Pope warns Catholic politicians who back abortion

[frommi]

Couldn’t someone balk at any crime and use the same reasoning?

Criminalizing theft, murder and arson hasn’t stopped theft, murder and arson. Why do we criminalize them? Rather than throwing the perps in jail, we should just work on winning their “hearts and minds.” If we just educate people so they understand what they are doing is wrong, we can someday end theft, murder and arson.

The issue would be that law has to be accepted for it to work…

People accept the idea that theft is wrong, for example.

There is still work to be done to cross the chasm for those who believe that health decisions don’t belong in the public square.

You could pass a law criminalizing abortion…but if people don’t accept it…what good does the law do?

I would reiterate that there is a difference between the Mexico vote that decided to legalize abortion, in a country where it had not been determined to be a constitutional right to have one…and the United States, where it has been determined to be a personal right.

 

[Tom317]

The issue would be that law has to be accepted for it to work…

People accept the idea that theft is wrong, for example.

There is still work to be done to cross the chasm for those who believe that health decisions don’t belong in the public square.

You could pass a law criminalizing abortion…but if people don’t accept it…what good does the law do?

Plenty of good. Abortionists would go to jail and overtime there would be less abortionists and less abortions. We do not have to threaten women with prosecution, rather go after the abortionists.

 

[estesbob]

You are misunderstanding what I’m saying…I’m simply saying, as I have often said, that it seems reasonable that someone could balk at criminalizing abortion, but still work in a very pro-life way to end the tragedy of abortion. Because we all know that making it illegal is not going to mean no woman ever tries to have one…and there is little evidence that throwing doctors and women in jail would make this situation better.

So now we shift ino the “making it illegal wont stop it argument”. Well of course it wont-no law in the history of mankind hasstopped people from breaking laws. Meanwhile the children continue to die while many of those who purport to oppose their killing makes excuses for the carnage should continue

 

[estesbob]

One probably does have to accept abortion until hearts and minds are changed. The voters send people to legislatures who reflect their hearts and minds.

Slavery couldn’t be changed until there were sufficient hearts and minds in the anti-slavery camp.

Note the progress gays have made as they have won over the hearts and minds.

Your comments about slavery show a complete ignorance of the dynamics of the slavery debate leading up to the civil war. the idea slavery ended becuase peoples hearts and minds changed is utter nonsense.

Homosexuals have made their gains via liberal judges . Every time Homosexual marraige is put to a pote it is soundly defeated.

 

[estesbob]

Plenty of good. Abortionists would go to jail and overtime there would be less abortionists and less abortions. We do not have to threaten women with prosecution, rather go after the abortionists.

And our Country would go on record as supporting the rights of ALL for Life, Liberty and the Persuit if hapiness. The “right” to kill ones child has led to an unbelievable coarsening of our society. The disrespect for life enshrined in Roe V Wade has permeated every facet of Our Society.

 

[Tom317]

And our Country would go on record as supporting the rights of ALL for Life, Liberty and the Persuit if hapiness. The “right” to kill ones child has led to an unbelievable coarsening of our society. The disrespect for life enshrined in Roe V Wade has permeated every facet of Our Society.

I agree.

 

[rlg94086]

The issue would be that law has to be accepted for it to work…

People accept the idea that theft is wrong, for example.

There is still work to be done to cross the chasm for those who believe that*** health decisions*** don’t belong in the public square.

You could pass a law criminalizing abortion…but if people don’t accept it…what good does the law do?

I would reiterate that there is a difference between the Mexico vote that decided to legalize abortion, in a country where it had not been determined to be a constitutional right to have one…and the United States, where it has been determined to be a personal right.

You are arguing in circles. In order for the law to pass, it would mean that enough people believe in it. Those who do believe in it need to keep fighting and educating, so that more people believe and the law can pass.

Of course there is still work to be done, made obvious when anyone ignorantly refers to an abortion as a “health decision.”

Hearts and minds do need to be won, in the course of making abortion illegal. It isn’t a first step; it is an ongoing process.

 

[frommi]

You are arguing in circles. In order for the law to pass, it would mean that enough people believe in it. Those who do believe in it need to keep fighting and educating, so that more people believe and the law can pass.

Of course there is still work to be done, made obvious when anyone ignorantly refers to an abortion as a “health decision.”

Hearts and minds do need to be won, in the course of making abortion illegal. It isn’t a first step; it is an ongoing process.

OK…I’m not being ignorant here…but can we at least agree that a woman faced with a cancer diagnosis who will die if she doesn’t get chemotherapy but will kill an unborn child if she gets chemotherapy faces a very difficult choice?

 

[rlg94086]

OK…I’m not being ignorant here…but can we at least agree that a woman faced with a cancer diagnosis who will die if she doesn’t get chemotherapy but will kill an unborn child if she gets chemotherapy faces a very difficult choice?

Sure. How many abortions are done because of that?

 

[GreenJeans]

It took a war to end slavory.

It did take a war. However, the hearts and minds of the northern states had been won over. They would hardly have gone to war without popular support.

There were plenty of people who opposed slavery long before the Civil War, but they had to wait until they had convinced a sufficient number to join them before anything happened.

 

[GreenJeans]

Here again, I do not agree. They have forced it down the throats of politicians and being a small group, they have threatened politicians with marches, etc. Either you are for rights for a group that is different than what others have, or you do not.

The progress gays have made is not founded on politics and law; it is founded on the new acceptance people have for gays. Using ths base, it’s easy to then move the politicians and law. Marches don’t scare politicians unless the marchers have the sympathy of the voters.

The gays concentrated on showing people they posed no danger. As they came out of the closet they gave people an opportunity to get to know them and observe them. This has been the cornerstone of their campaign. While the opposition concentrated on keeping laws unchanged, the gays simply changed the attitudes of the people.

They look at the demographics and attitudes of age groups and see their battle is won.

 

[GreenJeans]

Your comments about slavery show a complete ignorance of the dynamics of the slavery debate leading up to the civil war. the idea slavery ended becuase peoples hearts and minds changed is utter nonsense.

Homosexuals have made their gains via liberal judges . Every time Homosexual marraige is put to a pote it is soundly defeated.

Is it your contention the North went to war because the people of the North supported slavery? The Northern states had no slavery because the people supported slavery? Can youtell us about the dynamics?

In Arizona the voters defeated the marriage amendment. That was hardly a sound defeat of gays. Other state legislatures are voting for civil unions without judicial action.

 

[estesbob]

It did take a war. However, the hearts and minds of the northern states had been won over. They would hardly have gone to war without popular support.

There were plenty of people who opposed slavery long before the Civil War, but they had to wait until they had convinced a sufficient number to join them before anything happened.

There was no sentiment whatsoever in the North to go to war to eliminate slavery. As I said before before you try and discuss this a little research on you part would be helpful. The North did not go to war to end slavery. They went to war to stop the South from seceding. The South seceded to protect slavery. Thus although it is correct to say the cause of the war was slavery it is nor correct to say the North went to War to end slavery,

 

[estesbob]

The progress gays have made is not founded on politics and law; it is founded on the new acceptance people have for gays. Using ths base, it’s easy to then move the politicians and law. Marches don’t scare politicians unless the marchers have the sympathy of the voters.

The gays concentrated on showing people they posed no danger. As they came out of the closet they gave people an opportunity to get to know them and observe them. This has been the cornerstone of their campaign. While the opposition concentrated on keeping laws unchanged, the gays simply changed the attitudes of the people.

They look at the demographics and attitudes of age groups and see their battle is won.

Funny how this so called acceptance never show up when people are actually allowed to vote on the issues, isnt it?

 

[GreenJeans]

There was no sentiment whatsoever in the North to go to war to eliminate slavery. As I said before before you try and discuss this a little research on you part would be helpful. The North did not go to war to end slavery. They went to war to stop the South from seceding. The South seceded to protect slavery. Thus although it is correct to say the cause of the war was slavery it is nor correct to say the North went to War to end slavery,

And that has been an ongoing discussion among historians for the past 150 years. Do you contend the people of the North supported slavery? How come slavery was outlawed in the North? Do you contend the war could have been launched without an anti-slavery sentiment in the North? Nobody cared about slavery in Kansas or Missouri?

So, we have slavery as the cause of the war, but the people of the North didn’t are about slavery? I suggest the major cause of the war was slavery, while the proximate cause was sucession.

Hearts and minds were a vital and necessary factor, as they are in all wars.

 

[GreenJeans]

Funny how this so called acceptance never show up when people are actually allowed to vote on the issues, isnt it?

Not really funny, but intetesting from a demographic perspective. An analysis of the votes shows the gays have the support of those under thirty, they are about even in the 30-40 age group, and lose in the forty+ age group. However, each group of people born in a given year has steadliy increased its acceptance year after year.

This trend is why the gays are overjoyed. They know it is simply a matter of time before they overturn recent marriage amendments, and they now see elected legislatures enacting civil unions. The governor of New York is now pushing for gay marriage.

Civil unions are just a step to marriage, and the gays have chosen this route rather than the more rancorous trip through the courts. It’s working.

I’d also note that there don’t appear to be many new marriage amendments coming up. Their momentum has stopped as the areas in which they were popular have been mined.

But the gays now do have momentum in the state legislatures. Do you think the acceptance showed up in Arizona where the voters defeated the marriage amendment? i’d say it did.

However, if we have a situation where both sides think they win, that’s great. The gays are smart, but not smart enough to engineer that.

 

[estesbob]

And that has been an ongoing discussion among historians for the past 150 years. Do you contend the people of the North supported slavery? How come slavery was outlawed in the North? Do you contend the war could have been launched without an anti-slavery sentiment in the North? Nobody cared about slavery in Kansas or Missouri?

Yes. There was NO sentiment in the North to go to war over slavery.

So, we have slavery as the cause of the war, but the people of the North didn’t are about slavery? I suggest the major cause of the war was slavery, while the proximate cause was sucession.

Hearts and minds were a vital and necessary factor, as they are in all wars.

I didnt say they didnt care about slavery. Much like those who use the old “hearts and minds” dodge nowdays they opposed slavery but were perfectly willing to let it die out in its own time.

If you sincerely want to learn about this I suggest three books:

“Amercia in 1857” by Kenneth Stampp

“Arguing about Slavery” by William Miller

"Reconstruction"by Eric Foner

Stampp’s book will tell you that the Sitution in Kansas and Missouri was a lot more complex than you appear to realize. Foners will detail about how the myth of the cause of the war not being slavery was born and Millers book will show you what a dismal failure the “heart and minds” approach was.

 

[frommi]

Sure. How many abortions are done because of that?

I don’t know…but those cases do come up.

And I think the Catholic choice would be to have the child…

BUT - that doesn’t mean it’s easy to come to that conclusion…no matter how religious or devout you are.

 

[GreenJeans]

Yes. There was NO sentiment in the North to go to war over slavery.

I didnt say they didnt care about slavery. Much like those who use the old “hearts and minds” dodge nowdays they opposed slavery but were perfectly willing to let it die out in its own time.

If you sincerely want to learn about this I suggest three books:

“Amercia in 1857” by Kenneth Stampp

“Arguing about Slavery” by William Miller

"Reconstruction"by Eric Foner

Stampp’s book will tell you that the Sitution in Kansas and Missouri was a lot more complex than you appear to realize. Foners will detail about how the myth of the cause of the war not being slavery was born and Millers book will show you what a dismal failure the “heart and minds” approach was.

I agree nobody wanted to go to war for slavery - not in the North, and not in the South. They avoided war for years while slavery flourished. The question is, could the North have gone to war absent anti-slavery sentiment in the North? Was secession without the Northern anti-slavery sentiment sufficient for the North to go to war?

Kansas and Missouri certainly are complex, but was sentiment for and against slavery a factor? Or was it a complex situation that ignored slavery and popular views on slavery?

 

[estesbob]

I agree nobody wanted to go to war for slavery - not in the North, and not in the South. They avoided war for years while slavery flourished. The question is, could the North have gone to war absent anti-slavery sentiment in the North? Was secession without the Northern anti-slavery sentiment sufficient for the North to go to war?

Kansas and Missouri certainly are complex, but was sentiment for and against slavery a factor? Or was it a complex situation that ignored slavery and popular views on slavery?

Yes. In fact had the war been intially sold to the North as a vehicle to end slavery there would have been NO support for it. In effect the South overplayed their hand.