Abortion: a problem too useful to solve

[Tony_the_mad]

For a while I thought this thread was going to be reasonable.

I agree with those who have stated that we haven’t made any progress because it is a political stalemate. Neither side is going to let the other get into power for too long. Oh it may wax or wane, but if any side got the upper hand it would quickly change back to equilibrium. For mostly better, but sometimes worse, we live in a democracy not a dictatorship.

I am not an expert on history but from what little I have learned about US of A it has learned nothing in its two centuries of existence. The fight we fight now is eerily parallel to the fight over slavery. The battle cries are nearly the same and the slow decay of the government and paralysis that resulted as both sides fought to the death is nearly the same. The stakes are as high and the morality as clear.

Slavery only ended on paper with one of the bloodiest wars in our history and in fact did not end until nearly a century after that with events that, though relatively bloodless, still haunts us today. I only hope that this time we are not the laughing stock of the world by being the last to ban abortion the way we were to ban slavery.

I hope that we can fix this issue, but I don’t see that happening unless we have significant support from both sides of the aisle. We need democrats influencing democrats in this issue just as we need republicans influencing republicans.

 

[manualman]

The OP does make a potential point. I believe there ARE politicians who take the pro-life position due to politics, not conviction. I suspect the elder Bush was one of these. I find it highly suprising that no Democratic president since Roe has been “surprised” to find out his SC nominee was pro-life after the fact. Bush Sr. (and Reagan too) nominees have a suspiciously spotty record when it comes to nominating justices with basic common sense in the matter of fundamental rights.

Why is that? Yeah, yeah. Ted Kennedy was the gatekeeper and all that. So? Why were the Dems willing to burn down DC before confirming a committed pro-lifer to the SC while republicans routinely meekly accept blood-drenched abortion apologists when nominated by Dem presidents? Why? Why was Ted the only guy who could and would stop the show?

Catholics DO need to be smart and sniff out phony pro-life pols. But we also need to watch what the alternatives are. I suspect Romney is another one of these guys who talks the talk, but doesn’t really much care about the issue. But I’d still rather have that than the alternative of another 4 years of a president actively seeking to banish our church to the margins of American society. (which he of course doesn’t SAY, but what he DOES in practice)