K
kage_ar
Guest
In the United States, it is never too late. You can kill a pre born baby through all 9 months.
- Status
M
marietta
Guest
kage_ar:
I stand corrected.
marietta
I stand corrected.
marietta
A
adamsapple
Guest
A
adamsapple
Guest
Then you obviously endorse closing them all down. To what end, may I ask?
It’s amazing that so many people on this board do not support Catholic education. Next to the family, it is the heart and soul of Catholic formation.
It is a sad state of affairs when Catholics do not support their own.
A
Andruschak
Guest
Point of order. It is most unlikely that abortion will be made illegal.
The best you can hope for is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. This will leave it up to the 50 individual states to decide if abortion is legal or illegal, and if legal what restrictions, if any, will be in place.
At the time of Roe vs. Wade, only a few states allowed abortion. If Roe vs. Wade were overturned next year, quite a few states would retain abortion. My own state of California would be one of those.
There is probably no legal way to prevent a woman living in an anti-abortion state from going to another state for an abortion. But too bad if you are too poor to afford it. Before Roe vs. Wade, those who could afford it traveled to Sweden, Switzerland, or other countries for abortions. Too bad if you were too poor to afford it. Nowadays Canada is an affordable destination.
Your chances of passing a Constitional Amendment to ban abortion are…well…not too good. Perhaps after the horse learns to sing.
The best you can hope for is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. This will leave it up to the 50 individual states to decide if abortion is legal or illegal, and if legal what restrictions, if any, will be in place.
At the time of Roe vs. Wade, only a few states allowed abortion. If Roe vs. Wade were overturned next year, quite a few states would retain abortion. My own state of California would be one of those.
There is probably no legal way to prevent a woman living in an anti-abortion state from going to another state for an abortion. But too bad if you are too poor to afford it. Before Roe vs. Wade, those who could afford it traveled to Sweden, Switzerland, or other countries for abortions. Too bad if you were too poor to afford it. Nowadays Canada is an affordable destination.
Your chances of passing a Constitional Amendment to ban abortion are…well…not too good. Perhaps after the horse learns to sing.
M
marietta
Guest
You may ask all you want, but** I did not** endorse closing Catholic schools down. All I did was put them up against any other school and found them . . . imperfect. I know that must be hard to swallow but you’ll get over it.
Should Catholics be “programmed” to “support their own”?
Is Catholic education is the hill you’re willing to die on? Is there nothing more pressing in your Catholic world?
marietta
H
hasikelee
Guest
:bowdown:
A
adamsapple
Guest
Very well put. The fact is that abortion laws are unenforceable. Similar to prohibition in the early 20th century, if a woman wants an abortion, she will get one.
Better to change the hearts and minds of women rather than pass laws which simply antagonize them.
A
adamsapple
Guest
No there isn’t because I firmly believe that Catholic education is important for my children. This is about my children, not about me.
S
snhs
Guest
Is that the basis on which laws are made now? I could probably get some drugs if I looked hard enough, so I guess drug laws are unenforceable as well. Maybe we should just forget about controlling them.
If a man wants to kill someone he can, if a woman wants to kill someone they can. Should we legalise other forms of murder while we’re on it?
The law should not be about politics, it should be about doing what is right. And if the law as it stands doesn’t do that then the law should be changed, whether it makes the law unenforceable or not is irrelevant.
I don’t see why people persist in believing an amendment is required before we can protect the lives of the unborn. Which of America’s founding documents is it that says ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’? It doesn’t say that all men are born equal but created. Unless your concept of law tries to say that man is not created until it emerges from the womb then babies are entitled to these rights from the moment of creation, the moment of conception. All that is required for that to be fully recognised is for a decision to be passed by the Supreme Court. The fact that it is a woman’s ‘right’ to choose to my mind makes it perfectly possible for the father to challenge it on behalf of his unborn child in Court. If that were to occur and the baby found to be entitled to those rights then there could be no question of denying them the very rights their founding forefathers fought to gain for their descendants.
I asked you in my last post whether you actually intended to say that. Since you’ve repeated it you’re either very persistent in error or you actually believe it.
You also said “Next to the family, it is the heart and soul of Catholic formation”, what about the Church?
I’m a product of the Catholic education system, in Scotland we gained the right to a Catholic education because it was virtually impossible to get any education in the state schools of the day due to sectarianism and bigotry. We gained it because of the donations of poor Catholics many of whom had came over from Ireland who donated towards and supported them until they were well established. But whether that system remains for millennia or padlocks are placed on all the schools tomorrow does not matter, the Church which survived the persecutions of Rome is not dependent on Catholic schools to preserve the faith, there are far better and stronger foundations for it than that. There are far better things, there are far more important things.
There are more important things than preserving Catholic schools, the sooner you see that the better. And any Catholic school which doesn’t teach that is not doing its job.
E
estesbob
Guest
I read in the paper that in New York city the other day 3 people were murderd and and 5 women were raped. That just goes to show how ineffective laws against murder and rape are. Better to just do with away with all laws unti we change the hearts and minds of the people.
Lets cut to the chase here. You support abortion but dont have the cajones to admit it. Accordinlgy you have to come up with all sorts of bizarre scenarios and rationlaizations as to why it must remain legal. I have a lot more respect for those who emphatically support abortion than those who try to insult our intelligence by telling us they oppose it but try to rationalize not making it illegal.
I supect the reason you suppot abortion is becuase to not do so would put you at odds with the political party you support. By saying we cant stop it , in your mind, that makes it ok to vote for those who want to keep it legal.
A
adamsapple
Guest
You can argue the point ad infinitum. Laws also fulfill the wishes of the majority. And the majority in this country are pro abortion.
Abortion laws are unenforceable. Those who seek an abortion will always be able to get one.
For those of you who disagree with me on Catholic education, that’s your choice. But it is equally my choice to educate my children as I see fit.
Abortion laws are unenforceable. Those who seek an abortion will always be able to get one.
For those of you who disagree with me on Catholic education, that’s your choice. But it is equally my choice to educate my children as I see fit.
A
adamsapple
Guest
Yet another one who misinterprets what they read. I am not pro abortion. Please point out where I have endorsed abortion.
I think a lot of you would do well to go back to school - Catholic school.
S
snhs
Guest
Again you have it wrong. The majority may think that X who is on trial for raping a 6 year old should be killed, they might watch the news every night and hear about what the court heard that day and think he should be killed. But if it gets to the end of the trial and the jury find him not guilty then the law should not be changed so that he is killed. The law does not exist to acquiesce to whatever the populist opinion of the day is, and if you think it does I’m awfully glad you’re not involved in making laws.
All laws are unenforceable on the basis you are using. If you legalise one form of murder because you can’t stop it happening in every case then you may as well legalise all forms. Of course I suppose if the majority wanted that you’d be in favour as well?
You know I can respect people who disagree with me, particularly if they can make a half decent case and admit it when they can’t answer a point. As it stands you just repeat the same platitudes and overused excuses while dodging any attempt to actually answer a point. It’s obvious to anyone reading that it is because you can’t answer them, perhaps you could try admitting it rather than trying to get through with puffed up bombast.
And if I’ve got it wrong on that then perhaps you can have a go at answering my earlier points: on whether most of the parents in Africa are irresponsible or on whether the Israelites were wrong to put their trust in God and go out into the desert despite lacking provisions and protection. It won’t surprise me in the slightest if you don’t, you already see that any answer you make to them will further expose your argument as the poorly founded, illogical tripe it is.
J
JReducation
Guest
The issue here is an issue of justice at severa levels.
JR
- Man does not have the authority to legalize killing the innocent. He cannot override the law of God. Therefore, nations that legalize abortion are violating justice. The law of “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” has been violated.
- Repealling the law that legalizes abortion is not going to stop those who want abortions, but that’s not what this is about. This goes deeper. It brings justice into the equation. Those who conceive unwanted children and choose back-alley abortions will have to deal with the consequences of their choice to kill the innocent. Current legislation attempts to take away those consequences by making the procedure safe.
- If we take away the legal right to an abortion the scales of justice tip against the governments of nations. Governments will have to deal with the causes of unwanted pregnancies and also the unwanted children who are born. This restores the proper order of justice. One of the roles of government is to respond to the needs of its citizens, not find an easy way out at the expense of the innocent.
- Political leaders who are pro abortion rights are more interested in keeping their citizens and constituents happy than on governing with prudence and justice. This may sound well and good in a society where WE the citizens have distorted the meaning of government. If one reads the history of democracy and the philosophy of democracy in the classics, such as Plato and others, government is not about pleasing the masses. Government is about protecting the rights of the masses and protecting the masses from danger. Governments owe this to their citizens. This is justice.
JR
E
estesbob
Guest
Yet another one who misinterprets what they read. I am not pro abortion. Please point out where I have endorsed abortion.
I think a lot of you would do well to go back to school - Catholic school.
Of course you are. You refuse to do anything about it other than crticize those of us who are trying to end it.
Do you vote for pro-abortion canidates?
J
JReducation
Guest
That’s not fair either. There are people who are going to vote for the ticket who are not pro-abortion. They are voting for the ticket because they are desperate to see other changes in government policies that have seriously crippled their families.
We cannot deny someone the right to protect his family and to want an out for difficult situations that their family faces.
I’ll just give one example. I’m have two children, one in graduate school and the other in college. We’re one of those families who has the financial resources to pay $240,000.00 to the education of my children. My children were denied all financial help from the Federal government. My employer provides good health insurance at a reasonable cost to me. In times of need my employer actually gives the employees mony to pay bills and cover emergencies, without having to pay it back. My children are committed to taking care of me in my old age. My home is paid for.
This is not the situation of the average family. It’s just the opposite, no health insurance, low wages, high mortgage rates, not enough money to educate their children, no resources to take cae of elderly parents, no job security or unemployment (especially in this economic crisis). It is not against moral law to protect one’s family first.
We’re not speaking here of protecting one’s family so they can live in the lap of luxury, but so they can have the basics: healthcare, education, housing, jobs and government services that they need.
When parents are in this situation, it is very hard to make a choice as to whom to vote for. We have to show compassion for them and understand that they may not be voting for abortion, but for their family.
I will not be voting for the abortion proponents. But I’m one of the lucky ones who does not need government policies to provide for my family. Not everyone is in the same situation.
We have to eliminate the horror that is abortion, but we cannot stand in judgment of those who place the real needs of their family first. This is not selfishness. This is the obligation of every parent who has dependant children or any child who has dependant parents.
Let us not reduce this to judging people as being pro-abortion without understanding that stressors that they face in order to survive.
Fraternally,
JR
A
adamsapple
Guest
It’s really none of your business who I vote for. And where have I said that I would do nothing about abortion. My opinion is that it’s more fruitful to change the hearts and minds of women rather than to legislate unenforceable laws.
You’re misinterpreting my statements because you don’t have a well formulated opinion yourself.
A
adamsapple
Guest
Your comment about consequences is interesting. What consequences would women suffer if abortion was illegal? Would we have to prosecute women for having an illegal abortion?The issue here is an issue of justice at severa levels.
Fraternally,
- Man does not have the authority to legalize killing the innocent. He cannot override the law of God. Therefore, nations that legalize abortion are violating justice. The law of “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” has been violated.
- Repealling the law that legalizes abortion is not going to stop those who want abortions, but that’s not what this is about. This goes deeper. It brings justice into the equation. Those who conceive unwanted children and choose back-alley abortions will have to deal with the consequences of their choice to kill the innocent. Current legislation attempts to take away those consequences by making the procedure safe.
- If we take away the legal right to an abortion the scales of justice tip against the governments of nations. Governments will have to deal with the causes of unwanted pregnancies and also the unwanted children who are born. This restores the proper order of justice. One of the roles of government is to respond to the needs of its citizens, not find an easy way out at the expense of the innocent.
- Political leaders who are pro abortion rights are more interested in keeping their citizens and constituents happy than on governing with prudence and justice. This may sound well and good in a society where WE the citizens have distorted the meaning of government. If one reads the history of democracy and the philosophy of democracy in the classics, such as Plato and others, government is not about pleasing the masses. Government is about protecting the rights of the masses and protecting the masses from danger. Governments owe this to their citizens. This is justice.
JR
The doctors are easy - they’re not going to risk losing their licenses by performing illegal abortions. But the women are another matter. Should we have pregnancy checks at the borders for all women going to Canada or Mexico?
The legal remedy simply isn’t practical. And I believe it’s unenforceable.
I agree with you that governments have a duty to protect its citizens. But those same governments have inherent limits as to how they carry out those protections without intruding on privacy and incurring the wrath of the public.
If abortion were made illegal tomorrow, would that stop the killing of the unborn? If the answer is no, then the answer is not legislation.
J
JReducation
Guest
If an illegal abortion is executed within the country of residency (I’m speaking about any country) that country would have the right to prosecute those whom they catch. There are also natural consequences of sin. If someon contracts an illness or there are complications those are natural consequences. We must still take care of them, because that’s charity. But charity does not mean that we protect people from natural consequences.
Agreed
Why should we. Pregnancy is not illegal. If a woman goes to another country to have an abortion, it is the responsibility of that country to prosecute those engaged in abortion. No country has the moral or divine right to legalize abortion.
Natual law is not concerned with practical or enforcable. Neither is the Gospel, much less the Church. We are concerned with what is just. Man cannot justify making laws that overrule God.
Incurring the wrath of the public is the least of a government’s worries when it comes to God. Incurring the wrath of God is much more distressing. As to intruding in privacy, no one is asking the government to look into people’s windows. The privacy excuse is not really an excuse. The government already intrudes in our privacy. Our privacy is not more sacred than innocent life.
Any government or any society that places privacy over the life of the innocent has a very skewed value system. As the Founding Fathers of this country told King George, when a government turns to acts of tyranny, it forfeits its rights and its citizens have the right to rebel.
The Church is clear that authorizing the killing of the innocent is a form of tyranny. This is not simply an opinion of the Church. This is an infallible statement that comes from scripture.
Fraternally,
JR
If abortion were made illegal tomorrow, would that stop the killing of the unborn? If the answer is no, then the answer is not legislation.
- Status