I agree. The problem with calling abortion murder is murder is legaal term and we end up spening far too much time arguing over semantics than we do about the actual evil that has been done.
Political platforms are what the groups SAY.
Now please tell me what the Democrats say they are.
Did you read post 25 ?
It is not a stretch to say that one party claims to be pro life. I am simply suggesting that if someone, or a group of someones claim to believe something is wrong, but then directly profit from it it is reasonable to question their sincerity.
In both state and federal government and federal government every bit of progress on the abortion issue has come out ofRepublican Party. To deny this is specious. With all due respect when somebody starts telling me that Republicans are not pro-life I alwasy get the feeling they are getting ready to vote for a candidate he who supports abortion.
We can take up as to whether God is clear are not at some other time but the Catholic teaching on abortion is crystal clear. No issue or a combination of issues trumps abortion, none. Not the war, not the death tpenalty, not ones opinion of social justice
I suspect by pragmatic you mean you put your political views about the teachings of the Church. I know that sounds harsh but when you couple it with “the not making your decisions based on political claims” it is obvious to all where you’re going. It appears you’re saying that it’s okay not to vote for someone who claims to be pro-life because you’re afraid they’re not but fine to vote for somebody who proclaimes they are pro abortion. My apologies in advance if I’m wrong
From what I have seen, the only people who make this argument are pro-life Democrats. Pro-abortion Dems are eager to pronounce Republicans as anti-choice, and while Republicans themselves disagree about how well their team is moving the ball forward, none of them disputes that they are at least lined up in the right direction.
Actually, you are completely backwards. I have been voting for self proclaimed Pro Life candidates who are weak on other Christian values. Now I have reached the conclussion that there is no progress at all and that many of these same politicians are anything but sincere.
Actually, you are completely backwards. I have been voting for self proclaimed Pro Life candidates who are weak on other Christian values. Now I have reached the conclussion that there is no progress at all and that many of these same politicians are anything but sincere.
When all the top tier candidates for leader of a party are abortion profiteers, it seems to me we might have different values. Throw in chronic fidelity problems and it seems clear that our understanding of “family values” probably differs as well.
Next, sprinkle in millions of dollars from abortion profits into Congress. Funneled, I might add, through politicians that the party saw fit to elect as leaders. Next, have those same leaders help cover up pedophile and other predatory sexual practices - again, just doesn’t seem to be something I can relate to my own values.
Now, what is our massive achievement? The so-called partial birth ban? Having read the court decisions I’m inclined to think this way:
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/03/AR2007060301218.html?hpid=topnews
When our ‘friends’ on the right quietly concede that it is incredibly doubtful that the ban will stop a single abortion, what was the point? If anything, we were lied to. Third trimester aboritons are already banned in 40 states. So we mobilized to go after a procedure that is most often used in the second trimester for health reasons.
From a Catholic teaching point of view, this is fine. We believe that abortion is wrong even to save the life of the mother. But it is to the right of much of the secular public, which seems inclined to agree with us on at least 80% of all abortions, and even to the right of many self-described conservative US Catholics. Remember, Catholic hospitals in the US perform about 100,000 abortions each year for health reasons, we just argue that they are not ‘direct’.
So, we mobilized pro-abortionists, push part of the public more inclined to side with us towards them, and for what? The majority opinion, signed by three ‘Catholics’ reaffirms parts of Roe v. Wade and provides a blue print for circumventing the ban. The concurring opinion, signed by two more ‘Catholics’ indicates that they would have quite likely held the ban to be unconstitutional if the COMMERCE CLAUSE(!!!) had been raised as an issue.
Others are welcome to disagree, but I’m sick of being ‘had’. The GOP had no trouble using its super majority in government to push through massive amounts of corporate welfare. And it seems to have plenty of spine when it comes to pursuing an unpopular war even at the cost of that super majority. So I’m sick of excuses when it comes to issues that matter to me. I’ve been listening to them from my congressman since Reagan first reached out to us. Now I’m still waiting and he is sitting in jail for taking forced abortion money and selling out national security for a big boat and antique furniture. I guess I am supposed to be relieved that he only accepted trysts with female prostitutes instead of publicly soliciting gay sex…
Sorry, I know the above sounds harsh, but you touched a nerve. I’m getting up in years, recently had a reminder of my own mortality and have concluded that I don’t want to be on my hands and knees at the gates of heaven with ‘I voted a straight party ticket!’ as my only defense.
Best Regards
The point is that this battle highlighted the grotesqueness of some of the procedures and showed the extent to which pro-abortion forces are willing to go to fight **any **restriction on abortion. The recognition that this legislation would not prevent many (or possibly any) abortions was known beforehand; it was not something that was suddenly realized only after the court ruling. You should ask yourself this: if the ban doesn’t ban anything, why was it relentlessly opposed by pro-abortionists? What motivated the Democrats to submit legislation the day after the court ruling that would overturn the “ban” on partial birth abortions? Even if you see it as useless they clearly saw it then - and see it now - as a threat.
Regardless of what state laws have been passed an abortion can be procured at any time if the “doctor” performing the abortion claims the procedure is necessary to protect the health of the mother. Since “health of the mother” is something the abortionist himself can define there is no functional legal ban on third trimester abortions in any state.
Correct. Abortions up until the head fully exits the womb can NOT be denied a woman in ANY of the 50 States if she delares having the child would harm her either physically or emorionally. the idea that 3 trimester abortions are banned in 40 states is another myth perpetuated by the pro-abortion crowd.
I haven’t time to do anything else but pop in now and again, but had to reply to this glaring untruth. “Partial birth abortions” were never done for the health of the mother. There is no health reason that would call for a partial birth abortion. This over-riding fact was testified to in court.
For the same self serving reasons that Dobson’s group supported it even, as they conceded in the interview, many people there did not believe a single abortion would be stopped. You fire up your base and let the money motivated volunteers come your way.
Yeah, Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood Federation of America Past President and leader in the International Planned Parenthood Federation. You are nit-picking.
You are welcome to call me a liar, but the overwhelming testimony from the medical community, both before Congress and in briefs to the court, was that the procedure is medically necessary.
Congress sets the budget. Even where Congress and the President are of the same party, Congress pursues its own interests through the budget.
This was preety much refuted in congressional testimony. The man who developed the procedure said they were almost never done for health of the Mother reasons.
That simply is not true.In fact the exact opposite is true. No one could prove that it ever was medically necessary.
The actual Supreme Court opinion can be read here (warning, gruesome):