DNC SEEKS TO WOO CATHOLICS

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 26 2005, 04:36 PM']
AthiestAlex, there is a prominent Australian philosopher named Peter Singer who advocates a position similar to yours. He reaches the proper final conclusion from his premises. I just want to know if you do as well. You claim that a mother should have the freedom to decide on if she gets an abortion or not. Would you also extend that right to children who have already been born? Singer, in fact, does do this. Basicly, he takes the exact same argument that people who are pro-life do and uses it to go the other way. So my question is, do you also support the mother being able to kill her children tha are already born? If yes, at what age does this right stop, and if no, why not?

I look forward to your response. [/quote]
bump. I would really like an answer, Alex.

[AtheistAlex]

Okay.
First, let me say that there have been some good, intelligent points raised here, and I am not the person able to correctly argue against them. That said, Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies does apply when one uses an analogy to Nazis or Nazism in an internet discussion. The law states that as internet discussions go on, the probability of an analogy to Nazis or Nazism approaches one. The common inference from this, that which Godwin was intending, was that the Nazi analogy will invariably come up as a means to in effect, "shut someone up", or to shame the other person by comparing them to Nazis. Godwin's Law was made to combat such an affront.

Secondly, and more importantly, I do not actually have a solid footing on the abortion issue. Never have, probably never will. I can agree with both sides, but it's so controversial that one can't ride the fence, so I'm caught. Sorry, you're right, I can't give a good discussion on this, because of my lackluster high school education.

JP2, I do not support children being killed after they are born, but I can't just take away a woman's right to have a wanted child while it is still a part of HER physical being. Once it is born, it is not part of her being.

If we abolish abortions, then what should be done for the unwanted children born?

Edited March 3, 2005 by AtheistAlex

[avalia]

It's hard to be anything these days. I'm Catholic, then Conservitive i suppose. I feel that states my issues and stances much better then affiliating with a particular political party. I will say however, that I was chagrined to find that the entire convent of the local all-girls school voted for Kerry. Dominicans...hmmm....

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote]JP2, I do not support children being killed after they are born, but I can't just take away a woman's right to have a wanted child while it is still a part of HER physical being. Once it is born, it is not part of her being.[/quote]

Why do you think that it is part of her physical being? It has a different blood type, a different genotype, a different phenotype, and sometimes a different gender. It has a different set of DNA. Please provide some scientific evidence backing up your claim or a sound philosophical proof as to why it is part of her body.

Once you do that, please respond to this. I have never once in my life heard of a woman, or a man for that matter, claiming the right to cut off her hand or poke out her eye beause it's part of her body. Indeed, if someone were to do such a thing, it would probably be considered insanity. Can you pleae enlighten me as to why this case is different?

[JP2Iloveyou]

bump

[JP2Iloveyou]

I'm gonna keep bumping this until I get a response.

[jasJis]

[quote name='AtheistAlex' date='Mar 3 2005, 01:09 AM'] JP2, I do not support children being killed after they are born, but I can't just take away a woman's right to have a wanted child while it is still a part of HER physical being. Once it is born, it is not part of her being.

If we abolish abortions, then what should be done for the unwanted children born? [/quote]
You bring up an excellent point here Alex. This IS the challenge to pro-life Christians.

"If we abolish abortions, then what should be done for the unwanted children born?"

The answer is deep. A few points.
What's the difference between a value and a priority? Priorities change, values remain. Public nudity is a value, brushing your teeth in the morning is a priority. If we wake up late for work, we can skip brushing our teeth, but we always get dressed.

Giving life dignity is a value to Catholics. We don't prioritize it. That's why the strong are responsible for the weak. We can hate homosexuality, but we can't hate homosexuals. We are human and we often fail at the distinctions.

In my opinion, some practical ways to care for unwanted children:
-Make notification of both parents mandatory when an abortion is sought. Too many rapes and incest criminals are getting away with crimes. It also puts responsiblity back on the male, who is just as responsible. Abortion laws now shield the male from responsibility.
-Make financial responsibilty a stronger part of the penalties for both male and female. If the male chooses to raise the child for 18 years, the mother should pay.
-Stengthen the removal of parental rights from people who don't want to raise the child. Some mothers choose abortion because they don't want to deal 18 years with an abusive jerk. If he needs to be removed from the family, it should be done quickly and effectively, without constant legal challenges for years.
-Revise adoption laws to encourage adoption so kids aren't ware-housed for years in foster care. Keep birth parents away from the kids until they are 18 so we don't have people inserting themselves into families 10 years later.
-Provide charity and governmental support for single parents (male and female) who are trying to raise their kids. Instead of welfare, how about child care so the parent can work.

I've got more ideas...

[JP2Iloveyou]

bump, until Alex responds.

[JP2Iloveyou]

like I said, until I get a response. ***bump***

Come on Alex. It's a simple question. The pro-abortion position simply can't handle logic.