According to Catholicism there is only one God. Therefore God = Molech. So, tell your multiple-personality deity to stop aborting babies by the billions in form of miscarriages and terminal neonatal diseases. THEN and only then dare to ask your mothers, sisters, daughters - who do 100% of the childbearing - what they can or cannot do with the wombs.

Absolutely. One hundred percent. I’ve been saying it for years.

“Can you vote for a political party that sees nothing morally wrong with
the abortion of the unborn on a scale that repeats that of the
Holocaust every six years in our country?”

Yes, because there is nothing morally wrong with abortion.

“Can you in good conscience vote for a political party that promotes what God declared to be an abomination?”

God made no such declaration.

1.) By continuing to allow legal abortion, we tacitly proclaim that abortion is not wrong. If deliberately terminating an innocent baby is not wrong, then what is wrong? The answer is "nothing." If nothing is wrong, then morality is just a construct, and no religion has any basis for claiming validity.

2.) The Sixth Commandment forbids the unjustified taking of human life: thou shall not murder is ... A DECLARATION FROM GOD.

Although I am a feminist and consider myself "pro-choice", there is a bit of a gray area when it comes to abortion. For example, I, too, would feel it would be wrong to terminate a viable fetus at say, 8 months, except in extreme cases (e.g. in order to save pregnant woman's life). So I perceive we have at least a little common ground there.

But the fundamental issue that interferes with your "Logic&Reason" is that you confuse "baby" with "fetus". They're not the same. And the earlier in any given pregnancy we are considering, the greater that distinction is. Sorry, but a fertilized egg is not an "innocent baby."

I would also remind you that, as distasteful as you might find it, your religious narrative mandates that God is the most prolific in terms of abortions. About 1 out of every 3 fetuses (not "innocent babies") are spontaneously aborted--naturally.

To be clear, I do not--indeed, cannot--"blame God" for spontaneous abortions, because I am a freethinker, so I see miscarriages as natural, not divinely-caused. But because you are a god-believer, I don't see how you can genuinely deny acknowledging what I laid out (that is, God's role in miscarriages).

And better that, than a party that lies about everything, takes actual children from their parents and often "loses" them (sex slavery?) and wants to take away health care from the most needy in the middle of a freaking pandemic!

That's true evil.

“In a letter to the Catholics of Knoxville, Tenn., about the upcoming election, Bishop Richard F. Stika explains how abortion is the “pre-eminent moral issue of our time,” that it mirrors the moral depravity of slavery, genocide, the Holocaust, and the “idolatrous” sacrifice of children to the “demon deity Molech,” as described in the Old Testament.”

The good Bishop’s comparison of abortion to slavery is accurate. Slavery is based on the argument that human beings are only valuable instrumentally. The lives of some humans are worth less than that of others because they don’t have the same qualities or physical characteristics as others. This is essentially the same argument used to justify abortion.

It is worthy of note that the good Bishop acknowleges, as a member of the Church, that the diety Moloch exists.
Your definition of slavery is accurate as applied in the US and especially in central and south America for centuries.
For most of western human history slavery was a changeable situation, or condition similar to a job or military conscription, it was not a quality inherant to the individual like race. And the American view does seem to apply to abortion to some degree. The fact is that, for all practical purposes, slavery or involuntary servitude of any kind, is a situation and not an inherant quality. The social realities coming from the idea that slavery was an inherant quality, as opposed to a situation, has been largely accepted as truth, and unexamined by any side, and that has led to huge problems that could otherwise be avoided.

"It is worthy of note that the good Bishop acknowleges, as a member of the Church, that the diety Moloch exists."

He was referring to what certain people living in Old Testament times believed, not what he or his church believes.

"The social realities coming from the idea that slavery was an inherant quality, as opposed to a situation, has been largely accepted as truth, and unexamined by any side, and that has led to huge problems that could otherwise be avoided."

Slavery in the antebellum South was race based. As such it was based on physical characteristics.

. "As such it was based on physical characteristics." Race is an inherant quality of the individual. That's what I said.

And if often manifests itself via physical characteristics.

Human beings seem to lose all value when they are female and pregnant. Then they become breeders that you feel you should have some authority over.

That's really sick.

Pregnancies.....are NOT human beings and never will BE human beings, unless the ACTUAL human being (the woman) CONSENTS to incubating them. If she doesn't consent, then there will never be a human being. No matter how much you really, really, really, really want a clump of parasitic cells inside a woman's body to be a "human being" so you can try to put it under YOUR control, it never will be. ONLY the woman can make it into a human being....and only if she consents to do so.

When a women is pregnant, after she has been allowed to come to that stage of her life by others, her being pregnant does not reduce or enhance her value but the pregnancy does bring other people into her life. Whether or no she continues to be fed, housed and nurtured depends on others. no individual can do it by themselves. That she is a human being is an opinion, that any individual continues to exist depends on others. The millions of people caged like animals, or ordered to be blown to bits in war, the hundreds of thousands of women and children killed by military action of the US in the past, or executed by law illustrate the fact . That may be 'really sick' but that is reality. Only society can choose to see you as a human being with rights, can determine what duty you have to keep that status. You are an individual because other people consent to it: "so you can try to put it under YOUR control, it never will be."

"Only society can choose to see you as a human being with rights, can determine what duty you have to keep that status."

The founding fathers saw us as human beings with rights. Did something change?

Nothing changed. You have rights as an individual, yes. You can make decisions about what to do with your life, within limits as specified in Common Law, because your decisions affect other people . . They set up the society to do that. We have rights. But those rights come with duties. and obligations. They specifically did not set it up for themselves or anybody else as individuals to make that determination. The preamble begins with " We the People of the United States", not "we". The idea was that the people, "only society" not a king or government, is the final judge of right and wrong and other decisions that affect the society, through a representitive government. It is a flawed system but none better has been made to work.
No one entertained the idea that any individual can survive, or secure those rights, as an individual.

Then given that ours is a system of representative government, if the majority of the citizens agreed that abortion should be made illegal, our representatives would be obligated to vote according to the wishes of their constituents.

Given that you see the question, and presumably the world, from the viewpoint that the system you live in as an unalterable reality (which my point was, it is not), You then miss the point that it is not a direct democracy. it's power lies in the fact that the people elect people who have the power to make decisions in the public interest, most definitely not according to the whim of the majority and are specifically NOT obligated to vote according to the wishes of the majority. That error allows the exact opposite result you seek.
In the event of the abortion legislation, abortion is not illegal. Medical procedures are regulated in the public interest. The rational reason for not atttempting to prohibit abortion is that it happens, and that the harm done by prohibiting far exceeds the benefit.
Prohibiting the practice does not reduce the incidence of the practice significantly. The current practice to eleiminate the groups that facilitate safe abortion also reduce access to education and practices that reduce abortion. Ect.
Arguing rights and majority rule and freedom is fun and satisfying, but it does not counter emotion and belief in dieties and ignorance. Arguing unfettered fredom has mde regulation difficult and thta has empowered the opposition, but that is to complex to del with here.
So, in effect, you are right, but yiou you are going about it in losing manner.

“You then miss the point that it is not a direct democracy. it's power lies in the fact that the people elect people who have the power to make decisions in the public interest, most definitely not according to the whim of the majority and are specifically NOT obligated to vote according to the wishes of the majority.”

The public interest includes survival of our species. Explain how killing the newest and most vulnerable members of our species serves that interest.

The public interest includes survival of our species.

Again, your god aborts HALF A BILLION FREAKING FETUSES EVERY YEAR!

Your god is the biggest threat to survival of our species there is. Get him to knock this shit off. Then we'll talk.

People die every day of natural causes. Does this make God a serial killer in your eyes? God is the giver of life. Since when does He need your permission to determine the size of His gift?

Again, Thurston, your god aborts half a billion fetuses each year. Get him to knock it off, then we'll talk.

Explain how prolife advocates can refuse to accept the figures that closing the clinics denied so many women of education, birth control. and healthcare that the number of unwanted pregnancies went up and the abortions remained constant, with many more kids being born with problems in many areas. Explain how that serves anybodies interests. Making abortions illegal does not significantly reduce the number of abortions. It does decrease the number of healthy women and children and does increase the prison population. "Susplain that to me , please.

“Explain how prolife advocates can refuse to accept the figures that closing the clinics denied so many women of education, birth control.”

Do you think abortion clinics are the only possible means of educating women about how to avoid pregnancy?

`If, in many areas where they are the only source, yes. Those who advocate abstention from sex as the only right way to live do not educate about other ways to live. So, in fact, they are the only way. Where do you think the information is available, church?

The death of the innocent is not justified by two people who procreate when they don't want kids. Married couples sometimes have unplanned pregnancies but do not throw away their genetic offspring. There is no excuse for abortion.

"There is no excuse for abortion." Then why advoate the actions that increase abortion. I have had this discussion with peoiple who just want to fight the good fight. and argue against logic that they are not respnsible for the damage they do.

"Then why advoate the actions that increase abortion."

Who is doing that and how?

The closing of Planned Parenthood reduced the available health care, education and birth control needed to time pregancies and avert them. The result is more unplanned pregnacies, and so more abortions. Passing laws against suxual behavior doesn't change the behavior or it's consequences, it merely stigmatizes people who have recourse but to be who they are.

There is no human right to kill innocent humans anywhere in the Constitution.

No one is being killed. Just more forced birther bullshit.

Still denying science I see. Some people refuse to educate themselves...

Forced birthers, like Thurston, purposefully choose to be ignorant about science.

"There is the absolute right to have damaging tissue removed from one’s body."

We're not talking about "damaging tissue", we're talking about a human being. "Damaging tissue" is merely a term used to avoid acknowledging the fact that it is a human being.

"If it cannot perform it’s own bodily functions, it has no “right” to indenture and force usage of another."

A newborn baby cannot perform all of its own bodily functions, which is why it must rely on the use of other people's bodies for its survival. Are you saying newborns can be killed since their survival requires forcing the usage of another?

"And you are arguing that pregnancy makes a woman a fraction of a human, like the 3/5 human slaves of the past."

What an ironic thing for you to say given that you're not even considering the unborn to be 3/5 human. Instead you're treating it as if it is 100% non-human.

“It is indeed tissue foreign to her body that is causing damage to her body, and is guaranteed to cause significantly more damage to her health and body.”

Explain why an entity that didn’t “invade” her body, but was created by her own reproductive system according to its natural purpose, should be considered “foreign” tissue.

“A newborn baby can indeed perform all of its bodily functions, or it does. It does not require parasitic usage of the body of another to survive.”

If a newborn baby can perform all of its bodily functions in order to survive, why does it not survive if abandoned?

“No matter your or my opinion of whether the ZEF is a human being, you ha e utterly failed to offer any logical, legal, constitutional, or moral justification to granting to it superior rights to those of any breathing, thinking, feeling, and suffering child or adult, nor for your agenda to nullify the human rights of the very real human beings who are the women you objectify.”

No one is talking about "superior" rights but about equal rights. That said, even if you concede that it is a human being you still insist that it should not even have equal human rights. Is this the typical world view of pro-aborts or is it just you?

"As you often point out, the ZEF is not her body. By definition that makes it foreign tissue."

It was created in her body and has half of her DNA. Therefore it doesn't fall under the definition of "foreign"

"I have already addressed your willfully ignorant conflation of needing assistance with ADLs and physiological organ failure."

And my response to that is that an organ donor did not do anything that caused someone to need an organ donation. Therefore not donating an organ isn't the cause of death, the pre-existing condition is. Abortion on the other hand, directly causes death to the unborn that would not have otherwise occurred.

"Even if you consider the ZEF to be a human being, equal human rights would not give it a “right” to the body of the woman or to indenture her."

Equal rights give the ZEF an equal shot at life, which means the mother's rights end where the unborn's rights begin.

When a women is pregnant, after she has been allowed to come to that stage of her life by others,

Say what now? Pregnancy isn't a "stage of life" and no woman needs to be "allowed" to get pregnant by others. All she needs to do is have sex.

but the pregnancy does bring other people into her life. Whether or no she continues to be fed, housed and nurtured depends on others. no individual can do it by themselves.

Women "do it by themselves" all the time. You make it sound like women are children or pets that need to be fed and housed. Ideally we all have families and communities that offer mutual support, but not everyone has that and they aren't required....and yes....many individuals do do it by themselves.

That she is a human being is an opinion, that any individual continues to exist depends on others.

No. It isn't an opinion. A human being is "a man, woman, or child of the species Homo sapiens". As a woman, she's a human being. No opinion needed. How we perceive or treat one another, doesn't change that fact.

Being able to get pregnant is a stage of life.
It does not say she is allowed to get pregnant, it says when she allowed to get to that stage. Not everyone is allowed to do that. Many die by action or inaction before that happens.
You say "many individuals do do it by themselves.", no they don't. People can't live as solitary individuals in the woods.
You say "No. It isn't an opinion. " . Of course it is. Do imagine that the millions of people dehumanized and killed in the holocaust, or the carpet bombings, who weere refered as subhumans or just a number on a bodycount board were considered human? That is a very naive world view. The facts are people cannot live without society, and they are not automatically considered humans who have value and are allowed to live. if you live in a society where you are considered human ,that is a priveledge.

Yeah ok.

Human beings are human being by virtue of biology, regardless of what other human beings do or think.

Yes, people can and do live in isolation, even in crowded cities, and do just fine. It's not ideal, but it's possible.

Pregnancy isn't a "stage of life". Women are potentially fertile for a few decades....but not all women conceive.

No one has the right to dictate what personal, private choices someone else makes.

total missed point

"Human beings seem to lose all value when they are female and pregnant."

I didn't realize being female and pregnant made one less valuable. Indeed, only a woman can bring the unique gift of new human life into the world, which seems anything but demeaning.

"Pregnancies.....are NOT human beings and never will BE human beings, unless the ACTUAL human being (the woman) CONSENTS to incubating them."

The biological reality that the unborn are human beings isn't predicated on anyone's consent.

There is no child....unless the woman consents to incubate one. Period. I know it kills you that women get to make their own life choices, but tough.

It really doesn't matter how many times you pretend that a pregnancy is a human being. It isn't.

"There is no child....unless the woman consents to incubate one."

When you say there is no "child" are you meaning to say there is no "human being"?

Yes. A human being is a member of the class homo sapien....not a freaking embryo.

No more than an acorn is an oak tree.

Science has already settled the matter that the human embryo is in fact a human being. Time for you to update your knowledge of biological science as it applies to embyology.

An acorn isn't an oak tree, yet both the acorn and the tree are oaks in different stages of development.

An acorn is not a developing LIVING human embryo with DNA containing all his or her genetic details already written out. If an embryo were not LIVING then the mother would miscarry or else have a stillborn baby. Removing a LIVING human embryo from the womb is taking a LIFE. There is no room for opinions in this fact of LIFE.

An acorn is not a tree nor is an embryo a person.
Both life. No need for opinions.