Beto O’Rourke on Third-Trimester Abortions: Should be Decision the Woman Makes

[Jeanne_S]

Kudos to you for being able to decipher the incoherent post
To your comments re sloganeering ,who on this thread has used slogans.?Objecting and being outraged by dismemberment of nearly born babies is sloganeering? I have yet to read anything from youorvDVDSc,that offers a concrete alternative to fighting against this evil.If you do have some ideas please share.
All I.m getting is words are meaningless and also are causing undo shame to those engaging in this practice.

 

[Jeanne_S]

In other words you cannot offer a concrete alternative? That’s what I thought.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Prohibiting late term abortions is a good start towards walking back abortion . With the availability of sonograms there is a heightened awareness of life in the womb. As Archbishop Chaput states it’s prudent to take small steps in ending abortion . Not talking about it won’t make it go away

 

[vz71]

Prohibiting late term abortions is a good start towards walking back abortion .

Agreed.
I have spoken to many that would never consider abortion were it not for the state legislation telling them it was ok.

 

[Cathoholic]

vz71 . . .

I have spoken to many that would never consider abortion were it not for the state legislation telling them it was ok.

That’s exactly right.

Many people unfortunately use the State to be their moral compass – a form of the religion of secular humanism.

Like Jeanne_S said too, sonogram proliferation is changing hearts as well. It becomes undeniable what is occurring in a “therapeutic abortion” to all but the most hardened of hearts.

Abortion activists, like Beto, do not want a public discussion on this issue. That’s my opinion anyway.

America to this day, has never had the national discussion regarding abortion. A terrible mistake.

The “abortion evangelizers” will always need to divert or silence the discussion.

The pro-abortion ideas are so vile and stench-filled . . . that when the truth is brought out in the open . . . hearts change.

Thanks to people like you vz71, Jeanne_S, and others, hearts are changing towards life.

Abby Johnson’s upcoming movie in another week or so will move many more hearts away from this foul thinking.

Proverbial re-entry into the “atmosphere” is a painful experience for them when pro-aborts come home. It is a great work of grace. They need much grace. Pray for them.

CCC 1994 Justification is the most excellent work of God’s love made manifest in Christ Jesus and granted by the Holy Spirit. It is the opinion of St. Augustine that “the justification of the wicked is a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth,” because “heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect . . . will not pass away.” He holds also that the justification of sinners surpasses the creation of the angels in justice, in that it bears witness to a greater mercy.

This is true for all sinners, but especially so for the hardest of heart that our Lord Jesus holds out His Divine Mercy for.

Pray for the pro-lifers too who are always opposed by evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

Pro-abortion ideas WILL be defeated by good ideas. Just like ALL RE-DEFINING of persons as anything less than persons sooner or later ALWAYS gets “trumped” (no pun intended).

The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson (a founder of National Abortion Rights Action League – NARAL) even was moved by the truth of abortion via ultrasonography. Pro-lifers and their discussions with him prepared his heart for that day!

He “aborted” several of his own children back when he was a pro-abort.

Dr. Nathanson is a true story of Jesus Christ’s redemption in a man.

(I had the pleasure of personally knowing Dr. Nathanson after he became a spoksman for the pro-life cause.)

The Hand of God: A Journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind Hardcover – April 1, 1996​

by Bernard Nathanson (Author)

https://www.amazon.com/Hand-God-Jou...ard+Nathanson&qid=1553795479&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Dr. Nathanson pray for us.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Changing people’s hearts does not preclude changing laws.

I work with homeless pregnant women and their children at Our Lady’s Inn, a home for pregnant women and their children. A couple of nights ago I was talking to some of the women there. They told me they never even knew all this help existed. The one told me her boyfriend told her to “get rid of it” when she found out she was having a girl at 18 weeks. She went to PP to get an abortion, but couldn’t go through with it. Somehow deep inside she knew it was wrong. At PP, they told her it was just a clump of cells and she believed it. The protesters outside PP told her what her options were, one of them being Our Lady’s Inn. When she arrived at Our Lady’s Inn she was shocked at what the fetus really looked like at 18 weeks. She kept telling me to look at the pictures of prenatal development on the wall. I was shocked that people really believed that a fetus is just a clump of cells.

This woman was holding her little 3 day old girl as she was telling me this. She told me she never knew what love really was until she had this little girl. She said she cried for two days because she loved that little girl so much. She said, “and he wanted me to get rid of this?”

Proponents of abortion knowingly deceive and lie to women. If most women knew the truth, they would not have abortions.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Well apparently we should counter this by doing nothing but saying “oh shucks, abortion is legal, I guess that’s it then”.

I wrote out a very long post on this topic but decided I should just condense it to this:

The idea that prolife advocates should desist from taking any meaningful legal action against abortion until they have convinced a significant majority of the population of their entire platform is a false choice. It is illogical to argue that we cannot both pursue legal action and try to change the culture. They are not mutually exclusive, nor does changing the culture have to precede legal challenge. To argue that it does creates a complacency for moral cowardice and ultimately results in not only a lack of progress but collaboration with those who promote abortion. This is how you keep voting for politicians who support and promote abortion and how it keeps getting perpetuated. I sincerely question the sincerity of anyone who calls themself prolife who argues that we should avoid all legal challenges until everyone is convinced of the position. They are in effect saying, “I believe abortion is the murder of a child, and I think it should be legal because others don’t agree with me”. We cannot take legal action off the table and remain seriously prolife.

If we can’t agree to outlaw abortions of fully developed babies, if we cannot agree that letting babies slowly die on the operating table is a henous crime, then I don’t really know what we can agree on.

 

[dvdjs]

The idea that prolife advocates should desist from taking any meaningful legal action against abortion until they have convinced a significant majority of the population of their entire platform is a false choice.

It is also an idea that is novel to the thread.

 

[vz71]

The idea that prolife advocates should desist from taking any meaningful legal action against abortion until they have convinced a significant majority of the population of their entire platform is a false choice. It is illogical to argue that we cannot both pursue legal action and try to change the culture.

In fact, it would appear those advocating to restrict the pro-life message to culture instead of legislation are weakening it.

 

[dvdjs]

n fact, it would appear those advocating to restrict the pro-life message to culture instead of legislation are weakening it.

I do not of know of anyone who talks has aimed to “restrict the pro-life message to culture instead of legislation”. But it does makes sense if one is seeking to pass legislation, rather than just posture by introducing it, then one should craft a message that will attract partners rather than repel them. One should seek to develop common perspectives, rather that hone a wedge.

 

[Victoria33]

The idea that prolife advocates should desist from taking any meaningful legal action against abortion until they have convinced a significant majority of the population of their entire platform is a false choice. It is illogical to argue that we cannot both pursue legal action and try to change the culture.

This is absolutely true.

There are plenty of examples where legislation has stopped abortion, the Hyde amendment is said to have stopped 2,000,000 abortions.

It’s hard to reconcile being pro-life yet, dissing all legislation and finding criticisms on that legislation. We are dealing with total hypocrisy it seems. “I’m pro-life but I’m against all pro-life efforts if one party is legislating it”, that also does not even deal with the issue of funding planned parenthood. Our tax dollars should not be funding it up to a half billion dollars a year. Yet, those finding fault with legislation would seem to often be finding fault with those who would stop planned parenthood from being funded, their clinics not being closed. I mean, if this is incrementalism and one is pro-life, I find it hard to reconcile the values here.

The proof is in the pudding so to speak, now, we are dealing with matters that may well be infanticide, yet, we are not suppose to even say it is that for fear of offending others.

Under the Clintons, abortion was to be “safe, legal and rare”, now that is not the standard at alll in some states. Is this really the reward for wanting to change people’s minds in one swoop? The data is in also about those who abort down syndrome babies, up to near 100% per some sources. Again, are we really suppose to sit back on this?

Be against legislation that wants to give more protection to down syndrome babies but honestly, one should have sympathy for others if they in turn claim to be pro-life.

 

[JimG]

In 1973, abortion advocates did not wait for the culture to change or even for state legislatures to change. Rather they used the Supreme Court to force a change, which then enabled the cultural change.

 

[robertmidwest]

In 1973, abortion advocates did not wait for the culture to change or even for state legislatures to change. Rather they used the Supreme Court to force a change, which then enabled the cultural change.

Yes, I believe RBG has even commented that Roe was not good for that reason.

 

[robertmidwest]

Rather they used the Supreme Court to force a change, which then enabled the cultural change.

Why Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Hates Roe v. Wade

Close observers of the legal war over abortion are familiar with the story: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the leader of the Supreme Court's liberal wing, is a passionate critic of Roe v. Wade…

talkingpointsmemo.com

Ginsburg has also said that the ruling damaged the growing movement for abortion rights by going “too far, too fast” and catalyzing the conservative pro-life community, which considers Roe a monumental act of judicial overreach.

From the NYT articlelist in quote above:

Justice Ginsburg contended, the court prevented the states from working out on their own how best to regulate abortion, short-circuiting the democratic process and provoking an angry “backlash” among conservatives and resistance to Roe that continues to this day.

Even RBG agrees the decision was a overreach by SCOTUS.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

It is also an idea that is novel to the thread

Really.

I have stated before that i don’t have a plan - and welcome a discussion on that - but broadly see the task as healing the culture. Then the rest will be easy. Plans that aim to “outlaw abortion” without healing the culture are, IMO likely to fail and to make the task harder.

I think that that idea is folly. Laws tend to follow culture is a system such as ours.

No.
First and foremost, I think that the wedge issue over late-term abortion is ill-conceived. It may limit the ability to enculturate a pro-life ethos. Moreover the scorched earth rhetoric, is unfair to many of the people involved; it should also be recognized that many religious people may come to a different conclusions about the best course of action in these situations because they have a different moral perspective, not because they are simply evil.

But I can understand that other people, who are good, will have other perspective on what to do in these situations.

I fear that this approach is likely to be self-defeating. It is by no means clear that such a walk doesn’t come to an abrupt, terribly premature end: acceptance protection of life at this stage of gestation because termination is gruesome, but not earlier when it is not. If that is the end, then we will have scarcely not really changed the abortion outlook. The “gruesome” argument is about our sensibilities, no about the sanctity of life.

Because the people of this nation are strongly opposed to outlawing abortion - unlike murder or shoplifting.

The question is what should the government compel them to do and by why should it do that.

Restricting my response to the perspective of public policy: it strongly depends, for example, on whether that comes about with or without the consent of the governed.

From a moral perspective it may not be a bad thing for government to outlaw adultery or contraception. But can the same be argued from the perspective of public policy in our country?

One could perhaps be forgiven for thinking that you have argued that we have to change the culture before attempting any legislation, that you have supported this argument by saying other people believe abortion, and third trimester abortion, should be legal, and that you have argued that outlawing abortion at some point in the future should be based on convincing people of an all or nothing law, and that therefore we should not pass incremental legislation. I am far from the only one in the thread who noticed this.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

But it does makes sense if one is seeking to pass legislation, rather than just posture by introducing it, then one should craft a message that will attract partners rather than repel them. One should seek to develop common perspectives, rather that hone a wedge.

So assuming you think abortion should be illegal at some point, which is not at all clear since you have argued that it is one of those moral standards that not everyone should be held to, what “common perspective” legislation would you suggest to get the ball rolling on outlawing abortion? What legislation could we get a majority from both parties to support? I personally thought that we could agree that not letting perfectly viable babies who survived abortion attempts die on the operating table without any care was a pretty slam dunk proposal, and national polling bears that out, but apparently you disagree. What do you suggest instead.

 

[dvdjs]

Really.

Really. Really.

 

[vz71]

The idea that prolife advocates should desist from taking any meaningful legal action against abortion until they have convinced a significant majority of the population of their entire platform is a false choice.

You nailed it.
This has been a theme in this thread, and only serves to weaken the pro-life side.

 

[dvdjs]

This has been a theme in this thread

In reality, it hasn’t. Too bad that people would rather deflect than discuss the actual matters raised.

 

[Cathoholic]

dvdjs . . . .

Too bad that people would rather deflect than discuss the actual matters raised.

.

Well I will attempt to get everyone back on “the actual matters raised”.

.

Beto is the person on the left in the picture below.

The other two persons on the right are not Beto.

Beto thinks it is OK to murder at least one of the two persons on the right.

.

(Picture from my OP.)

.

Beto is wrong thinking that.

He is MORE WRONG helping keep it as public policy.