Democrats excluding Catholics

[Ridgerunner]

The platform can’t really call for ending abortion completely, which the courts have ruled a legal right.

The Supreme Court could overrule it with one decision. That’s why appointment of one more prolife justice is so important.

 

[Theo520]

I think that this is fair, but once upon a time there was talk of a Constitutional amendment.

Yes, and at that time there were many pro-life democrats

I think making it illegal is never gonna happen, but progress can be made in making it more rare.

 

[Theo520]

The Supreme Court could overrule it with one decision. That’s why appointment of one more prolife justice is so important.

That may be what people wish for, but it’s not part of the party platform. Even if the GOP nominates several more judges, we don’t know how they will rule.

 

[dvdjs]

Safe, legal murder. Vote Dem!

This is not much different that “tramp” or “cheeto”.

Is abortion the murder of a human being, or isn’t it?

I regard abortion as intrinsically evil; that perspective does not hinge on a theory of “being”. I realize that many people have different perspective on the matter of what constitutes being - including many good people. I also understand that many people have perspective that rights of the child are not privileged over the autonomous rights of the mother. A discussion on these matters might yield fruit. Calling opponents murderers, however, gets us nowhere,

 

[dvdjs]

The Supreme Court could overrule it with one decisio

Could over rule what, exactly?

 

[dvdjs]

I think making it illegal is never gonna happen, but progress can be made in making it more rare.

Progress in making it more rare is already happening. But that is not from restrictions, especially on time, which may have the unintended consequence of increasing abortions.

 

[Ender]

That is not the Catholic standard. Why not make a move to eliminate it? Why not propose the move?

Actually, the “Catholic standard” does allow for step-wise restrictions on abortion. It does not demand that the only acceptable approach be an immediate and complete ban.

 

[Raxus]

This is not much different that “tramp” or “cheeto”.

I disagree. The Dem party has it emblazoned as part of their party line.

I regard abortion as intrinsically evil; that perspective does not hinge on a theory of “being”.

I’m honestly curious about your perspective. Can you tell me more?

I realize that many people have different perspective on the matter of what constitutes being - including many good people.

But only one of those perspectives is actually correct and true. Good people can still be wrong.

I also understand that many people have perspective that rights of the child are not privileged over the autonomous rights of the mother.

Those people would be wrong, for whatever reason.

A discussion on these matters might yield fruit.

It’s a discussion I have quite frequently, but that’s not what’s being talked about here.

Calling opponents murderers, however, gets us nowhere,

Flatly, some of them are, despite what the law or other people tell them. I think that they are relatively few, but I do think some of them are.

 

[dvdjs]

“Roe” and cases flowing from it could disappear overnight as “precedent” with one decision of the Supreme Court. That’s why the Dems would do anything to remove Trump; so he won’t appoint another Supreme Court justice.

Going back to pre-Roe we would have some states with some restrictions and some with none. Would the number of abortions drop? Why would they?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Even if the GOP nominates several more judges, we don’t know how they will rule.

No, but it’s likely we will. But if a Dem president nominates any more judges, we know exactly how they will rule. When the Dem appointees rule that partial birth abortion is a constitutional right, not much is left to wonder about.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Actually, the “Catholic standard” does allow for step-wise restrictions on abortion. It does not demand that the only acceptable approach be an immediate and complete ban.

Can you hear yourself with this?

The Church maintains that unborn children are children, just the same as a 3 year old or a ten year old. This is not some matter of personal preference. We’re talking about killing here, and you think the Church’s position is that killing children is okay as long as we work gradually toward prohibiting it; that we should not try to end it abruptly if we could?

 

[Raxus]

It does not demand that the only acceptable approach be an immediate and complete ban.

It’s implicit within Catholic teaching that an immediate and complete ban would be best.

Relativism is a bad thing. Best leave it alone.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Going back to pre-Roe we would have some states with some restrictions and some with none. Would the number of abortions drop? Why would they?

I don’t know. Nobody knows.

What we do know is that we would not be enshrining it as a “constitutional right” with our laws, thus scandalizing generation after generation. We know we would not be supporting it with our taxes. We would know we did what we could.

 

[Theo520]

No, but it’s likely we will. But if a Dem president nominates any more judges, we know exactly how they will rule. When the Dem appointees rule that partial birth abortion is a constitutional right, not much is left to wonder about.

I’m not disputing the value in adding more judges that respect the letter of the law vs liberal judges that want to write law with their decisions.

I think GOP nominated judges would support laws with increased restrictions such as reducing the window of ‘on-demand’. Perhaps most Christian GOP supporters clearly want to end the practice, but it’s not part of the GOP platform. It’s just that the GOP is the only option to support.

 

[ProVobis]

I believe there were 64 Democrats who voted for the Stupak Amendment in 2009 but most either retired or were gerrymandered out.

The Senate tossed the amendment but Obama issued an Executive Order reinforcing the Hyde Amendment. This however did not stop the threats against the prolife Democrats whether they voted for the ACA or not.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t know. Nobody knows.

I agree with this

 

[Ender]

The Church maintains that unborn children are children, just the same as a 3 year old or a ten year old. This is not some matter of personal preference. We’re talking about killing here, and you think the Church’s position is that killing children is okay as long as we work gradually toward prohibiting it; that we should not try to end it abruptly if we could?

The key phrase here is “if we could.” This does nothing more than allow us to do what we can while we work toward a total ban. If we were not allowed to do this then every single law providing any restriction at all since Roe would be disallowed by the church as not being “the Catholic way.” So long as we don’t cease our efforts at a total ban we are certainly justified in tightening the screws as much as possible.

Again, we are allowed to do the possible if the final objective is, for now, impossible.

 

[Ender]

It’s implicit within Catholic teaching that an immediate and complete ban would be best.

Relativism is a bad thing. Best leave it alone.

My comment seems to have been taken completely wrong. This represents some serious conclusion jumping.

In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. (Evangelium vitae, #73)

 

[Raxus]

My comment seems to have been taken completely wrong. This represents some serious conclusion jumping.

In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. (Evangelium vitae, #73)

Aaaah, ok. Gotcha.

My bad, fam. Yes, that makes much more sense.

 

[ATraveller]

First, this denigrates Republicans by asserting they really don’t oppose abortion, but are willing to appear to do so in exchange for votes. You cannot know this. It is a rash and uncharitable judgment for which there is little evidence. Every single bill, both state and federal, that has been proposed to limit abortion in any way has been offered by a Republican and opposed en masse by the Democrats. If Republicans are just making a show of opposition it seems indistinguishable from what they would do if they “really” opposed it.

Not all Republicans. One must not forget the Republicans are first and foremost the party of big business. A good portion of social conservatives in the GOP are just refugees from the Democratic Party. If those representing the Democratic Party stopped being so hostile towards Christians, the GOP would lose those social conservatives.