I've been thinking.... abortion isn't the problem

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, I do know better than those who fill my mailbox asking for support for this or that political candidate who will ride in on a white horse and save us all from abortion. Oh wait, maybe he’ll just throw a blanket over the whole mess so we never have to think about it again (unless some realist dares to look beneath). Forget this discussion, some things just have to happen…

Why are you so determined to stop those of us who are working to end – or at least reduce – abortion? What’s your motivation?

 

[seekerz]

Why are you so determined to stop those of us who are working to end – or at least reduce – abortion? What’s your motivation?

Why are you so determined to accuse me wrongly? None of what I post here is ambiguous. The issue is complex and not easily solved but easily manipulated for selfish gain. Call it a warning, but I feel compelled to sound it. Better hear it now than a decade down the road. I really hate the words: “I told you so”.

 

[fix]

Getting Roe v. Wade overturned would decrease the number of abortions, but it wouldn’t necessarily change society’s perception of the life’s value. Only an encounter with God can do that.

I think you underestimate the role law plays in our life.

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person…Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I quote this vatican document because it can apply to all types of issues. Changing the law is not the only answer, but it is a major factor.

 

[seekerz]

I think you underestimate the role law plays in our life.

I quote this vatican document because it can apply to all types of issues. Changing the law is not the only answer, but it is a major factor.

Provided you can enforce it. That’s the measure of a good law.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Why are you so determined to accuse me wrongly?

Why are you so determined to discourage the rest of us from working against abortion? Why do you put negative characterizations on those who oppose abortion?

None of what I post here is ambiguous. The issue is complex and not easily solved but easily manipulated for selfish gain. Call it a warning, but I feel compelled to sound it. Better hear it now than a decade down the road. I really hate the words: “I told you so”.

Onece again, why are you so determined to accuse others wrongly?

Why do you impute base motives to those who work against abortion?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Provided you can enforce it. That’s the measure of a good law.

Is this where we trot out Phil Donohue’s argument, “If you outlaw abortion, you’ll have to force every woman in America to take a pregnancy test every month?”

 

[seekerz]

Is this where we trot out Phil Donohue’s argument, “If you outlaw abortion, you’ll have to force every woman in America to take a pregnancy test every month?”

No Vern, I’ve never even heard the guy say that. You do however need to know that a woman has had an abortion to be able to prosecute her and you have to be able to prove that before anything was done she had a normal, viable pregnancy (not, for example a baby that died naturally in the womb). Guess who are the only ones in the world who can help you prove that? Guess what most of them think of abortion? That’s why they (and of course their clients) are the real front in the war on abortion.

By the way, I have nothing but praise for those who work against abortion, that is, those who actually do something about it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

No Vern, I’ve never even heard the guy say that. You do however need to know that a woman has had an abortion to be able to prosecute her and you have to be able to prove that before anything was done she had a normal, viable pregnancy (not, for example a baby that died naturally in the womb). Guess who are the only ones in the world who can help you prove that? Guess what most of them think of abortion? That’s why they (and of course their clients) are the real front in the war on abortion.

Where do you come up with these off-the-wall objections?

If abortion is outlawed, you target abortionists. You do that by allowing women who have been forced to have abortions to sue – thus giving them an incentive to come forward.

By the way, I have nothing but praise for those who work against abortion, that is, those who actually do something about it.

Then why do you keep telling us we can’t do anything about abortion and pretending we are using strategies we aren’t using?

 

[seekerz]

Where do you come up with these off-the-wall objections?

If abortion is outlawed, you target abortionists. You do that by allowing women who have been forced to have abortions to sue – thus giving them an incentive to come forward.

Then why do you keep telling us we can’t do anything about abortion and pretending we are using strategies we aren’t using?

Other than the woman’s word what proof could you offer against the doctor; is he going to incriminate himself in the records (my original “off the wall objections” can be applied to either woman or doctor)?

You haven’t heard “off the wall” until you’ve heard the ways the law is manipulated in countries where abortion is outlawed except for certain specific situations! I know a particular third world country where every abortion that is done (in public hospitals, using public funds) falls neatly into one of the ‘allowed’ categories.

Now let’s discuss ways to reach the doctors…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Other than the woman’s word what proof could you offer against the doctor; is he going to incriminate himself in the records (my original “off the wall objections” can be applied to either woman or doctor)?

Rapists don’t keep records. Bank robbers don’t keep records, yet we manage to catch and prosecute them.

You haven’t heard “off the wall” until you’ve heard the ways the law is manipulated in countries where abortion is outlawed except for certain specific situations! I know a particular third world country where every abortion that is done (in public hospitals, using public funds) falls neatly into one of the ‘allowed’ categories.

What makes you think I’m unaware of all that?

Now let’s discuss ways to reach the doctors…

The best way is to make them liable in civil law – for aborting under-age mothers and failing to provide Informed Consent.

 

[estesbob]

Is this where we trot out Phil Donohue’s argument, “If you outlaw abortion, you’ll have to force every woman in America to take a pregnancy test every month?”

Or the other Gem=“a country that outlaw abortion can just as easily force everyone to have an abortion”!

 

[seekerz]

Rapists don’t keep records. Bank robbers don’t keep records, yet we manage to catch and prosecute them.

What makes you think I’m unaware of all that?

The best way is to make them liable in civil law – for aborting under-age mothers and failing to provide Informed Consent.

Sorry, but doctors are different from rapists or robbers, the only way to prove anything wrong was done is to have one of their own point a finger and not years after the procedure either. I’m assuming ( I could be wrong) that if a woman is “forced” to have an abortion, the same pressures that drove her to it will prevent her from suing immediately afterward.

You can’t do anything with physical evidence in any case if you can’t prove the baby was alive at the time of the procedure. If you can’t prove that, you can’t prove the crime - not even if you have the mother’s word of a crime (remember in early pregnancy she can’t feel the baby), a pregnancy test result and the procedure on film!

I say all of this as a preface to repeating my earlier invitation: let’s discuss how to reach the doctors…

(Suing or calling them names isn’t gonna do it. For a lawsuit to be successful you need what? A good expert witness with a medical degree who sees the patient in the same general time period as the accused.)

 

[GreenJeans]

Where do you come up with these off-the-wall objections?

If abortion is outlawed, you target abortionists. You do that by allowing women who have been forced to have abortions to sue – thus giving them an incentive to come forward.

Then why do you keep telling us we can’t do anything about abortion and pretending we are using strategies we aren’t using?

How does someone force a woman to have an abortion?

 

[katy]

Right off the top of my head:

I’ll leave you if you don’t.
Your school money will be cut off if you don’t
I’ll beat you if you don’t
You can’t live here any more if you don’t
Your child may have…
We will find a reason to fire you if you don’t

 

[GreenJeans]

Right off the top of my head:

I’ll leave you if you don’t.
Your school money will be cut off if you don’t
I’ll beat you if you don’t
You can’t live here any more if you don’t
Your child may have…
We will find a reason to fire you if you don’t

That’s not forcing her to do anything.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Or the other Gem=“a country that outlaw abortion can just as easily force everyone to have an abortion”!

I think it’s cruel to put Phil on TV – it smacks too much of letting a disabled person make a spectacle of himself.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sorry, but doctors are different from rapists or robbers, the only way to prove anything wrong was done is to have one of their own point a finger and not years after the procedure either. I’m assuming ( I could be wrong) that if a woman is “forced” to have an abortion, the same pressures that drove her to it will prevent her from suing immediately afterward.

You can’t do anything with physical evidence in any case if you can’t prove the baby was alive at the time of the procedure. If you can’t prove that, you can’t prove the crime - not even if you have the mother’s word of a crime (remember in early pregnancy she can’t feel the baby), a pregnancy test result and the procedure on film!

I say all of this as a preface to repeating my earlier invitation: let’s discuss how to reach the doctors…

(Suing or calling them names isn’t gonna do it. For a lawsuit to be successful you need what? A good expert witness with a medical degree who sees the patient in the same general time period as the accused.)

Where did you get your law degree?

 

[seekerz]

Thought we were talking about reaching doctors…

I’m no lawyer; just like to think outside the box, that’s all.

 

[estesbob]

How does someone force a woman to have an abortion?

In all my years of counseling women contemplating abortion or who had had an abortion less than a half dozen made thedecision on their own. Enormous pressure is put on them by their boyfriends/classmates/parents/parents of the father of the cjild/ect

That is why I always find the idea of “choice” so ludricous. Given a Womans natural maternal isntinc do your really think 1.2 million women a year would choose to kill their child on their own?

 

[estesbob]

That’s not forcing her to do anything.

And how many abortion minded women have you talked to? You havent a clue.