Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[Rich_Olszewski]

Ah, but you weren’t talking about Congress. “Man on a white horse” is singular, isn’t it? You were talking about the President.

Actually, no. The term, “Man on a White Horse” refers to the “champion” in various mythologies who arises out of nowhere to lead his people to victory. I meant no one in particular.

It may be remarked that the Senate has to ratify presidential appointments, so I’ll oppose pro-abortion Democrat senatorial candidates as well. And, of course, there’s funding, so I’ll also oppose pro-abortion House candidates.

You may certainly do so.

 

[Good_News_1]

Good, return it to the state legislatures. I would think we’d have more success outlawing abortion on the state level than the federal level. Furthermore, if the inconvenience of crossing state lines decreases some abortions (and it will) then it will be worth it - some lives will be saved.

Ishii

I think we would have exceedingly permissive abortion laws in some states, and would outlaw abortion in other states, and Planned Parenthood et al would fund transportation, and the net effect would be zero.

But those are just guesses, on both sides.

The promise of the Republican party seems to be: vote for a candidate who will never come out strongly against abortion, who will nominate a judge who will never speak the word, in the hope that one day, when presented with the right case, that judge might swing the balance on the court, so we can win the big prize of fighting in fifty states, with the ultimate result that abortion could be end up either more or less prevalent.

 

[ishii]

Seems to me it’s more than that. I realize this probably doesn’t admit of proof one way or another, but it seems to me that when a nation or a state within a nation endorses something that’s profoundly wrong, people tend to think that wrong is okay, simply because the nation or state endorses it.

It’s unfortunate that many obtain their notions of mores from the body politic, but they do. We live in a nation that endorses killing the unborn, for any reason or no reason. This country is (I have read) the most liberal of supposedly civilized states for doing that.

So you’re saying that overturning Roe V. Wade would actually have the effect changing beliefs on abortion on the nation as a whole to a more pro-life attitude? I hope that proves to be true.

Ishii

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

So you’re saying that overturning Roe V. Wade would actually have the effect changing beliefs on abortion on the nation as a whole to a more pro-life attitude? I hope that proves to be true.

Ishii

Laws cannot change people’s hearts. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. When people consider government to be the provider of their rights, then what further need do they have of God?

 

[Ridgerunner]

So you’re saying that overturning Roe V. Wade would actually have the effect changing beliefs on abortion on the nation as a whole to a more pro-life attitude? I hope that proves to be true.

Ishii

No one can be sure one way or the other. But when a society endorses and promotes an evil, such as this one does, it’s inevitable that many members of that society will accept that as morally okay.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think we would have exceedingly permissive abortion laws in some states, and would outlaw abortion in other states, and Planned Parenthood et al would fund transportation, and the net effect would be zero.

But those are just guesses, on both sides.

The promise of the Republican party seems to be: vote for a candidate who will never come out strongly against abortion, who will nominate a judge who will never speak the word, in the hope that one day, when presented with the right case, that judge might swing the balance on the court, so we can win the big prize of fighting in fifty states, with the ultimate result that abortion could be end up either more or less prevalent.

Well, I guess that would be the worst case. But the alternative is to endorse abortion with your vote and financial support. That’s clear.

 

[Good_News_1]

But the alternative is to endorse abortion with your vote and financial support. That’s clear.

If the Republicans aren’t going to do anything about abortion, then there isn’t anything more than a symbolic difference.

 

[Christopher68]

Laws cannot change people’s hearts. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. When people consider government to be the provider of their rights, then what further need do they have of God?

Agreed. That is a very astute observation.

 

[scipio337]

If the Republicans aren’t going to do anything about abortion, then there isn’t anything more than a symbolic difference.

There is a huge difference between “doing nothing” (which I would argue is an entirely false notion), and having a decidedly PRO ABORTION stance.

 

[bbarrick8383]

If the Republicans aren’t going to do anything about abortion, then there isn’t anything more than a symbolic difference.

Trying to limit it as much as possible isn’t important so vote for the guys who are seeking the votes based on increasing abortion, not only in this country but other countries as well?

Liberals can justify voting for pro-abortion candidates with the thinking that they will implement social policies to make life easier on other all they want. But the fact is the social programs do nothing to limit abortions, just by virtue of signing up for government help makes many people stressed out and feel like they are poor. Others who sign up for social programs have no conscious desire to get off of them and most likely would abort a child regardless.

Then those politicians who have turned this country into a nanny state want to pay for more abortions overseas and try to influence the politics in those countries with money for abortions and “pro-life” liberal Catholics still justify voting for them.

Confused bunch of people to me.

 

[Good_News_1]

There is a huge difference between “doing nothing” (which I would argue is an entirely false notion), and having a decidedly PRO ABORTION stance.

A huge symbolic difference, but almost no practical difference.

 

[Catherine_D]

Laws cannot change people’s hearts. In fact, it often has the opposite effect. When people consider government to be the provider of their rights, then what further need do they have of God?

That’s why our founding documents say our rights were endowed by our Creator, and do not come from the government. It is the government’s job (one of a very limited number of responsibilities of the federal government) to protect those rights.

In the interim, of course, the federal government has far exceeded its enumerated powers.

 

[Good_News_1]

Confused bunch of people to me.

Why is it less rational or more speculative to believe that social programs can reduce abortion than it is to believe that fighting the same old battle through the Republican party will reduce abortion?

 

[bbarrick8383]

Why is it less rational or more speculative to believe that social programs can reduce abortion than it is to believe that fighting the same old battle through the Republican party will reduce abortion?

Because we have had since the great society till now to see the destruction of the family through social programs that people who pay taxes can no longer afford, and people who suffer the consequences of inflation through printing the fiat currency are forced on to social programs.

Because we no longer teach people how to live life responsibly, but promote irresponsible behavior because there is always a safety net to keep them from having to suffer the consequences of their actions. If there are no consequences in life on earth there will be chaos, what would this world be if many people did not believe in a heaven and a hell or some sort of punishment for leading a life full of sin and void of morals?

We have not seen a good strong conservative party in power for a long time, well hopefully that will soon change. Hopefully the new group of republicans live up to their word and show their conservative values when they take office.

 

[seekerz]

I’m just amazed that you don’t think supreme court justices matter. But for them, we wouldn’t have abortion on demand.

Vote for the pro-abortion candidate and you’re voting to support abortion. Vote for the candidate who at least promises to support the prolife cause and you’re doing what you can in that arena. Whether Obama introduced abortion on demand or didn’t is of no consequence. He supports it.

I realize others are willing to take upon themselves the moral responsibility for having supported abortion with their votes or otherwise, and do that because of other issues they think are more important. It would be refreshing though (and sometimes one sees it, even on here) to see Obama supporters simply admit that they’re willing to live with an abortion-promoting government in order to facilitate unions or health insurance subsidies, or whatever their reason really is for supporting the man.

This has nothing to do with Obama. And don’t be amazed that I think supreme court justices don’t matter 'cause they do - just not much with regards to abortion. Simply because the supreme court legalized abortion doesn’t mean that decades later, they retain the ability to legislate its regulation in any significant way.

In addition to reasons given in my prior post for this opinion, I will also say that the likelihood of getting federal/state laws passed to outlaw abortion without medical exceptions, is virtually nil. Once there are exceptions, they can be misused or manipulated very easily by those inclined to do so and we have countries like India (with its own history of ‘restricted’ abortion) to illustrate the point. Of course India is not the US, but human beings share certain things in common…

When people want something badly, they get creative. The answer is to guide them to wanting the right things and putting that creativity to good use…The days of ‘curing’ abortion on demand by reversing Roe v Wade are pretty much gone and that sobering fact needs to be faced. Reverse it by all means, just don’t let the fight to reverse it cause so much division and labeling among Catholics because the real victory lies elsewhere…in the hands of evangelized women.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I will also say that the likelihood of getting federal/state laws passed to outlaw abortion without medical exceptions, is virtually nil.

Wasn’t there a state that recently tried restricting abortions to extremely rare cases where the mothers life was in danger?

Like Iowa or somewhere like that…

 

[seekerz]

Wasn’t there a state that recently tried restricting abortions to extremely rare cases where the mothers life was in danger?

Like Iowa or somewhere like that…

Operative terms: “tried restricting” and “mother’s life in danger”…Now is a judge really going to sit there pondering evidence when a doctor says a woman’s life is in imminent danger? “Extremely rare” is also a relative term…just because something is extremely rare doesn’t mean its incidence cannot suddenly increase, in say, Iowa. Who’s going to prove which woman does or doesn’t have some obscure medical complication/diagnosis? Professionals from the same medical community that by and large sees access to abortion as an inviolable right of their patients?

 

[bbarrick8383]

Operative terms: “tried restricting” and “mother’s life in danger”…Now is a judge really going to sit there pondering evidence when a doctor says a woman’s life is in imminent danger? “Extremely rare” is also a relative term…just because something is extremely rare doesn’t mean its incidence cannot suddenly increase, in say, Iowa. Who’s going to prove which woman does or doesn’t have some obscure medical complication/diagnosis? Professionals from the same medical community that by and large sees access to abortion as an inviolable right of their patients?

I don’t know, but if it saved a child’s life wouldn’t it be worth it?

Or two children, or three? Or does it matter whether or not the attempt actually saved the life of a child.

We passed a law, to the disapproval of our democrat governor, trying to limit the occurences of abortion here in OK, which I think already has a lower number than most states.

Only to wake up the next day and slapped upside the head with a lawsuite from some democrat liberal yankees.

 

[ishii]

The days of ‘curing’ abortion on demand by reversing Roe v Wade are pretty much gone and that sobering fact needs to be faced. Reverse it by all means, just don’t let the fight to reverse it cause so much division and labeling among Catholics because the real victory lies elsewhere…in the hands of evangelized women.

As far as I know, no one has said that reversing Roe v Wade would “cure” abortion on demand so you’re presenting a false caricature of what what pro-lifers believe in order to advance your own argument. Of course its not all about overturning Roe V.Wade, but overturning it would be a huge pro-life victory and might even ***begin to help reverse ***the pro-death culture we have. As I said previously, as long as there are catholics support pro-choice politicians who give us 100% abortion rights supporting justices, Roe v Wade will remain the law of the land.

Lastly, you also said that even if Roe V. Wade was overturned, people would be able to exploit loopholes in the law such as “cases of rape or the life of the mother” and you are correct, there would be cases of that. However, overturning Roe v Wade would decrease the number of abortions in states that passed restrictions and lives would be saved. And that alone is worth overturning the decision.

Ishii

 

[Catherine_D]

With all due respect to everyone who has posted to this topic ~ this has wandered WAY OFF.

Can we get back to the topic? Alternatively, can the moderators close what has become yet-another discussion of abortion? It wasn’t the topic. Not even close.