L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Thank you, Sy.
- Status
D
DeniseNY
Guest
Why it canât be accepted has explained over and over again here. Perhaps it is you who canât understand?
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Either abortion is the intentional killing of a human being or it isnât. If it is, then objection to it is not limited to simply accepting âtheir faithâs moral authorityâ. Pluralism, too, has, and ought to have, its limits. As mentioned before, stoning women caught in adultery is believed by some to be a religious tenet, and yet we donât accept that in our laws because it is deemed contrary to other civic principles and thought to be harmful to a society.
So, should we just accept abortion on demand because others donât have a moral objection to it? No, no more than we should accept stoning because some approve it morally.
And as to pluralism, abortion on demand is not accepted by the society as a whole. Most Americans oppose it at least enough to limit it. It was never legislated. It was decreed for all by one man who was the swing vote on the Supreme Court.
But even if abortion on demand was approved by a majority, we are not obliged to accept it and simply âlive with itâ any more than we were obliged to forever accept Jim Crow laws.
And we ought to be sufficiently honest with ourselves to admit that, in supporting abortion-supporting politicians we share the guilt of the killing every bit as much as the doctor who holds the knife. And we are likewise guilty of the selling of baby body parts when we countenance and support those who support the practice and/or the perpetrators of the trade.
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Well I concede I did want to ask Chris Matthews last night when he told Trump that he accepts the moral teachings of the Catholic Church but that the Catholic Church doesnât make our laws, then why if he (Chris) and other Catholics accept that abortion is murder, that the woman wouldnât be tried for murder and punished as other murderers would be. It is either murder or it is not. Under current law it is of course not.
But I never understand what Republicans mean by âabortion on demandâ. Roe v Wade allows for state restrictions after the first trimester and many states have such restrictions in place. So there is no such thing as âabortion on demandâ.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I donât understand what you mean when you say abortion was âdecreed for all by one man who was the swing vote on the Supreme Court.â
Roe v Wade was upheld by seven justices, five Republican-appointed and two Democratic-appointed. Remove the two Democratic-appointed, and there is still a majority of Republican-appointed justices.
Only two justices dissented, White (D) and Rehnquist (R).
So how was it decided by one swing vote?
S
Sy_Noe
Guest
Oh Lily Bernans do I ever admire your ability and foremost your patience to teach the same thing many times.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The distinctions in Roe are so vague theyâre meaningless. Anybody can get an abortion at any stage (except partial birth abortion in some states) for subjective reasons. There really is no meaningful limitation.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Iâll look it up sometime or other. But for now Iâll accept it that abortion on demand was imposed on the whole nation by two people, not just one.
Not that it changes the fact that it was never voted in by either the people in a popular referendum or by their legislators, and abortion on demand remains opposed by the majority of Americans to this day.So, a minority view prevailed ab initio against the will of the majority, and still does, and weâre somehow supposed to respect that?
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Here it is:Iâll look it up sometime or other. But for now Iâll accept it that abortion on demand was imposed on the whole nation by two people, not just one.
So, a minority view prevailed ab initio against the will of the majority, and still does, and weâre somehow supposed to respect that?
vox-nova.com/2008/05/21/are-liberal-judges-to-blame-for-roe-v-wade/
We donât really know if the majority of people are against abortion or for it since, as you pointed out, it was never voted on. A womanâs right to have an abortion was deemed constitutional by seven justices.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
One does get used to it with underclassmen. LOL Some of the things they write in their papers are indecipherable. I have to call them in and ask them to explain to me. And I still donât understand! LOLOh Lily Bernans do I ever admire your ability and foremost your patience to teach the same thing many times.
I love the upper level classes. Their papers can be just as bad, but at least they want to be in class.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Seems most Americans are now pro-choice:Iâll look it up sometime or other. But for now Iâll accept it that abortion on demand was imposed on the whole nation by two people, not just one.
So, a minority view prevailed ab initio against the will of the majority, and still does, and weâre somehow supposed to respect that?
gallup.com/poll/183434/americans-choose-pro-choice-first-time-seven-years.aspx
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Most Americans favor at least some limitations on it, of which there are presently none other than the imposition of health standards by various states, and canât be.
As with Justice Kennedy imposing his moral view on everyone in the case of homosexual âmarriageâ, Roe was a case of a tiny minority imposing its moral view on everyone. And knowing that, but favoring legalized abortion yourself, you now characterize opposition to abortion on demand as a âreligious beliefâ that canât be countenanced as a basis for lawmaking.
Your careful listing of the justices approving abortion back in 1973 as Republicans is interesting. In the more recent Carhart case, of course, every single Republican appointee on the court approved state bans on partial birth abortion. Every single Democrat appointee opposed them. Prior to 1973, nobody knew how the appointees would vote on the issue since it came out of nowhere and required the fabrication of a âpenumbraâ to justify abortion on demand. Now, it is known what the consequences of voting for a Democrat president isâŚno restrictions on abortion, including partial birth abortion.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No. Your article shows that the great majority of Americans support at least some limitations on abortion. Abortion on demand is not the majority view by a long way. And but for the Republican appointees on the Carhart court, even curbs on partial birth abortion would yield to abortion on demand.
Now, 80% of the population opposes partial birth abortion. gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx. And yet, the Democrat party favors it, as shown by the unanimous support of it by the Dem appointees to the Court. Hillary Clinton also favors partial birth abortion being legal everywhere (with that quibble about the âhealthâ of the mother which justifies all abortions)
And yet, some would oppose the clear will of the people as being âreligious beliefsâ without, of course, having any idea whether the beliefs are religion-based or not, and without even considering the effect such things can have on a society.
And so, with a Hillary Clinton vote, one is morally participating in the practice of directly killing a viable child by scrambling its brain and in the trade in childrensâ body parts. No matter how one excuses it, thatâs what one is doing. By enabling the killers of children to come to power, one is as morally responsible for it as the nurse who holds the childâs body from emerging while the doctor plunges a knife into its head.
We should, as Catholics, think long and hard about that. I sure did, and it wasnât an easy process. I was once a Democrat officeholder myself; a party activist who conducted all kinds of party activities. Ultimately I realized that I could not simultaneously support the party the way it is and be a faithful Catholic. Eventually all Catholics will have to face that. The big question is whether we will face it on this side of deathâs door or on the other side of it.
J
Jeanne_S
Guest
Apparently you missed the late term abortions being done by the likes of Kermit Gosnill and Dr.Carthart just to mention a few.In fact Gosnill was snipping the spinal chords of full term babies after they were delivered. While constraints may be placed on abortion,clearly these two found away around those constraints
C
Crossbones
Guest
If it is the intentional killing of a human being, how can it be said that the person who procures this killing is not committing a crime?
G
graciew
Guest
I really do not know so I ask out of healthy curiosity.
I really love your In God we trust that I have often seen written.
Was the Spirit of the Constitution to go against something as natural as pregnancy,having our children and giving birth.?
I wonder sometimes about the spirit of our constitution also when some questions crop up.It is something interesting. So maybe it is the time to ask youâŚ
R
rmartensjr
Guest
**This **is why elections are all about JUDGES.
G
grotto
Guest
I am just thinking out loud here and its about the sadness, the haunting sadness of having committed murder against an unborn baby; the motherâs own or having aided in the murder. There must come some moments when the individual is all alone and no one to justify their action; when they have thoughts and wonder - where is the child and what did the child feel. If they have knowledge of God and have remorse for their sin, how will they work up the nerve to confront the need for His forgiveness. Without asking Jesus to shed His Mercy on them and ask for His help, they are lost.
When abortion becomes illegal again through prayer, there is no concern to have about a punishment for the woman - she has already earned the punishment. Helping her to gain forgiveness is all that is necessary.
Of course, if a woman was conceiving a child with her intention to just kill and somehow this became known because of her self revelation or exposure to others - then of course she should receive criminal charges and penalty. What is complicated about that understanding?
These radical feminists that make up Hillaryâs supporters are insulting to women.
When abortion becomes illegal again through prayer, there is no concern to have about a punishment for the woman - she has already earned the punishment. Helping her to gain forgiveness is all that is necessary.
Of course, if a woman was conceiving a child with her intention to just kill and somehow this became known because of her self revelation or exposure to others - then of course she should receive criminal charges and penalty. What is complicated about that understanding?
These radical feminists that make up Hillaryâs supporters are insulting to women.
G
grotto
Guest
***************************************************************:hug1:Oh Lily Bernans do I ever admire your ability and foremost your patience to teach the same thing many times.
Thatâs sweet.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
I am sorry, but I do not know the answer to your question. I do not know if the spirit of the US Constitution was against pregnancy and childbirth, but I would suspect not.
I do know that when the US Supreme Court justices wrote the majority opinion upholding Roe v Wade and making abortion legal, they sought many opinions of what, exactly, defined a âpersonâ in the Constitution, and they came to the conclusion that a fetus is not a person until it is born.
I do not agree with that opinion, but I am not a justice on the Supreme Court; I am not even a lawyer or law student.
I hope that helps a little.
- Status