Individuals grant society as a whole the “moral and ethical power” to prohibit all kinds of things, from murder to stealing to not paying taxes to drinking alcohol before a certain arbitrary age. You obviously don’t think that abortion belongs on that list, but is it really such an unfathomable logical leap that some people do?
Such things are prohibited not because they are immoral, but because our consensus is that it improves our society as a whole. I really don’t understand how banning abortion would make this country (or any society) a better place to live.
Restrictions on recreational drugs, gambling, etc. are sometimes based on moral grounds, but I don’t agree with those restrictions either.
Sorry, I don’t speak Spanish! Translation, please? 
It’s not unfathomable, but it isn’t a clear line of logic either. The things you list are things that you do to someone else - killing someone else, stealing from someone else (in the case of taxes, from the government). In the case of abortion, it’s choosing what *you * can do to yourself, and doesn’t involve any other people. Of course, most pro-lifers would say that there is another person involved, but if you look at it from the embryo-isn’t-a-person side, it’s quite a big jump to prohibit you from choosing what to do with your own body and 18 years of your life.
People die during child birth. You are not deciding only for a child. You are deciding a possible life and death potential for the mother. Complications arise.
Our society has determined that abortion is legal. If you believe society has this right ,then on what do you base your objections and protests. ? Is your morality more important than the law now.?
Logical convenience.I will be lawbiding when it suits me. I will subject my logic and morals on you. Something is out of step.
Then the life an unwanted and unaffordable child. What price do they pay? They are members of the future criminals club.
I think I got it right (paging Nava!) - “That’s exactly it”. Easy to remember because it phonetically spells socks in English. 
False dichotomy. Did you ever consider that what you wrote was not an accurate representation of what you claim you meant? My interpretation of your post was reasonable, and if you want to modify that post now, that’s fine with me. But do consider that you could have been much more clear about what you meant in that post.
Thanks! Now that you mention it, I think there IS a joke in Spanish that uses this phrase, using it as a pun on spelling “socks,” but I would never get the joke, because I don’t know Spanish well enough to even know the direct translation, much less understand a pun!
And here we see a splendid example of a typical John Mace thread hijack, in which he ignores specific points relevant to the actual matter being debated, and instead goes on a Junior Mod Rampage over someone’s allegedly faulty presentation.
This shtick in which you are unable or unwilling to refute an argument and instead attack the way it’s delivered, is getting very tiresome John. If you’re not up to honest participation in a discussion, play your games elsewhere.
Junior Modding? You’re nuts. I read your post the way you wrote it, not the way you thought you wrote it. Don’t blame me if you weren’t clear.
Uhm… that is junior modding, pal. I’ll post where I want when I want. If it bothers you, tough shit.
Since you get a charge from dishing it out but evidently can’t take it, John, stick to the point the next time.
Or continue being a tiresome ass when you don’t get your way. Your choice.
But the extension of that would be, they could kill their newborn if they can’t afford it and are unable to raise it. And yet, murder is something we do proscribe for everyone, not just ourselves, because it violates someone else’s rights.
So the difference is that the fetus is considered a parasite on the mother during pregnancy, only, since it could be given up after birth.
You equate abortion and murder. Not a legal leg to stand on. You ignore huge debate about when life begins and when it has the rights of a adult person.
There is almost noone (including the Catholic Church) that believes that a woman must carry a pregnancy to term if it would kill her. While the Catholic church views ALL abortion as sinful (they also consider masturbation and birth control sinful), it has flip flopped on when abortion equaled murder. There was a time when abortions before the “quickening” were not murder, it is only in the last hundred years (and finally in 1983), when canonical law reflected abortion as murder even if performed the day after conception. The exact time of “ensoulment” was a moving target for centuries. Today the Catholic church has a total moratorium on abortions but it was not always so, just like priests were not always celibate and there is good reason to believe that neither rule was based on divine inspiration.
Are you saying that if the pro-life movement said “OK, pregnancies that endangers the mother’s health can be aborted” then you would be ready to sign on? Is there ANY circumstance when you would restrict the right to an abortion?
Really?! Isn’t **Cardinal **Rodriquez speaking as a, er, cardinal then?
And no, I will not sign on on the movement even if they made that concesion. I don’t believe an embryo is a human. It is alive alright, but not human.
So - does it or doesn’t it? In Nicaragua and El Salvador, as well as the Dominican Republic, the Church has ensured that the legal prohibition is absolute. Even in cases of ectopic pregnancy where the mother’s life is threatened AND the foetus has no chance of coming to term, until the foetus is dead, which sometimes may be too late for the mother. Even in the case of a nine year old girl who was raped.
That law is not a consequence of RCC’s teachings, properly understood:
The RCC does not teach that the mother’s life is lesser than the child’s, or that no medical act that threatens the fetus to save the mother is permitted, much as it might be convenient to attack that position. Nicaragua’s law overreaches.
Not human? What species do you assign him to?
OK. Biologically? Human. If it makes my position clearer I’ll call it “not a person”.