So it would seem abortion is now a forgiveable sin in this upcoming holy year of mercy...

http://www.koat.com/news/priests-may-forgive-abortions-during-holy-...

Sayeth the Pope himself.

What do you think of this? It's almost more insulting than the original saying that abortion is an unforgiveable sin. This way it's "up to the archdioses" or "up to the priest that they "may" grant forgiveness...." So Woman A may be forgiven, but not Woman B...I wonder what criteria they use to forgive some but not all women for this unspeakable sin, (sarcasm)...

May the Lord be with you.

Views: 2459

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@Dr.Bob....I appreciate what you are saying.....Of course, once the child is born and the Mother faces  extreme difficulties, there is no option but to do what is best for the child....Most states have Medicaid, WIC programs  to assist....If the Mother finds she can no longer care for her child, the State will step in and will place the chid in Foster Care....My point  was to avoid all of this, when the Mother knows that having this child will be an undue burden....Ending an unwanted  pregnancy is a valid option.......Why should the taxpayer have to pay for the welfare of an unwanted child, when it could have been avoided.......I absolutely agree that the State and the taxpayer have a moral obligation to care for a child when the Mother can not....It just makes more sense to allow for the termination of the pregnancy in the first place...

Why should the taxpayer have to pay for the welfare of an unwanted child, when it could have been avoided......

Why should the taxpayer have to pay for immigrant refugees?  For schools when they don't have kids?  For mental health facilities?  For prisons when we could just shoot people?

When we choose to devalue any human life, the same arguments can be extended to devalue other human life. 

We should never define human life as that which is not an "undue burden" to me, or an inconvenience to the taxpayer.

We should never define human life as that which is not an "undue burden" to me, or an inconvenience to the taxpayer.

I don't believe he's doing so.  He IS making a utilitarian argument for abortion, though, and I can see quite clearly where that'd cut no ice with someone who considers it murder.  It wouldn't work for me, if I did.

You are absolutely correct that human life is not an undue burden.....My point was in consideration to the point of view of the mother, who does not want to go through nine months of an unwanted pregnancy, and the disruption of her life at that time......Pregnancies should be planned and it should be a time of Joy....When a woman is forced to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, it has been proven that she may do terrible things to herself and the baby.....All this can be avoided, if she is allowed  to terminate in the 1st trimester...Why is it always about the unborn fetus, and not the mother? It is a form of misogyny, if the woman is considered  the vessel, and that "Her" wants and desires  are not as relevant......

@Freethinker784, I don't think it's always about the unborn child.  I think it's about both of them.  Both deserve care, and love, and support.

I've known women who had "surprise" or unwanted pregnancies, and who now have wonderful children and are grateful.  So I don't think anything is "proven" in that regard.  I'll agree, though, that kids are a financial burden and that in these days of increasing wealth disparity that poses stress to families.  I'd humbly suggest that the solution is to address the societal issues leading to wealth disparity and poverty rather than encouraging the poor to terminate their children.

As to misogyny, is there anything more anti-woman than the fact that worldwide many, many more girls than boys are aborted? 

Dr. Bob...I thought that this never ending repetition of the same tired useless arguments, the numerous tactics of question avoiding, the intellectual dishonesty and the polemics trolling was finally over...like a few weeks ago. 

Sigh...

I'm pro-choice, but I think Dr Bob has a point.  A conceived human, however many cells there are in the blob, is a tiny proto-human being.  An egg is not, a sperm cell is not, but an embryo is.  But when does it become aware of being aborted, when can it feel pain and be aware that something is happening to it?  There is some kind of biological cut-off point involved surely.  x number of weeks into pregnancy. 

@Simon, a sperm cell is a potential human in a simliar way that a fertilised egg is. Given the right set of circumstances a fertilised egg will develop in to a human. Given the right set of circumstances (i.e. it's coupling with an egg), a sperm cell will develop into a human. The only difference is that a fertilised egg has more chance of making it because some of the hard work has already been done.

Neither of them are a human. They are a potential human. There are no lines in the sand.

It's all a matter of how things are defined, which are stipulations based on people's pre-existing attitudes, not facts. The stipulations are made in order to dance past the facts.

Ethical arguments are disputes based on attitudes, not arguments over facts.

Quite right. Whenever you take an absolutist stance on a complex moral issue you help no-one. Unfortunately when we make laws we have to draw imperfect lines otherwise we could never enact the law but we acknowledge they are imperfect and do not pretend we absolutely know the right answer. People agonise over such decisions, understandably, because there is no cheat sheet.

Making laws requires  critical, and rational thinking.....Religion is so biased, it should have no place in making judgements or laws that will affect the lives of a diverse  populace..

If a termination of pregnancy is done in the 1st trimester, the fetus will not feel any pain....The nervous system is not developed at this stage......To avoid any moral injustice, abortions should be done at this early stage...

RSS

© 2023   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service