Jane Roe’s Deathbed Confession: Anti-Abortion Conversion ‘All an Act’

[beanman12345]

I mean I'm pro-choice so I want us to beat the pro-life argument, we can't do that when most people here don't even understand the real motivations behind the pro-life movement.

I'm Catholic. Even went to Seminary. I'm VERY aware of their motivations. However it is those very pragmatic take on the situation, that makes me pro-choice. A law forbidding it, isn't gonna stop it, it'll just make it more dangerous, like I said. This is exactly my argument I would take to anyone else who isn't aware of the dangers a law or ban would inscribe.

[PC2]

I'm Catholic. Even went to Seminary. I'm VERY aware of their motivations. However it is those very pragmatic take on the situation, that makes me pro-choice. A law forbidding it, isn't gonna stop it, it'll just make it more dangerous, like I said. This is exactly my argument I would take to anyone else who isn't aware of the dangers a law or ban would inscribe.

No I don't believe you that you are Catholic and not an atheist. If you really are Catholic then you would need to believe in souls. Since there's absolutely no reason to believe a person gains a soul at the moment they leave the womb then that must mean they already have a soul before that point. Allowing an abortion before that point is literally murder if they have a soul and there is no pragmatic argument that could ever justify murder.

It's kind of like saying "We don't need to outlaw rape because even if we do outlaw rape some people would still be raped, so we should be pragmatic and not put it into law since some amount of rape is inevitable". Which of course is complete nonsense because a lack of practical effectiveness is not a reason to avoid codifying an ethical violation.

[Ivanstone]

I mean I'm pro-choice so I want us to beat the pro-life argument, we can't do that when most people here don't even understand the real motivations behind the pro-life movement.

We can't know their motivations. That would require knowledge of their history and even if we knew that we couldn't use it to determine their future actions.

[Endus]

No I don't believe you that you are Catholic and not an atheist. If you really are Catholic then you would need to believe in souls. Since there's absolutely no reason to believe a person gains a soul at the moment they leave the womb then that must mean they already have a soul before that point. Allowing an abortion before that point is literally murder if they have a soul and there is no pragmatic argument that could ever justify murder.

It's kind of like saying "We don't need to outlaw rape because even if we do outlaw rape some people would still be raped, so we should be pragmatic and not put it into law since some amount of rape is inevitable". Which of course is complete nonsense because a lack of practical effectiveness is not a reason to avoid codifying an ethical violation.

It doesn't matter if you have religious views.

If you're trying to force those religious views on others, in ways that oppress women in particular, you're the same kind of abusive religious extremist as the worst of the Taliban.

Your religious views only inform what decisions you should make, for yourself. They have no validity in any discussion of anyone else's rights and freedoms; you don't get to force people to abide by your religious creed. That's a violation of their basic human rights.

Being Catholic does not justify opposing abortion rights for women. It means you should probably not choose to have an abortion, if you're pregnant. It does not ever stretch further than that, not unless you're explicitly attacking other people's religious freedoms and human rights, and trying to enforce your religious rules on a populace that does not share that faith.

[Daelak]

I’m not shocked. As was already stated, the reason right-wing media exists is largely because of people getting paid to propagandize

Indeed, conservatism has never been about substance, just the production of delusions, deflections, falsehoods, and white racial superiority for over 240 years.

[Calfredd]

No I don't believe you that you are Catholic and not an atheist. If you really are Catholic then you would need to believe in souls. Since there's absolutely no reason to believe a person gains a soul at the moment they leave the womb then that must mean they already have a soul before that point. Allowing an abortion before that point is literally murder if they have a soul and there is no pragmatic argument that could ever justify murder..

Ad hominim. Debate the argument, not the person.

[Mihalik]

No I don't believe you that you are Catholic and not an atheist. If you really are Catholic then you would need to believe in souls. Since there's absolutely no reason to believe a person gains a soul at the moment they leave the womb then that must mean they already have a soul before that point. Allowing an abortion before that point is literally murder if they have a soul and there is no pragmatic argument that could ever justify murder.

This is a moving benchmark that is also inconsistently defined by the Church itself.

Up until relatively recently (1992) stillborn babies or children who died before baptism were considered to go to "Limbo" which really was just a cheap semantic trick of trying to explain away how innocent children might go to hell just because they weren't lucky enough to be baptized. Since then they are "entrusted to the Mercy of the Lord" which is just code word for, oh yeah God will totally let them into heaven.

But more importantly to the question at hand in the last about 70 years the Church changed its views and procedures of how to treat fetal matter and still borns no less than 3 times. Each time the rules were becoming more and more restrictive (parallel to the growth of the anti abortion movement).

But even now the Church doesn't actually define which is the point where "fetal matter" becomes a "human corpse". Although burial is only recommended after 24 weeks.

This is for a specific reason. Most miscarriages happen in first trimester. At that junction there is no body to ceremonialize over.

So the problem the Church has is that if it claims that fetuses have souls and needs to treat each miscarriage, not matter how early, as a human death. Which is asinine and the church is aware of this. At what point is a soul acquired? 2 cells? 4? 36?

In practice the church only treats fetuses past the 20 week mark as a human (and human soul) but then also defines conception as the moment when a soul is acquired... Not matter of the fact that the vast majority of fertilized eggs never develop into anything.

It's a goofy step dance of moving goal posts, dogmatism, looking the other way, faux outrage and inconsistency.

[starlord]

I already told you they're trying to prevent what is perceived as murder. When it comes to murder the only way to address that is via law. So the real solution is to change their mind on what classifies as murder.

to change the law, they have to make a lawful argument.

[Endus]

to change the law, they have to make a lawful argument.

Also, an argument not predicated on religious rules, which again, do not matter one whit to anyone outside that religious group.

The moment you cite a religious belief or rule as the basis for your stance on a law, you lose whatever argument you're having. Law is about what rules everyone should be beholden to; your creed's religious rules do not fall under that umbrella, not unless you're deliberately and intentionally trying to oppress and subjugate all other belief systems and establish theocratic rule.

Which, let's be clear, some people want. They just won't come out and say it, because it reveals them as the misanthropic authoritarian hatemongers that they are.

[Trunksee]

Also, an argument not predicated on religious rules, which again, do not matter one whit to anyone outside that religious group.

The moment you cite a religious belief or rule as the basis for your stance on a law, you lose whatever argument you're having. Law is about what rules everyone should be beholden to; your creed's religious rules do not fall under that umbrella, not unless you're deliberately and intentionally trying to oppress and subjugate all other belief systems and establish theocratic rule.

Which, let's be clear, some people want. They just won't come out and say it, because it reveals them as the misanthropic authoritarian hatemongers that they are.

Ok lawful argument. It should be illegal if medical science could in someway keep the child alive. Any time that science can keep the life alive then it should be illegal as the life has a chance to live outside of the mother. As science advances the time frame gets smaller and the sooner and sooner that life has rights.

On topic. Not surprised enough money could get most people to do absolutely anything.

[Endus]

Ok lawful argument. It should be illegal if medical science could in someway keep the child alive.

This is predicated on religion-based premises that I have no reason to entertain. A fetus is not a "child".

Any time that science can keep the life alive then it should be illegal as the life has a chance to live outside of the mother. As science advances the time frame gets smaller and the sooner and sooner that life has rights.

Not an argument against abortion, in any way whatsoever. Just an argument that efforts should be made to sustain the aborted fetus. That's it. That's as far as this argument can ever take you.

[Trunksee]

This is predicated on religion-based premises that I have no reason to entertain. A fetus is not a "child".



Not an argument against abortion, in any way whatsoever. Just an argument that efforts should be made to sustain the aborted fetus. That's it. That's as far as this argument can ever take you.

True but all effort should be taken to save a life when a life can be saved and it should be added to the cost of it. I should not have said child. But the fetus gains rights once medical science says theres a chance it could survive outside and because the mother caused said life could survive with medical care the cost falls on the parents of the fetus. If life can be sustained outside the womb the the life gains said rights.

[Lenonis]

True but all effort should be taken to save a life when a life

Just over 90k dead now. 76 under the age of 24, 4k under 64, that means 86k have been of retirement age... We all have given up our society to literally protect those who have already stopped contributing.

So which is it? Is life sacred or do we get to sacrifice grandma to open the economy?

Or are you just a raging hypocrite?

[Mihalik]

Trump or Biden is gonna be president, that is reality. If you advocate for biden to lose, you are advocating for trump to win. it's really that simple. they aren't both gonna lose. How did your protest in not voting go in 2016, did you get what you wanted in 2020?

Yeah no. Actually both can lose. Biden can lose the presidency and Trump can have his neutered by a democratic House and Senate.

Or... The democrats can change course, force Biden to drop out and offer me someone I can vote for.

These are my political objectives.

[draynay]

Or are you just a raging hypocrite?

Well he is an anarchist who sees all government action as "oppression" and also we should all get free photo IDs.

But the real goal here was to steer this thread into forbidden topics so it could be closed, and people made that easy enough for him.

[Trunksee]

So which is it? Is life sacred or do we get to sacrifice grandma to open the economy?

Or are you just a raging hypocrite?

Not even at all related in any way. If i were to run up and cough on grandma intentionally you could make that comparison. Key word of the day is intent. Now we can protect grandma all day long by supplying her with other ways to survive.

- - - Updated - - -

Well he is an anarchist who sees all government action as "oppression" and also we should all get free photo IDs.

But the real goal here was to steer this thread into forbidden topics so it could be closed, and people made that easy enough for him.

How the hell did i steer it i was responding fo someone else who already started the discussion?

[Lenonis]

Not even at all related in any way.

You stated that all effort should be taken to save a life. You also stated that opening the country back up is fine because the older people who don't contribute anymore are primarily the ones dying.

These statement cannot co-exist in a rational mind.

[Endus]

True but all effort should be taken to save a life when a life can be saved and it should be added to the cost of it. I should not have said child. But the fetus gains rights once medical science says theres a chance it could survive outside and because the mother caused said life could survive with medical care the cost falls on the parents of the fetus. If life can be sustained outside the womb the the life gains said rights.

Again, you're using religious tenets as the baseline for your argument, and I have absolutely no reason to grant them any consideration whatsoever, when determining rights and freedoms for everyone else. Your religious views argue how you should choose to act, not what choices others should even have.

You're never going to convince anyone when you keep resorting to articles of faith rather than reason, logic, and fact.

[Rozz]

Naw, it's more about how people will sell their political positions.

Taking money to read political scripts to the public.

Regardless it isn't wise to use a forbidden topic as an example, or else discussion will derail as seen here. This thread is closed.