Follow up question: What voting issue could possibly outweigh the murder of millions of unborn babies?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jofa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PetraG said:
Still, countries without them have not become the targets of those that do
Click to expand...
No, we don’t know this because Ukraine is at war with Russia. Would they be if they still had nuclear weapons? We don’t know.

Ukraine did give up their nuclear warheads.
 
Last edited:
We can get down into parsing translations, yet, none will result in the Catechism using murder to describe abortion.

That is because abortion is not black and white, it is vary nuanced. For the women it is usually done out of fear or extreme pressure.

For the medical staff, they believe they are helping people.

Let’s work to make America a place without fear.
 
Far be it for me to comment on US politics… But it looks like you get to choose between a party FOR abortion and a party saying that they are against abortion but will do little about it, except count on your vote because you are against it…

But really I know nothing of US politics…
 
Last edited:
TheLittleLady said:
We can get down into parsing translations, yet, none will result in the Catechism using murder to describe abortion.

That is because abortion is not black and white, it is vary nuanced. For the women it is usually done out of fear or extreme pressure.
Click to expand...
Abortion is considered intrinsically evil. That means there are no possible circumstances that can possibly justify it.
 
undead_rat said:
I don’t see it. The reason that Russia will attack the USA with nuclear weapons is because she fears that the USA is about to launch a nuclear first strike against her. Take away that fear, and there is no motivation to launch a pre-emptive strike.
Click to expand...
Well, except fulfilling prophesies, which was the reason given to the US to give them up?

Russia could theoretically wipe out all life without the help of the US arsenal shooting back.
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
 
Agree. It is never justified. This is why I left the Republican party and joined a third party!!
 
steph03 said:
a party saying that they are against abortion but will do little about it, except count on your vote because you are against it…

But really I know nothing of US politics…
Click to expand...
I think you are right in your last assertion. Actually, Repubs have done a great deal to curb abortion; mostly on the state level and against total opposition by the Dems. Look at the last six Supreme Court appointees. All Repub appointees prolife or probably so. All Dem appointees definitely pro-abortion.
 
TheLittleLady said:
We can get down into parsing translations, yet, none will result in the Catechism using murder to describe abortion.

That is because abortion is not black and white, it is vary nuanced. For the women it is usually done out of fear or extreme pressure.

For the medical staff, they believe they are helping people.

Let’s work to make America a place without fear.
Click to expand...
No, there really isn’t evidence to support the idea that women in the United States “usually” obtain abortions primarily out of “fear or extreme pressure.” No, the most common reason were resource limitations or other responsibilities to other people.

In their 2004 study, the Guttmacher Institute found “The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.”

This is not a reason someone would give, for example, for why they committed infanticide. Women are choosing this because they see their unborn child as a prospective person, not an actual person.
 
I’ve answered this same charge many times.

Fear of ending education or job loss or not being able to care for another child, those are all reasons based on fear.
 
TheLittleLady said:
I’ve answered this same charge many times.

Fear of ending education or job loss or not being able to care for another child, those are all reasons based on fear.
Click to expand...
Well, not wanting to be embarrassed is a reason based on fear, sure. How do you work on making America “a place without fear”? We’re not getting to utopia in this vale of tears, where parenthood does not take courage.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Agree. It is never justified. This is why I left the Republican party and joined a third party!!
Click to expand...
So, you left a party that can and does do some things to curtail abortion — 1) Supreme Court appointees, 2) oppose at every turn using public revenues to promote or carry out abortions, 3) support tax incentives for those who choose adoption over abortion, 4) have actually defunded PP, 5) endorse a guarantee to all Americans that the Fourteenth Amendment ought to apply to unborn children, 6) reinstated and broadened the Mexico City policy, among others — and moved to a party that couldn’t do anything at all to stop abortion even if it wants to?
 
I watched and worked, really worked not just posting online, for that party since I was a teen. They have had 50 years, all of the political power detailed above, and not accomplishing anything because of the loopholes.

After 50 years, time to take a different strategy.
 
By each one of us taking the energy, time and money that has been poured into the loophole agenda and using it to create places in our communities where women in crisis pregnancies can have support, where they can be not afraid, where they can bring their other children. Where they get the best medical, emotional, financial support.

By working in our own communities to make women who place their children for adoption into heroes.

Working to make sure every school in town has detailed info about safe haven laws, put up billboards and buy advertising to inform our communities
 
Ender said:
It is true that only Thomas has taken a position on Roe. It is not true that Roberts and Alito have ruled on the matter. They have not. No case has come before them that challenged the core ruling in Roe or Casey that called for or permitted such a judgment.
Click to expand...
This is not true. Thomas has written a dissent or concurrence in every abortion case calling for the overturn of Roe. Scalia consistently joined those opinions. Roberts and Alito have not. Both have had opportunities to go on record against Roe, but have declined. That does not mean they would not do so at some point - but so far they have avoided doing so.
 
jofa said:
Ender stated:
“I know I’ve already mentioned this, but it is literally not possible to overturn a right found in the Constitution.“

In case he/she was referring to abortion,
The right to abortion is not found in the Constitution. Nor is it implied.
Click to expand...
Understand: what is in the Constitution is not what you think is in there but what the Supreme Court says is in there, and, with their ruling on Roe, they said that it includes the right to an abortion. According to that ruling the right to abortion is found in the Constitution.
 
For someone who claims to know nothing about U.S. politics, you seem to have a surprisingly excellent grasp of the subject…
 
TMC said:
This is not true. Thomas has written a dissent or concurrence in every abortion case calling for the overturn of Roe. Scalia consistently joined those opinions. Roberts and Alito have not. Both have had opportunities to go on record against Roe, but have declined. That does not mean they would not do so at some point - but so far they have avoided doing so.
Click to expand...
Thomas and Scalia ruled on a case that addressed the central issue of Roe (Casey). Having rendered a judgment it was acceptable for them to repeat that judgment elsewhere. Neither Roberts nor Alito have heard a case where Roe was challenged, therefore it would be totally inappropriate for them to proclaim their personal opinions on abortion.

Justices rule on specific cases; they do not issue general proclamations. For either of them to make a statement about abortion without actually hearing a case on the matter would be to pre-judge the case and be contrary to everything a justice is supposed to stand for.

Justices do not have “opportunities” to proclaim their beliefs. They have an obligation to rule on particular cases argued before them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top