Abortion rates same, regardless of legal status

[Bennie_P]

Sanglar was a eugencis supporter and a socialist. But we need to be careful using that as a weapon. From 1900-1930 both were hugely popular in the US. And there were strong ties to both congressional leadership and the prohibition movement.

Remember, we wrote the model for the Nazi’s ethnic purity law.

Also, remember that LBJ predicted, upon the Democratic caucus passing the Civil Rights Bill, that the south would be GOP for his lifetime and the lifetime of the person interviewing him. To this day, GOP hopefuls have to appeal to the ‘angry white male’ vote. It is discrete (maybe a speech on states rights at a location where civil rights workers were killed, like Reagan), but it has to occur.

So if we start screaming ‘racist’, while largely backing the GOP, we open the door to being called hypocrits. Particularly since immigrant bashing mostly focuses on hispanics, hence fellow Catholics.

I’m an independant and I welcome the migration of hispanics into the USA. You are trying to me in box that I don’t fit in to. But the biggest push for legalizing abortionis in third world countries made of minorities. did I use the word racist? I need to back up and look at that post. Yea I guess I did. but per capita minorites get more abortions for it sold to them as a solution to thier poverty. The Problem

 

[SoCalRC]

I don’t think anyone can show any verifiable data on “real progress” for pro-life. The reason is that you can show correlations of data until you are blue in the face, but there is no way to link this data to cause-and-effect. The reason is that there are too many variables - stigma of abortion, legality of abortion, practice of abstinance, practice of birth control, promiscuity, effect of drug/prostitution, etc.

We can’t identify causes, but we can look at results. Abortion rates go up, or they go down. A ban stops abortions, or it does not.

In case you are confused, I am the one saying that the problem is complex, like modern slavery. It requires a lot of concurrent approaches, with secular law quite likely being the least effective among them.

It is folks like estesbob who is not only claiming positive progress, but causal responsbility. I find that silly, all the evidence we have suggests that the things most important to estesbob (like getting Republicans elected) have had no measurable effect. So I look at the things we can count. There is a huge connection between abortion and poverty. So an obvious step would be to ask those women why they are procurring abortions and address those needs. In of itself, we are helping the poor which is a fundemental teaching of Christ. It does not matter if the need is really causal or not, we are addressing the excuse, removing it from the table. Once we remove all the excuses, people have to confront their concience.

A second obvious step is to provide alternatives to abortion. Real investment in providing prenatal care, pulling the foster care system out of crisis, etc. Again, this directly answers Christ’s call.

It is only in the narrow context of politics that these steps must be rejected in favor of a legal centric approach. That is because legality is the only approach that does not require a change is priorities regarding domestic spending. That is, it is the only ‘pro life’ prong that is acceptible to the rest of the GOP caucus.

All of your anti-GOP rhetoric just clouds the things we should all agree on, as Catholics. If you are a Democrat, working within the party to try to make abortion illegal, then I respect your decision. I don’t understand it, since the party believes strongly in the right to murder an unborn child, but I respect your right to vote any way you choose. If you are truly working on a third party with Catholic views, I also respect that, though I believe it is an indirect vote for the Democrats.

Again, I actually read what others post. I have repeatedly stated that I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate. I vote my entire faith. And that means that I must object to a war I find unjust, torture and murder, and policies that promote poverty and euthanasia.

And, just as importantly, I won’t vote for abortionists. It seems to me that the Abramof scandal and its stench of forced abortion money touched a lot of GOP politicians. Yes, some went to jail, but even if the level of convictable criminality was not reached, participating in human trafficing and forced abortions makes a person inelligable for my vote. The same is true of personal values, look at the ‘Dukestir’, now serving time. If you sell out national security for antiques, boats, and flings with prostitutes, I simply do not care what you say you believe about Roe v. Wade.

How many GOP politicians have to get caught in gay sex scandals (I see another one broke today) and how many pro abortion candidates need to be in the top tier for leadership of the party before we can abandon the nonsense of one party being “pro life” in a Catholic sense?

 

[SoCalRC]

I’m an independant and I welcome the migration of hispanics into the USA. You are trying to me in box that I don’t fit in to.

I do not mean to characterize you at all. You touched a subject that bothers me greatly (I have a severely disabled son). My post meant just what it says, we have to be careful when and if we demonize.

It is easy to think that we are ‘good’ and planned parenthood is ‘evil’, but we are repeatedy warned against this in the Gospels.

Think of a fertility clinic, I’m sure that the people who work there believe that they are helping families have children, a wonderful goal. But if it produces hundreds of thousands of fertilized zygotes that are eventually incinerated as biological waste? We believe that to be wrong, but it does not make us ‘good’ and them ‘evil’. Everyone, the woman getting the abortion, the lost child, the person performing the abortion, the boyfriend holding the hand, are all children of God.

If we forget that we lose sight of the human person (per the Second Vatican Council). Losing that, we lose the underlyng principle of our pro-life position.

Peace

 

[rlg94086]

How do you reconcile this…

We can’t identify causes, but we can look at results. Abortion rates go up, or they go down. A ban stops abortions, or it does not.

…with this?

SoCalRC:

In case you are confused, I am the one saying that the problem is complex, like modern slavery. It requires a lot of concurrent approaches, with secular law quite likely being the least effective among them.

You say it is complex, but you make erroneous claims that you can track the result of something by looking at the change in abortion rates. That is nonsensical.

SoCalRC:

It is folks like estesbob who is not only claiming positive progress, but causal responsbility. I find that silly, all the evidence we have suggests that the have had no measurable effect. So I look at the things we can count. There is a huge connection between abortion and poverty. So an obvious step would be to ask those women why they are procurring abortions and address those needs. In of itself, we are helping the poor which is a fundemental teaching of Christ. It does not matter if the need is really causal or not, we are addressing the excuse, removing it from the table. Once we remove all the excuses, people have to confront their concience.

So, do you believe poor people have weaker morality or do you believe they are stupid? You can show a correlation between poverty and abortion, but, again, you are trying to show causation. And, you are ignoring the point I made previously. There is more murder in poorer neighborhoods. Should murder be legalized? Of course not. It is a separate issue. You don’t seem willing to acknowledge that. How can you believe that abortion should be legal??

SoCalRC:

It is only in the narrow context of politics that these steps must be rejected in favor of a legal centric approach. That is because legality is the only approach that does not require a change is priorities regarding domestic spending. That is, it is the only ‘pro life’ prong that is acceptible to the rest of the GOP caucus.

1. That is because you make a false assumption that domestic spending by the government is the cure to all problems and the only Catholic response. 2) You are again trying to say that the only solutions pro-life Republicans believe in is making abortion illegal. I’ve already pointed out the fallacy of this argument. No one I know believes that legalization is the only problem.

I have repeatedly stated that I will not vote for a pro-choice candidate. I vote my entire faith. And that means that I must object to a war I find unjust, torture and murder, and policies that promote poverty and euthanasia.

And, just as importantly, I won’t vote for abortionists. It seems to me that the Abramof scandal and its stench of forced abortion money touched a lot of GOP politicians. Yes, some went to jail, but even if the level of convictable criminality was not reached, participating in human trafficing and forced abortions makes a person inelligable for my vote. The same is true of personal values, look at the ‘Dukestir’, now serving time. If you sell out national security for antiques, boats, and flings with prostitutes, I simply do not care what you say you believe about Roe v. Wade.

How many GOP politicians have to get caught in gay sex scandals (I see another one broke today) and how many pro abortion candidates need to be in the top tier for leadership of the party before we can abandon the nonsense of one party being “pro life” in a Catholic sense?

One party happens to have more “pro-life” stances in a “Catholic sense.” It is a fact. That one party also happens to have more pro-life politicians elected in it. It also has some people who are caught in sex scandals, are pro-choice, etc. That is like condemning the Catholic Church because some of her priests are caught up in sex scandals and pro-choice.

As far as your statement that you won’t vote for abortionists, please clarifiy your statement. You will not vote for someone who supports Roe v. Wade? You will not support someone who believes abortion should be legal?

things most important to estesbob (like getting Republicans elected)…Again, I actually read what others post.

LOL…you actually read what others post? If that were the case, then you would know that estesbob has repeatedly said he won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate, including Republicans. Perhaps you don’t read as well as you think you do…

 

[Potato1]

Just to be clear, Holly, you disagree with Church teachings on abortion?

Actually I think Holly’s position is compatable with her church (united methodist?) Her position is not compatible with the Catholic Church or, in my opinion, with holiness.
Another great reason to be Catholic!!

 

[estesbob]

LOL…you actually read what others post? If that were the case, then you would know that estesbob has repeatedly said he won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate, including Republicans. Perhaps you don’t read as well as you think you do…

Actually I said "pro-abortion canidates as I dont beleive there is amy such thing as “pro-choice”. Thats one of those euphanisms used by pro-abortion people to try and hide the abject evil they support . It appears i will not be voting in the 2007 Presidential election.

One does have to admit that if their adherence to Catholic Teaching keeps them from voting for a pro-abortion canidates their chances of getting to vote are preety slim unless they do vote Republican.

 

[rlg94086]

Actually I said "pro-abortion canidates as I dont beleive there is amy such thing as “pro-choice”. Thats one of those euphanisms used by pro-abortion people to try and hide the abject evil they support . It appears i will not be voting in the 2007 Presidential election.

One does have to admit that if their adherence to Catholic Teaching keeps them from voting for a pro-abortion canidates their chances of getting to vote are preety slim unless they do vote Republican.

I agree with your assessment…of course . However, beware of the usage of “pro-abortion.” Part of the reason I am asking SoCalRC for clarification when he says he won’t vote for “abortionists,” is because that is vague. I’ve heard some people try to make the argument that tries to distinguish someon who is “pro-choice,” but “personally pro-life” as not being pro-abortion, because they are supporting social programs to try to limit abortion.

 

[Bennie_P]

I do not mean to characterize you at all. You touched a subject that bothers me greatly (I have a severely disabled son). My post meant just what it says, we have to be careful when and if we demonize.

I don’t understand what your son has to do with what I said, except some of the basic ideas promoted by eugenics your son would possibly be a target for elimination from society and my wife who was born visual impaired/blind would have been either sterilized, forbidden to marry or possibly eliminated from society also, thus I would not have the beautiful children for which I am the father of. **As to the evil behind the roots of a organization it is obvious, it doesn’t mean people that support have interior motives which evil, but the evil is there. ignoring or white washing only allows them to continue in their ignorance or misguided ideas of compassion. **

It is easy to think that we are ‘good’ and planned parenthood is ‘evil’, but we are repeatedy warned against this in the Gospels.

Well none are good - and worthy - Including myself

**As it is written: There is not any man just. **
**There is none that understandeth: there is none that seeketh after God. **
**All have turned out of the way: they are become unprofitable together: there is none that doth good, there is not so much as one. **
**Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully. The venom of asps is under their lips. **
**Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: **
**Their feet swift to shed blood: **
**Destruction and misery in their ways: **
**And the way of peace they have not known. **
There is no fear of God before their eyes. Rom 3:10 -18

Think of a fertility clinic, I’m sure that the people who work there believe that they are helping families have children, a wonderful goal. But if it produces hundreds of thousands of fertilized zygotes that are eventually incinerated as biological waste? We believe that to be wrong, but it does not make us ‘good’ and them ‘evil’. Everyone, the woman getting the abortion, the lost child, the person performing the abortion, the boyfriend holding the hand, are all children of God.

That is way it is important to help them learn of the evil behind abortion. I am condemning the act of abortion not the victims that fall to it’s deceit.

If we forget that we lose sight of the human person (per the Second Vatican Council). Losing that, we lose the underlyng principle of our pro-life position.

And where am I forgetting the main victims, that is the woman and her child.

Peace

gloria in altissimis Deo et in terra pax in hominibus bonae voluntatis

 

[estesbob]

I agree with your assessment…of course . However, beware of the usage of “pro-abortion.” Part of the reason I am asking SoCalRC for clarification when he says he won’t vote for “abortionists,” is because that is vague. I’ve heard some people try to make the argument that tries to distinguish someon who is “pro-choice,” but “personally pro-life” as not being pro-abortion, because they are supporting social programs to try to limit abortion.

The whole “pro-choice” movement is based on euphanisms. Rarely do you even hear the word “abortion”. its all about “choice” and “reproductive rights” and a womans right to control their body, etc, etc. And children are never killed or even aborted -its just fetuses being “terminated”

I dont like the term pro-choice because I dont want to acede to their lie.

.

 

[mapleoak]

We preport to have a love for all life, from conception to natural death - sinner and saint. If we can’t find compassion for a young mother dying with the twins inside her, or the tragedy of prenatal care turning into uterine cancer treatments, then our concern for fetal life rings hollow.

Having compassion for a young mother dying with twins inside her is not dependent on whether action is taken to murder her children. Many will say Dr Kevorkian had compassion for his victims. However his doings were not compassion at all, rather quite the opposite.

 

[mapleoak]

Not only prohibition but prosecution of anyone involved in it. That was the way it used to be.

This is exactly right. Laws are meaningless without potential for prosecution.

Yes, there will be some deaths from illegal abortions and you are right, we now have antibiotics and good emergency care which should help.

There will be bank robberies, theft, murder, drug use, …, It is always amazing the justification that gets presented to keep abortion legal on the grounds that it will happen anyway.

 

[mapleoak]

We can’t identify causes, but we can look at results. Abortion rates go up, or they go down. A ban stops abortions, or it does not.

No, it is more than reasonable to assume that if an activity (any activity) is illegal, the prevelence of the commission of that activity will be reduced. The mere presence of a law doesn’t make bad people become good people. Certainly one of the objectives of the pro-life movement is to illegalize abortion. However, if you look at where the most emphasis by any of the pro-life groups is, it is actively working in the world to educate, dissuade, reach out, and offer charity through works, funds, and prayer. Making abortion illegal is not and will not ever be the ‘end all be all’ objective of the pro-life movement. Though it is a very important thing being sought after.

So I look at the things we can count. There is a huge connection between abortion and poverty.

Do have any statistics showing the number of people subject to poverty procurred an abortion for the reason that they are poor?

A second obvious step is to provide alternatives to abortion. Real investment in providing prenatal care, pulling the foster care system out of crisis, etc. Again, this directly answers Christ’s call.

None of which diminishes the need to push for legislation against abortion. Pro-life missions already encompass directing efforts toward all of these things and is constantly seeking to expand in that regard.

 

[Bennie_P]

This is exactly right. Laws are meaningless without potential for prosecution.There will be bank robberies, theft, murder, drug use, …, It is always amazing the justification that gets presented to keep abortion legal on the grounds that it will happen anyway.

They didn’t prosecute the women that had abortions but the abortionist and if abortion is ruled illegal that would be the norm, to prosecute the abortionist not the women.

 

[mapleoak]

They didn’t prosecute the women that had abortions but the abortionist and if abortion is ruled illegal that would be the norm, to prosecute the abortionist not the women.

I would agree that it wouldn’t make much sense to be a crime to perform an abortion, but not to procure one.

 

[Bennie_P]

I would agree that it wouldn’t make much sense to be a crime to perform an abortion, but not to procure one.

Studying two hundred years of legal history, the American Center for Bioethics concluded: "No evidence was found to support the proposition that women were prosecuted for undergoing or soliciting abortions. The charge that spontaneous miscarriages could result in criminal prosecution is similarly insupportable. There are no documented instances of prosecution of such women for murder or for any other species of homicide; nor is there evidence that states that had provisions enabling them to prosecute women for procuring abortions ever applied those laws. The vast majority of the courts were reluctant to implicate women, even in a secondary fashion, through complicity and conspiracy charges. Even in those rare instances where an abortionist persuaded the court to recognize the woman as his accomplice, charges were not filed against her. In short, women were not prosecuted for abortions. Abortionists were. The charges of Planned Parenthood and other “pro-choice” proponents are

without factual basis. Given the American legal system’s reliance on precedent, it is unlikely that enforcement of future criminal sanctions on abortion would deviate substantially from past enforcement patterns." Women and Abortion, Prospects of Criminal Charge**s Monograph, American Center for Bioethics, 422 C St., NE, Washington, DC 20002, Spring 1983
abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_7.asp

 

[SoCalRC]

but you make erroneous claims that you can track the result of something by looking at the change in abortion rates. That is nonsensical.

No, persuing a secular ‘solution’ on pure faith, in the complete absense of supporting evidence (and even in the presense of contrary evidence) is nonsensical. Technically, it is called “psuedo certainty”.

So, do you believe poor people have weaker morality or do you believe they are stupid?

No, I believe that the oppressed face pressures that I do not and those pressures lead to many evils.

You can show a correlation between poverty and abortion, but, again, you are trying to show causation.

No. Read carefully. I said we should ask what factors are, in their opinion, influencing their choices. Then address those issues. We are directly called to service to the poor anyway.

I specifically noted that the causal connection may be only percevied, but removing excuses helps people confront the true issue.

How can you believe that abortion should be legal??

I do not. My point is that prohibition is probably the least effective approach. Remember, the Church has also effectively been a monarchy and tried a 3 year ban on abortion with a possible penalty of death (reportedly to try to stop run away prostitution in Rome). The policy failed. It did not stop abortions, it stopped people coming to confession.

That is because you make a false assumption that domestic spending by the government is the cure to all problems and the only Catholic response.

No, I’ve said that we need to spend wisely. President Bush has outspent LBJ, created a structural deficit, and added trillions in debt. Abortion rates declined fastest under the previous administration, which ended with a surplus, had much slower growth in discretionary spending, and paid down part of our debt.

1. You are again trying to say that the only solutions pro-life Republicans believe in is making abortion illegal.

No, I have asserted the the GOP as a party and as a governing caucus pursues no other pro life strategies. It spends a lot, just elsewhere.

One party happens to have more “pro-life” stances in a “Catholic sense.”

Pro life in what sense? The official GOP position on abortion does not match Church teaching. So voting GOP is already an application of “limiting the harm”.

We also have other infallible teachings, like murder and euthanasia, on which the GOP trackrecord is very poor.

You are substutiting the narrow GOP view of pro-life for a much broader Catholic understanding of the human person.

As far as your statement that you won’t vote for abortionists, please clarifiy your statement.

I have never voted for a pro choice candidate. But I will also not accept mere lip service on pro life either. For example, the USCCB started highlighting human traficing and forced abortions in Saipan (a US protectorate, BTW) about 10 years ago. For reasons I could not fathom, the GOP leaders in congress blocked the extension of US labor laws or any other reform. As far as I’m concerned, we found the answer in the Abramof convictions.

If you actively support a system of slavery and forced abortions, for profit, you are, in my eyes, an abortionist.

Simillarly, look at water boarding. We have prosecuted this as a war crime since the Spanish-American war. We have already acknowledged using it as a tactic and the dancing by our proposed AG to be can only mean that we intend to continue using torture.

If you actively support the torture of prisoners, which is expressly prohibited in the Catechism, you are a torturer. As such, you also gain some culpability in the torture murders that have occured. Which, ironicially, include a torture crucifixion.

I am called to be a Christian, not a Roman. Succumbing to fear mongering is no excuse.

LOL…you actually read what others post? If that were the case, then you would know that estesbob has repeatedly said he won’t vote for a pro-choice candidate, including Republicans. Perhaps you don’t read as well as you think you do…

But he already votes for candidates who are not pro-life per Catholic teaching. He justifies this with an incredibly narrow definition of pro-life. If lip service is enough, what constitutes a legitimate pro-life candidate?

 

[SoCalRC]

I would agree that it wouldn’t make much sense to be a crime to perform an abortion, but not to procure one.

But try to get any politician, from either major party, to state that he/she would prosecute women procuring abortions…

 

[SoCalRC]

No, it is more than reasonable to assume that if an activity (any activity) is illegal, the prevelence of the commission of that activity will be reduced.

So is there less prostitution or drug abuse today than before these acts were prohibited?

Prohibition traditionally just makes something more profitable as an organized criminal activity.

 

[Ender]

No, it is more than reasonable to assume that if an activity (any activity) is illegal, the prevelence of the commission of that activity will be reduced.

That this is generally true should be obvious, otherwise there wouldn’t be any laws prohibiting any activity. Given our experience with prohibition and drugs, however, it is reasonable to ask whether a law making abortion illegal would work in any meaningful sense of the word. I reject the claim that the legal status of abortion wouldn’t affect its rate but the question is not irrelevant.

However, if you look at where the most emphasis by any of the pro-life groups is, it is actively working in the world to educate, dissuade, reach out, and offer charity through works, funds, and prayer. Making abortion illegal is not and will not ever be the ‘end all be all’ objective of the pro-life movement. Though it is a very important thing being sought after.

This is a good point and it is important to recognize the relationship between what is illegal and what is immoral. We all understand that because something is legal it is not therefore necessarily moral and we also recognize that simply because something is illegal it is not necessarily immoral … but there is a close, accepted relationship between our laws and our morality. Making something illegal is society’s way of stating that that something is also immoral. In that regard the law is also a teacher and it is important to teach that abortion is immoral by also making it illegal.

Ender

 

[rlg94086]

No, persuing a secular ‘solution’ on pure faith, in the complete absense of supporting evidence (and even in the presense of contrary evidence) is nonsensical. Technically, it is called “psuedo certainty”.

No, I believe that the oppressed face pressures that I do not and those pressures lead to many evils.

No. Read carefully. I said we should ask what factors are, in their opinion, influencing their choices. Then address those issues. We are directly called to service to the poor anyway.

I specifically noted that the causal connection may be only percevied, but removing excuses helps people confront the true issue.

I do not. My point is that prohibition is probably the least effective approach. Remember, the Church has also effectively been a monarchy and tried a 3 year ban on abortion with a possible penalty of death (reportedly to try to stop run away prostitution in Rome). The policy failed. It did not stop abortions, it stopped people coming to confession.

No, I’ve said that we need to spend wisely. President Bush has outspent LBJ, created a structural deficit, and added trillions in debt. Abortion rates declined fastest under the previous administration, which ended with a surplus, had much slower growth in discretionary spending, and paid down part of our debt.

No, I have asserted the the GOP as a party and as a governing caucus pursues no other pro life strategies. It spends a lot, just elsewhere.

Pro life in what sense? The official GOP position on abortion does not match Church teaching. So voting GOP is already an application of “limiting the harm”.

We also have other infallible teachings, like murder and euthanasia, on which the GOP trackrecord is very poor.

You are substutiting the narrow GOP view of pro-life for a much broader Catholic understanding of the human person.

I have never voted for a pro choice candidate. But I will also not accept mere lip service on pro life either. For example, the USCCB started highlighting human traficing and forced abortions in Saipan (a US protectorate, BTW) about 10 years ago. For reasons I could not fathom, the GOP leaders in congress blocked the extension of US labor laws or any other reform. As far as I’m concerned, we found the answer in the Abramof convictions.

If you actively support a system of slavery and forced abortions, for profit, you are, in my eyes, an abortionist.

Simillarly, look at water boarding. We have prosecuted this as a war crime since the Spanish-American war. We have already acknowledged using it as a tactic and the dancing by our proposed AG to be can only mean that we intend to continue using torture.

If you actively support the torture of prisoners, which is expressly prohibited in the Catechism, you are a torturer. As such, you also gain some culpability in the torture murders that have occured. Which, ironicially, include a torture crucifixion.

I am called to be a Christian, not a Roman. Succumbing to fear mongering is no excuse.

But he already votes for candidates who are not pro-life per Catholic teaching. He justifies this with an incredibly narrow definition of pro-life. If lip service is enough, what constitutes a legitimate pro-life candidate?

Okay. So, after reading everything you have written, I have to assume that you have never voted for anyone who has won an election.

If you are looking for a Party or candidate who matches 100% with Catholic teaching, you won’t find it/them. Life is compromise my friend. I never said that the GOP platform matches up 100% with the Catholic Church. All I’ve said is that they are “more pro-life” from a “Catholic sense.” And, you can play all of the “pro-life in what way” rhetorical games you want, but this is my reading of the two major parties.

I have already said that I respect your choice to throw away your votes on people who have no chance of being elected. Please respect my choice to be a practical voter, who examines each candidate and makes the best choice after much prayer and discernment.