increasing environmental issue, why is a decrease in birth rates a negative?

Not saying it should be a positive for pro choice, just interested in why that's a suggested angle for pro life.

"Over-population" is a function of both consumption rates and demographic numbers. The Catholic position is that current Western consumption patterns are the problem, not the number of people. If we chose to live in a more local, sustainable and communitarian manner, over-population would be a non-issue.

Societies are like organisms in many ways. They're either growing, maintaining, or dying. Virtually every nation in the West is currently dying, and at a rate that will make most other seemingly pressing issues irrelevant.

NDgradstudent brought up Japan several posts above, where the sale of adult diapers recently surpassed the sale of baby diapers. What will become of Japanese culture when, within the next 100 years, there's virtually no one left to receive it?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">No, I didn't predict that the Republican Party would lose its fucking mind. <a href="https://t.co/THHsGoBuBh">https://t.co/THHsGoBuBh</a></p>— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/728303624040894464">May 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[irishfan]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">No, I didn't predict that the Republican Party would lose its fucking mind. <a href="https://t.co/THHsGoBuBh">https://t.co/THHsGoBuBh</a></p>— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/728303624040894464">May 5, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Trump is a mad man.

Silver is just butthurt he was so wrong about Trump. For someone who is supposed to be about statistics, he has written with an anti-Trump slant from the start as well. Even when Trump won the nomination, he still blamed voters not himself for being so off on his predictions.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Trump is a mad man.

Silver is just butthurt he was so wrong about Trump. For someone who is supposed to be about statistics, he has written with an anti-Trump slant from the start as well. Even when Trump won the nomination, he still blamed voters not himself for being so off on his predictions.

Yeah, Silver's pretty liberal, and he's not doing much to hide it these days. I just thought Silver's comment along with Trump's picture was a thing of beauty.

 

[irishfan]

Yeah, Silver's pretty liberal, and he's not doing much to hide it these days. I just thought Silver's comment along with Trump's picture was a thing of beauty.

Oh I agree. I got a good chuckle out of it. Just wanted to go off on a short Silver rant.