J
JSRG
Guest
I’m curious. Has abortion ever been banned entirely in any state in the history of US?
- Status
U
upant
Guest
so they aren’t much different from the GOP that wants a ban except in very limited cases. the difference is the reality that a total ban will be very difficult to pass in congress. the ASP seems to acknowledge this with its wording.
F
Fauken
Guest
No. They want a total ban.
Acknowledging the difficulty and being fine with just restrictions are not the same thing.
U
upant
Guest
many of us do, but it isn’t reality. roe v wade just sends it back to the states where many democratic states are expanding abortion through access and time limits.
can a total ban pass anywhere in the states? it is reality, the ASP knows it can’t get a total ban and will accept restrictions. many in the GOP also acknowledge it and settle for restrictions,
F
Fauken
Guest
So? So because “reality” says it’s unlikely, they can’t promote it?
The ASP nonetheless promotes a total ban of abortions. What is or isn’t possible doesn’t change what they’re promoting.
U
upant
Guest
we read it differently, so be it
restrict doesn’t mean a total ban. you can’t ignore restrict (well I guess people do). it is there for a reason. at least they are truthful.
F
Fauken
Guest
Your interpretation of that single word as dominating the whole meaning renders that paragraph self-contradictory. You are ignoring the context that wore is in. You cannot ignore the rest of what that paragraph says because of that one single word. Those other words are there for a reason, so why can they be ignored but not “restriction”? My interpretation doesn’t ignore the word restriction. Your interpretation ignores everything else but restriction.
D
Dan123
Guest
Plus a quick dictionary lookup finds among the definitions:
In addition to the more common definition:
So as you said, context matters.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Not that I am aware of. I suggest the book “Defenders of the Unborn” to learn more about the history of this legislation, here is a wiki overview:
en.wikipedia.org
Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia
S
steve-b
Guest
I haven’t read all 450 posts in this thread. If what I post here has already been said then just ignore,
Given our system of voting, we need to pay particular attention to the party platform, over an individual politician’s point of view.
- Party platforms On life issues
RNC platform http://www.ontheissues.org/Republican_Party.htm
DNC platform http://www.ontheissues.org/Democratic_Party.htm
A Catholic, when given the choice of life over death, in such a case as this, a Catholic is to choose life.
- From the CCC
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae ," "by the very commission of the offense," and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
- Re: Loving our neighbor as ourselves
I wouldn’t do THAT (have an abortion) but I can’t / won’t vote to stop you from having one
THAT statement violates both commands given by Jesus
Mt 22:
Reason being, If I know abortion is condemned, with horrible consequences to my soul, but I won’t do anything in fact I might help you to do that horrible act by voting for the ability to legalize or keep the action legal, I not only break the 2nd command, I also prove, I break the first also, because I don’t love God the creator of all, and above all., over what He created
- Bishop Thomas Tobin: Why I Switched to the Republican Party
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/bishop-thomas-tobin-why-i-switched-to-the-republican-party
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
I accept the word prohibit but that doesn’t tell the whole picture. you want it to say more than it does. the context is exactly the issue, prohibit or restrict. you want to limit restrict by another line but they didn’t need the word “restrict” if the line meant what you want it to say.
restrict has no place in a 100% abortion ban. they could still vote for a partial ban and not compromise their principals. they don’t need the word “restrict” unless they have a specific reason.
if people are voting ASP just for abortion their vote is better served by voting for the GOP. you have a better chance of reducing abortions with them than by a third-party-vote that may allow the Dems to win.
we will agree to disagree, they have an out in my opinion.
B
byzpilgrim
Guest
Can a catholic be democrat? No.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Since the public opinion on abortion rights in the US is evenly split, it is much better to focus on winning the hearts and minds of the people as compared to winning a majority on the Supreme Court. When that is done, the appropriate laws will follow. If that is not done, the laws that enforce the decision will not be effective. Yet 99% of the discussion in this thread has been toward judges and legislators and executives. Why is that?
S
steve-b
Guest
Because
THEY reflect the public they represent, and/or WHO they don’t. Either way, THAT is how our LAWS come to be. Through politicians WE vote for, and in extension, who THEY appoint
Last edited:
J
JSRG
Guest
Because it doesn’t matter if the “appropriate laws” get put into place if the Supreme Court decides to strike them down.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Even if the Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade, the appropriate laws will either not get passed, or if they are passed they will not be observed unless you get the will of the majority of people behind the law. That is why I said that the first thing is not to try to force a criminal law approach. The first thing is to convince the people, particularly the women, not to abort their babies. One way we can do this is to show them that we support them in the mission to bring forth new life by ensuring that every women has guaranteed pre-natal care and delivery services free of charge, even if there are complications. If we do that first, then it will be easier to get support for ending abortion. Otherwise it will be like prohibition: The law says one thing and people do another.LeafByNiggle:
Because it doesn’t matter if the “appropriate laws” get put into place if the Supreme Court decides to strike them down.
M
Maelstrom1
Guest
And win hearts in a proper manner. Some years ago local protestors at a hospital would gather every Thursday rush hour on the busy road out front. They had bullhorns and one guy wore a huge styrofoam cross on his head. It embarrassed me. I’m certain other people thought “Wacko” . This was how NOT to win hearts and minds.
U
upant
Guest
can you vote for a party that would let a born-alive survivor of abortion die?
J
JoeShlabotnik
Guest
I do not know what the Democrats might do, if elected.
I do know what Trump and his GOP buddies have done. They gave the millionaire/billionaire class a huge tax cut. Besides running up the national debt, it did nothing to help those of us who are working class individuals.
I do know what Trump and his GOP buddies have done. They gave the millionaire/billionaire class a huge tax cut. Besides running up the national debt, it did nothing to help those of us who are working class individuals.
U
upant
Guest
you do know the democrats will be responsible for more deaths of the unborn and now even the survivors, the born. you do know they will increase the assault on church teaching. you do know they will increase the harassment of the Christians in the workplace, especially if you own a business.
you know exactly what they will do, they are pushing these policies now.
the democrats haven’t? did you forget the money Obama gave to select companies during his tenure? he picked and chose climate change winners, many went bust.
look at who is backing the Democrats, how can anyone today say they aren’t just as supportive of the rich.
the DNC is catering to Bloomberg, a rich guy, who targeted specific minorities in his administration.
what has been the outcome of the supposed support for the poor from the democrats? are they better off? it looks like they are better off in 3 years under trump then in 8 of obama.
trump has put more money in most people’s pockets.
the dems will repeal tax cuts and trump says he will make the middle-class tax cuts permanent. one thing about trump, he does what he says he will do. the dems we know think the American public is stupid and has to be less transparent to pass their bills.
the middle class will pay more in taxes if the dems win!
- Status