(no message)

Link: https://x.com/repbrandongill/status/2049160492438917349?s=46

If the Democrat Party disagrees with Catholic Doctrine, he goes with his party in every single case. It's not that he tolerates that disagreement; he embraces it on the party side.

Catholicism is only a tool he uses to get people to vote Democrat.

deals with Catholic Theology wrt Abortion very soon.

at yr best when trying to steal them.

To the extent you argue against that, everyone here will know you are lying.

Argue for abortion using secular arguments. Don't try to mislead the faithful regarding church teaching. Are you capable of doing that? I'm betting you aren't.

their own reproductive decisions...we'll discuss Catholic Theology in another thread....please respond to what I posted.

I wasn't advocating for anything, except for not misleading people regarding Church Doctrine. Please don't do that.

Frankly, you do yourself a disservice, because we all see you lying when you try to use a false version of Catholic teaching in order to get people to vote Democrat. If you continue doing that, your audience will get the impression that the only basis to support your position is lies, which just weakens your position.

If you want to discuss the secular needs or desires for legalized killing of unborn humans, feel free to start a thread. I may or may not participate, as is my right. But stop misrepresenting the teachings of the Church. When you stop lying, I may be more willing to engage fully. And after all, I don't think we need to resort to religious logic to argue against abortion. It is no more a religious issue than the prohibitions against murder generally, against burglary and stealing, assault and battery, fraud, etc. If there is a victim, then the secular authority can, and typically does, justify stepping in to protect the victim, based solely on secular reasoning. We can at least discuss and debate that. But, there is no debate regarding the Church's position on the issue.

citizens of many faiths, and some who follow no faith. By definition, we are talking about a Secular issue...and I'm sure you care about that, so join in and read what I've posted...then comment. Again, we can discuss the RCC's approach to it in another thread.

There is no need for a thread about Catholic Doctrine on the issue of abortion. Everyone here knows what that is. Not everyone here agrees with it, but they know what it is. And if they disagree with it, they are likely honest enough to just say so. You, on the other hand, are the only one who tries to lie about Catholic Doctrine. But, that just wastes everyone's time.

Talk all you want about the Congressional hearing, and provide whatever secular arguments you want. Heck, if you really want to stay on point with the original post (since that seems to be a concern of yours), then answer the question of the Congressman: Which type of death do you prefer?

(no message)

Abortion Bans don't stop Abortions...they just cause More Harm to women with totally unwanted pregnancies. Prior to RvW, estimates of annual abortions in the U.S. were on the order of 200,000 to 1.2M with a sizable percentage being either "Self" or "Back Alley" abortions with NO professional medical care available for those "procedures", which then necessitated many ER visits and followup procedures. This is why the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Strongly Supports legalization and availability of abortion across the country...and has for decades. These medical professionals are not 'Baby Killers'. (please read the attached article)

There are better. ways of reducing the number of abortions without sacrificing a woman's right to determine when and how often to have children...a) Contraceptive Availability and Access for All...b) Better and More Availability of Sex/Sexuality Education...for all age groups (including adults) that are 'Age Appropriate'...c) More Funding for Programs that make carrying a pregnancy to term tenable for all pregnant women...especially those who are poor.

As this shows...Anti-Abortion Laws are in essence "Unenforceable" and only make matters worse for innocent women, since there is no time available to adjudicate any case, much less millions of them. While some advocates are well-intentioned, Prudential Judgement calls for the path that doesn't rely on Government Coercion.


Link: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/20/725139713/what-abortion-was-like-in-the-u-s-before-roe-v-wade

(no message)

I don't like discussing this, but I think the greater good is (barely) best served in a free country by legalizing it within a proper framework: Within a reason time frame well before viability/fetal development or later if the woman's life is at risk. I have my own opinions on the morality question, but on the balance, a full ban probably doesn't best serve a free country.

You are right that there are plenty of bad actors with ill intentions who cheer it on, however.

(no message)