There are a lot of interesting thoughts here. I really with bbboy had a multi-quote feature. I’ll just have to do this by hand.
Neek wrote:By that reasoning, you should want 14 year olds to be having kids, since the younger they are when they have their first child, the less likely they are to develop breast cancer.
No, because by other reasoning there are other significant problems with 14 year olds and pregnancy. This is a potential major tangent in and of itself; an 800 pound gorilla in the room and neither side wants to address. There is, for example, a significant medical argument that all women who are not actively considering child birth should be taking a full – that is no period – birth control regimen because there are significant potential problems with iron loss from repeated monthly periods over the span of decades. The average woman had significant periods of pregnancy or nursing which reduced the number of lifetime periods. Yes the hierarchy of the Catholic Church would raise a big stink, but it’s the principle of “double effect.”
But as a poor child born with a cleft lip and who was originally fed with an eye dropper, I would insist that breast feeding be placed on the same morally healthy level as exercise and proper diet.
Rockstar wrote:No one should really care what Catholic dogma has to say about abortion, because in the real world Catholics get abortions all the time.
The “Catholic Church” is universal. The average “Catholic” is far from universal. So I can only speak for “Catholics” in my area, the United States, who generally are “Catholic” in loose habits only. They only show up in church when their children have to go to religion class, or when they are enrolled for First Holy Communion or Confirmation.
In any case, morals and “democracy” are two completely different notions. There was a “majority” who at one time supported slavery. There was a “majority” who at one time thought that pushing natives to the other side of the continent to allow for their own expansion was morally justified. Often the people on the moral side are always, at first, in the minority. Whether they are right or wrong is a matter for history to decide, not the “majority.”
Rockstar wrote:The leadership of the Catholic Church may be made up of a bunch of celibate old men like Tzor ...
I object! I’m middle aged. And I have always reserved the right not to be celibate. You know us 45 year old role players who paint minis. I think there was a movie made about people like me. Honestly, between singing, Knights of Columbus, and gaming I’ve just forgotten to schedule any significant dating time in my schedule.
No really, most very strong pro-life people are actually happily married men and women.
technomancer wrote:So, you're proposing adding about 1,250,000 children to foster care each year.
No, I was countering the notion that parents who are not fit to care for children should have abortions before the child is born but need to have their children shuttled to foster care if they are born. I highly doubt one million children per year are being aborted by parents who are incapable of raising children. (Financially is a different matter. Remember inside every pro-life person is a massively liberal person dying to get out!)
josephby wrote:Just wondering, how did it happen that people against abortion are called pro-life people?
I often wonder how people who are for abortion are called “pro-choice” people. They are the same people who insist that abortions should not be required to have the same informed consent laws that every other operation requires. The people who are the backbone of the “pro-choice” groups are the people who perform the abortions; which is by its nature a conflict of interest, as they have a vested interest for people to “choose” to have an abortion.
