Pro Life versus Pro Choice Debate

[Caramel]

Not sure I follow the logic of keeping the abortion issue out of the legal system…

Are there some here who honestly believe the number of abortions wouldn’t drastically be reduced if abortion were an illegal practice? Please justify for me your position on that. I think millions of lives would be saved simply by only enforcing one small part of proposed anti-abortion law: namely, making it illegal for abortions to be performed at any medical facility. Just throw the docs who disobey the law in jail. No docs but the few highly crooked ones will continue to offer them, and even they for only a limited time before they’re eventually caught. Millions of lives saved on that one simple enforcement alone. If that reality is not enough to support anti-abortion law, I don’t know what is.

But even if we take it to the next level, and go after women who are caught attempting to abort underground…are there some here who believe we would have a prison space problem if we outlawed abortion in this way? Really? So…if the law forbids all clinics and medical institutions from performing abortions, such that the only way to have one is to find an “underground” source willing to risk their freedom to offer them at an elevated price, the result is that there will be so many women and “doctors” persecuted for being caught in the abortive act that prisons would over-populate? I find that quite implausible. Sure, there will be an increase in jail sentences for those involved, but I highly doubt the numbers would be at an elevated level that would threaten over-population. Yes, we already have a population problem in our prison system, but abortion criminals would not significantly contribute to that number. I just don’t see how the underground abortion scheme would be capable of secretly surviving at any substantial level, or for any substantial amount of time. Sure, some women will travel outside the U.S. to abort…I’m sure they would. But that’s not something we can control right now. The best thing we do right now is to proclaim: “abortion? not in this country, jack!”

I’m not discrediting the substantial other means to reduce abortions…like increasing Christian faith and providing significant education and support systems for unwanted pregancies. But change the friggin laws. Close the gaping wound and then tend to the rest of the bleeding.

I’m fairly sure you meant to state “prosecute”, not “persecute.” I hope you tell me I’m right!!

What you say makes sense.

Now of course this is only my opinion. Worthy5 seems to have a problem with that so I wanted to make it clear. I think we would have plenty of prison space if we released the prisoners who are currently incarcerated for drug possession. I don’t mean people who have stolen or murdered to obtain drugs or money to buy drugs, but the ones who have a small amount which is probably for their own use and not for sale.

The federal government’s war on drugs has been a failure. It needs to be examined and corrected.

caramel
wife of James Andrew (in heaven)
mother of Ryan Christopher
and Elysia Catherine (in heaven)

“A person’s a person, no matter how small.” - Dr. Seuss

 

[SteveGC]

I’m fairly sure you meant to state “prosecute”, not “persecute.” I hope you tell me I’m right!! What you say makes sense.

LOL…yes, sorry. I went back and changed it. Thanks Caramel. That’s what I get for posting so early in the a.m. Hope the rest of it made sense

 

[Worthy5]

Anyone who does not believe that abortion should be illegal shares in the guilt of the murders. Consenting to the crime carries a share of the culpability.

Good point. So would you give those people prison time?

 

[Worthy5]

There are more people involved in this discussion than you realize. They are called lurkers. And they read these posts and they think about what has been stated.

So, what did you mean by “pro-abort stop mislabeling” or whatever you stated? Did you mean that I am wrong for calling people who are pro abortion "pro-aborts? If so, why didn’t you ask that?

 

[Worthy5]

Laws against bank robbery do not stop every robbery, but few would claim having no law and “changing hearts and minds” would be a reasonable idea.

This comes down to how you view innocent life. The pro abort crowd, that cares nothing for just laws, is content to claim they would not have an abortion, but it is acceptable for others to “choose” such a crime. That logic is not moral.

Good point.

 

[Worthy5]

The “fetus” gets less chance when the state allows unchecked killing. It is not about stopping every single abortion due to the law. It is about what the CCC referred to I posted before. Including that the law is a teacher and that the most vulnerable deserve legal protection.

Good point.

 

[gakroeger]

Originally Posted by CWBetts
Anyone who does not believe that abortion should be illegal shares in the guilt of the murders. Consenting to the crime carries a share of the culpability.

Would the same thing apply to all the people who didn’t condemn the Iraq War after the Vatican declared it to not be a “just war”?

NO….

This is an example of a tactic that has been used by the left since the beginning of the Iraq war. I am not sure why this has been successful (at least in some minds) however, the analogy like most the analogies used in this debate is not even close to being a legitimate comparison for the following reasons;

1. War can be just. Regardless of whether the war in Iraq was just or not, there is such a thing as a just war according to Church teaching. Because John Paul II determined that sufficient conditions were not present to declare the war a just war he publicly declared his personal opinion was against the war. He did not declare it (has Gearhead states) and unjust war. Even if he did declare it an unjust war this decision does not fall under the Church’s definition of “infallibility” which applies only to Church doctrine. While the Church teaches that a war can be just, it does not teach that the Pope has authority to decide social issues infallibly.
2. Abortion is never just and this area is part of Church doctrine and therefore the Church’s teaching on the Pope’s infallibility applies. Any, Catholic who does not follow Church teaching in these doctrinal areas is guilty of serious sin.

 

[gakroeger]

First of all, where in this thread did I mention anything that could be remotely construed as my believing that abortion is something other than highly undesirable? I have made no comments in this thread that contradict the church position on the issue of abortion itself. You are conferring beliefs on me that I do not hold. Perhaps because I do not share your opinions on the correct course of action???

I just happen to believe that government is highly inefficient and incapable of achieving even simply objectives. In other posts I’ve mentioned the Great Society programs which INCREASED poverty, the failed war on drugs that INCREASED drug abuse. I do not believe that the strong arm of government can positively influence the rate of abortion. In fact, I think government can only make the issue worse.

Moreover, I am fearful of those who would use the coercive power of government to enforce moral issues. Why do you believe this is something positive? And would you feel the same way if it was Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton deciding moral issues for YOU? Or perhaps a radical muslim? Because by asking the government to enforce your moral beliefs, you are implicityly giving government the power to enforce THE OPPOSITE of your beliefs as well.

And your retort about my using semantics is absurd, as it is you who twisted the meaning of my use of the words ‘common ground’. You replaced these words with the words ‘middle ground,’ which implies that I am asking you to fundamentally alter your position, which is not at all what I suggested. In using the words ‘common ground’, I am suggesting that it might be possible to find some common areas of agreement with those you disagree with - without altering your core beliefs. There is a VAST difference here.

Abortion is “highly undesirable?” Oh, I am sorry, since you think the abortion is “highly undesirable” I guess it is OK if millions of babies are aborted while you go your merry way already being born and think it was “highly undesirable” that they were aborted. I am sure you are correct, the Church will accept this as conforming to Catholic teaching.

I am not sure why you keep pounding me with the inefficient and incapable Government Issue. I have agreed with you on this point over and over, yet you continue to use it to justify your position. Yours or my politics does not justify support for abortion whether you actively support it or merely turn your head the other way.

If you think you are not using semantics and you place different meanings on middle ground and common ground. Please answer the reposted questions below that you conveniently keep ignoring…….

Do you agree that we should not have a separate political and religious life and that we should live our one life according to God’s law 24/7? Yes or No

Do you agree that God created each of us in his image? Yes or No

As a Catholic you should have answered both of these questions with a Yes
If you answered both of these questions with a Yes, then explain how you can support your politics over Church teaching and how can you justify destroying Gods creation in the womb. Clearly, as I stated in the previous post, Christ would not support “middle ground” (or common ground) in the case of abortion.

If you answered either of these questions with a no, then you are obviously not following Church teaching.

 

[Christopher68]

Abortion is “highly undesirable?” Oh, I am sorry, since you think the abortion is “highly undesirable” I guess it is OK if millions of babies are aborted while you go your merry way already being born and think it was “highly undesirable” that they were aborted. I am sure you are correct, the Church will accept this as conforming to Catholic teaching.

I am not sure why you keep pounding me with the inefficient and incapable Government Issue. I have agreed with you on this point over and over, yet you continue to use it to justify your position. Yours or my politics does not justify support for abortion whether you actively support it or merely turn your head the other way.

If you think you are not using semantics and you place different meanings on middle ground and common ground. Please answer the reposted questions below that you conveniently keep ignoring…….

Do you agree that we should not have a separate political and religious life and that we should live our one life according to God’s law 24/7? Yes or No

Do you agree that God created each of us in his image? Yes or No

As a Catholic you should have answered both of these questions with a Yes
If you answered both of these questions with a Yes, then explain how you can support your politics over Church teaching and how can you justify destroying Gods creation in the womb. Clearly, as I stated in the previous post, Christ would not support “middle ground” (or common ground) in the case of abortion.

If you answered either of these questions with a no, then you are obviously not following Church teaching.

gakroeger, I am trying to be serious in my discussions here, but I am unsure if I can engage in a legitimate discussion with you, as you are quick to belittle me and twist various words that I use into meaning something different than was intended. To confirm what I stated earlier: I have never commented in this thread that I was in disagreement with the church position on the act of abortion itself. And to your further questions, I answer ‘yes’ to both of your questions.

Now that we have that out of the way, why do you discount my comments about the reality of government, and somehow twist my disbelief in government into being something other than a good Catholic? You made some earlier comments where you seemed to indicate that you were in partial agreement with me about the reality of government. If you want government to take a proactive role in ending or reducing abortion, please tell me how they could possibly accomplish this? How can an organization that is so bureaucratic and destructive suddenly transform into a paragon of benevolence and efficiency for your particular issue?

 

[gakroeger]

gakroeger, I am trying to be serious in my discussions here, but I am unsure if I can engage in a legitimate discussion with you, as you are quick to belittle me and twist various words that I use into meaning something different than was intended. To confirm what I stated earlier: I have never commented in this thread that I was in disagreement with the church position on the act of abortion itself. And to your further questions, I answer ‘yes’ to both of your questions.

Now that we have that out of the way, why do you discount my comments about the reality of government, and somehow twist my disbelief in government into being something other than a good Catholic? You made some earlier comments where you seemed to indicate that you were in partial agreement with me about the reality of government. If you want government to take a proactive role in ending or reducing abortion, please tell me how they could possibly accomplish this? How can an organization that is so bureaucratic and destructive suddenly transform into a paragon of benevolence and efficiency for your particular issue?

Thank you for the “yes” response, however, now I need the rest of the question answered. I cannot understand your position. Your explanations are circular and do not make any sense when compared to Church teaching.

You apparently do not want to admit you are attempting to live a political life separate from your religious or spiritual life. You will probably again accuse me of unfairly pigeon holing you, however, since you refuse to answer questions that would help me understand your position, this is my perception.

You apparently, want to disregard every attempt I make at a legitimate discussion, so I guess we agree we cannot hold a reasonable discussion.

Sorry

Thanks for trying
Best of luck and God bless……

 

[Christopher68]

If you cannot understand or refuse to answer the simple questions I have posed, I cannot understand your position. Your explanations are circular and do not make any sense when compared to Church teaching.

You apparently do not want to admit you are attempting to live a political life separate from your religious or spiritual life. You will probably again accuse me of unfairly pigeon holing you, however, since you refuse to answer questions that would help me understand your position, this is my perception.

You apparently, want to disregard every attempt I make at a legitimate discussion, so I guess we agree we cannot hold a reasonable discussion.

Sorry

Thanks for trying
Best of luck and God bless……

I answered both questions you asked in your previous post.

Why did you not asnwer my question from above?

I am curious why you think government will be a paragon of benevolence and efficiency for your particular issue, when it has proven time after time to be so destructive?

 

[Christopher68]

Further to my answer from above, I believe that whenever government gets involved in an issue, it does not solve the issue in any way, shape, or form. Government often makes the issue worse, and usually creates new and unintended problems. So from my perspective, if I want to end or reduce abortions, I don’t want government anywhere near the issue.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Further to my answer from above, I believe that whenever government gets involved in an issue, it does not solve the issue in any way, shape, or form. Government often makes the issue worse, and usually creates new and unintended problems. So from my perspective, if I want to end or reduce abortions, I don’t want government anywhere near the issue.

Personally, I can’t see how you can end/reduce abortions without government involvement - unless the human race breaks out in a sudden spate of self-responsible self-regulation - which, let’s face it, is unlikely in the current cultural climate.

 

[gakroeger]

I answered both questions you asked in your previous post.
Why did you not asnwer my question from above?

I am curious why you think government will be a paragon of benevolence and efficiency for your particular issue, when it has proven time after time to be so destructive?

I think you need to go back and reread my posts. I have told you numerous times that I agree your assessment of government. But you keep coming back and telling me that I am discounting your comments about the reality of government. Once more, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT GOVERNMENT.

The problem seems to be that you cannot separate the legal and moral aspects of abortion and keep insisting that all pro life people want nothing but abortion made illegal. I have not stated that once in this entire thread, in fact I have stated several times this is not why I started this thread, I started this thread to help pro life people focus their arguments on the fact that the fetus is fully human like the rest of us and that we agree with ALL pro choice arguments IF the fetus is not human. All scientific evidence available supports the fact that the fetus is human. None of this has anything to do with the legalities of abortion.

My main objective has been to get Catholics who have been lukewarm on Church teaching to realize that non conformance to Church teaching on Abortion is a very serious matter.

No, you did not answer the second part of my question. I stated If you answered both of these questions with a Yes, then explain how you can support your politics over Church teaching and how can you justify destroying Gods creation in the womb. Clearly, as I stated in the previous post, Christ would not support “middle ground” (or common ground) in the case of abortion.

The reason this is important, is because you answered yes to the question about believing that we must live one Christian life. The Church teaches that abortion is intrinsically evil and wrong in all cases, yet you have been arguing that we should find “common ground” with pro choice people. The way I interpret “common ground” is that we on the pro life side find something that those who believe abortion is ok in some or all cases and work from there. The problem with this is that we cannot morally accept even one abortion. Where do you find common ground with someone who believes that murder is acceptable in any situation?

Also, has I have stated previously, I do not believe any new laws are necessary, if we once recognize the unborn as human (as we did pre Roe v Wade) current murder law are sufficient to protect the unborn. Have you ever thought it strange that if a pregnant women is shot in the stomach and her unborn child is killed, the shooter is charged with murder, however, if the Mother aborts the baby it is something else. Does anyone think the baby would care; he or she is still dead?

 

[Christopher68]

I think you need to go back and reread my posts. I have told you numerous times that I agree your assessment of government. But you keep coming back and telling me that I am discounting your comments about the reality of government. Once more, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT GOVERNMENT.

The problem seems to be that you cannot separate the legal and moral aspects of abortion and keep insisting that all pro life people want nothing but abortion made illegal. I have not stated that once in this entire thread, in fact I have stated several times this is not why I started this thread, I started this thread to help pro life people focus their arguments on the fact that the fetus is fully human like the rest of us and that we agree with ALL pro choice arguments IF the fetus is not human. All scientific evidence available supports the fact that the fetus is human. None of this has anything to do with the legalities of abortion.

My main objective has been to get Catholics who have been lukewarm on Church teaching to realize that non conformance to Church teaching on Abortion is a very serious matter.

No, you did not answer the second part of my question. I stated If you answered both of these questions with a Yes, then explain how you can support your politics over Church teaching and how can you justify destroying Gods creation in the womb. Clearly, as I stated in the previous post, Christ would not support “middle ground” (or common ground) in the case of abortion.

The reason this is important, is because you answered yes to the question about believing that we must live one Christian life. The Church teaches that abortion is intrinsically evil and wrong in all cases, yet you have been arguing that we should find “common ground” with pro choice people. The way I interpret “common ground” is that we on the pro life side find something that those who believe abortion is ok in some or all cases and work from there. The problem with this is that we cannot morally accept even one abortion. Where do you find common ground with someone who believes that murder is acceptable in any situation?

Also, has I have stated previously, I do not believe any new laws are necessary, if we once recognize the unborn as human (as we did pre Roe v Wade) current murder law are sufficient to protect the unborn. Have you ever thought it strange that if a pregnant women is shot in the stomach and her unborn child is killed, the shooter is charged with murder, however, if the Mother aborts the baby it is something else. Does anyone think the baby would care; he or she is still dead?

Once again, my use of the words ‘common ground’ is not to ask you to alter your core beliefs in any way. However, I believe it is true that the majority of the population - on both sides of the issue - believe that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing. Are you so rigid in your beliefs that you would fail to engage in constructive dialogue with those you oppose - even if the end result is a reduction in the number of abortions?

I know that many people would like abortion prosecuted as murder. I am opposed to this course of action because I don’t think it will work, and I’ll explain why. First of all, if we assume that approximately half the population is pro-choice and half the population is pro-life, then half the population would be opposed to this - regardless of what the law is. Drug abusers will abuse drugs whether or not they are legal or not. And someone who is insistent on having an abortion will find a way to have one whether is is legal or not. If abortion is made illegal, then illegal abortions will occur. I have said several times that the only true solution is to change people’s hearts and minds - because if you do that then women who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy will not consider abortion as a viable alternative. This also the difference between ‘persuading’ someone versus ‘coercing’ them. People have a natural tendency to resent and recoil from those who try to coerce them into certain behaviors or beliefs. But people react favorably when they are persuaded into something by positive methods. And finally, you stated you were in agreement with me about government and it’s inefficiency. I’m surprised anyone would want the government to help solve whatever their particular issue is - haven’t they been to the Post Office or DMV lately? Government at it’s finest.

I know there are many who are thinking ‘but abortion is murder - we have to prosecute it as murder’. Rape and murder are opposed by 99.99999% of the population. However, there is no such unanimity on abortion. While you may think this is a black and white issue, society as a whole views this differently, as evidenced by the percentage of those who classify themselves as pro-choice. Consider all of the political and legal maneuvering on this issue over the past 30 years. I don’t believe it has fundamentally changed the debate in any way. That is why I don’t believe the force of government is the solution here.

 

[SteveGC]

I know that many people would like abortion prosecuted as murder. I am opposed to this course of action because I don’t think it will work, and I’ll explain why. First of all, if we assume that approximately half the population is pro-choice and half the population is pro-life, then half the population would be opposed to this - regardless of what the law is. Drug abusers will abuse drugs whether or not they are legal or not. And someone who is insistent on having an abortion will find a way to have one whether is is legal or not. If abortion is made illegal, then illegal abortions will occur.

Respectfully, Christopher…this analogy is faulty IMO. Drug abusers continue to abuse drugs because it is a completely different industry than abortion. In other words, drug abuse continues despite the illicitness of use, because the drug industry involves products requiring no special skills to distribute and sell, no specific need to have a publicly identifiable location for offering the service, and hence very accessible and covert methodologies for people to continue to acquire and use them.

The overwhelming majority of abortions occur in publicly identifiable medical clinics. And to safely acquire an abortion, one must utilize the services of a person skilled in the process, not just any “joe” on the street. Take away the clinics’ legal rights to offer them, and you are left with trying to find these specific people who are now willing to risk their freedom (under penalty of prison) to offer this service. One would have to realistically concede that not only would the vast majority of current abortionists discontinue offering them, but also for the ones that take the risk, the cost of this type of risky endeavor would skyrocket, and therefore, even if one could find such a covert abortionist, the affordability would deter the vast majority of those seeking them. Not only that, one can easily imagine that except for perhaps those providing their service randomly to those living off the streets, most illicit abortionist services would be quickly identified, shut down, and prosecuted.

Doesn’t matter if half the population is pro-choice. Only a small percentage is willing to risk their freedom to offer the service, and/or acquire the service, if it is declared illegal.

Conclusion…illegal abortion = millions of saved lives. Government must play a central role. Even if they’ve proven to screw things up. They made murder illegal…can you imagine our nation right now if that was never illegal? Are they screwing up the murder issue by having it currently being illegal?

 

[Christopher68]

Respectfully, Christopher…this analogy is faulty IMO. Drug abusers continue to abuse drugs because it is a completely different industry than abortion. In other words, drug abuse continues despite the illicitness of use, because the drug industry involves products requiring no special skills to distribute and sell, no specific need to have a publicly identifiable location for offering the service, and hence very accessible and covert methodologies for people to continue to acquire and use them.

The overwhelming majority of abortions occur in publicly identifiable medical clinics. And to safely acquire an abortion, one must utilize the services of a person skilled in the process, not just any “joe” on the street. Take away the clinics’ legal rights to offer them, and you are left with trying to find these specific people who are now willing to risk their freedom (under penalty of prison) to offer this service. One would have to realistically concede that not only would the vast majority of current abortionists discontinue offering them, but also for the ones that take the risk, the cost of this type of risky endeavor would skyrocket, and therefore, even if one could find such a covert abortionist, the affordability would deter the vast majority of those seeking them. Not only that, one can easily imagine that except for perhaps those providing their service randomly to those living off the streets, most illicit abortionist services would be quickly identified, shut down, and prosecuted.

Doesn’t matter if half the population is pro-choice. Only a small percentage is willing to risk their freedom to offer the service, and/or acquire the service, if it is declared illegal.

Conclusion…illegal abortion = millions of saved lives. Government must play a central role. Even if they’ve proven to screw things up. They made murder illegal…can you imagine our nation right now if that was never illegal? Are they screwing up the murder issue by having it currently being illegal?

I understand your point. However, I don’t believe it would be as easy of a process as you suggest. It is reasonable to assume that pro-choice forces would establish a vast underground abortion network - similar to the Underground Railroad. Second, I could also envision massive protests and civil unrest. I’ve seen enough TV highlights from various demonstrations and counter demonstrations to know the visceral hatred that some people on both sides of the issue have for each other. And if Roe v Wade is overturned, it still puts the issue back at a state level, and there are various states that will never outlaw abortion, and people from other states could always travel to those states if they so desired. I’m sure there are those on this thread who will ridicule me for my position on this issue, but I sincerely believe the only solution is to change people’s hearts and minds.

 

[SteveGC]

I understand your point. However, I don’t believe it would be as easy of a process as you suggest. It is reasonable to assume that pro-choice forces would establish a vast underground abortion network - similar to the Underground Railroad. Second, I could also envision massive protests and civil unrest. I’ve seen enough TV highlights from various demonstrations and counter demonstrations to know the visceral hatred that some people on both sides of the issue have for each other. And if Roe v Wade is overturned, it still puts the issue back at a state level, and there are various states that will never outlaw abortion, and people from other states could always travel to those states if they so desired. I’m sure there are those on this thread who will ridicule me for my position on this issue, but I sincerely believe the only solution is to change people’s hearts and minds.

Yes, agreed. Hearts and minds must ultimately change. No doubt that is a core necessity. But I actually think that is the more implausible possibility, given our fallen nature and the secular individualism rampant in our modern world. Not that it can’t happen, mind you. But millions upon millions will die while we exclusively work on that issue. In the meantime, millions are in desperate need of rescue, and if that causes protests or even riots, so be it. I highly doubt we’re talking about a massive violent upheaval…afterall, most people in favor of abortion rights are not the violent type. Yes, there’ll be rogue men and random thugs who fight against “the system” simply because they’ll perceive more government control…but we’re not talking about making guns illegal, or some other thing that the violent types are highly involved with. Besides, why don’t we see violent unrest due to drugs being illegal? IOW, I just don’t see the possibility of civil unrest about abortion law as a deterrant to standing ground and enforcing it.

Can’t agree with you at all about your notion of an “underground abortion network”. Look, the types of folks that currently are trained to offer this procedure are not the seedy types that are hell-bent on fighting the bureaucracy. We’re talking medical professionals mostly, or atleast people who are looking to genuinely support themselves and their families, and live normal lives. And they certainly aren’t organized. Planned Parenthood is about as unified as they get, and that organization is far too illumined in the spotlight to be able to run any covert operation. So, I would not be deterred by any threat of an effective underground network. Any such operation would be random and localized at best, and I give law enforcement’s capability to detect and deter much more credit than that.

Yes, you’re right, it will become a state issue even if federal law is passed. That’s why the fight must not be limited to federal law alone. We must lobby as a pro-life force at both the federal and the state levels. I would not consider the abortion battle a victory at all unless both the federal AND the state laws reflected it uniformly.

Thanks for the dialogue. Blessings.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Yes, agreed. Hearts and minds must ultimately change. No doubt that is a core necessity. But I actually think that is the more implausible possibility, given our fallen nature and the secular individualism rampant in our modern world. Not that it can’t happen, mind you. But millions upon millions will die while we exclusively work on that issue. In the meantime, millions are in desperate need of rescue, and if that causes protests or even riots, so be it. I highly doubt we’re talking about a massive violent upheaval…afterall, most people in favor of abortion rights are not the violent type. Yes, there’ll be rogue men and random thugs who fight against “the system” simply because they’ll perceive more government control…but we’re not talking about making guns illegal, or some other thing that the violent types are highly involved with. Besides, why don’t we see violent unrest due to drugs being illegal? IOW, I just don’t see the possibility of civil unrest about abortion law as a deterrant to standing ground and enforcing it.

Can’t agree with you at all about your notion of an “underground abortion network”. Look, the types of folks that currently are trained to offer this procedure are not the seedy types that are hell-bent on fighting the bureaucracy. We’re talking medical professionals mostly, or atleast people who are looking to genuinely support themselves and their families, and live normal lives. And they certainly aren’t organized. Planned Parenthood is about as unified as they get, and that organization is far too illumined in the spotlight to be able to run any covert operation. So, I would not be deterred by any threat of an effective underground network. Any such operation would be random and localized at best, and I give law enforcement’s capability to detect and deter much more credit than that.

Yes, you’re right, it will become a state issue even if federal law is passed. That’s why the fight must not be limited to federal law alone. We must lobby as a pro-life force at both the federal and the state levels. I would not consider the abortion battle a victory at all unless both the federal AND the state laws reflected it uniformly.

Thanks for the dialogue. Blessings.

Actually, I think my previous statement a little cynical. A change in hearts and minds is probably the most effective way forward. Like it or not, underground abortions have and do happen in countries where abortion is illegal/restricted. Although I suspect pro-life estimates regarding the same are somewhat inflated by their ideologies.

I’d also stress my belief in the need to pro-actively promote an alternative - adoption, as previously mentioned, which is as previously discussed currently drowned in red tape and extemely negative cultural attitudes. Like it or not, it is unlikely unwanted pregnancies could become a thing of the past very overnight, if at all.

 

[gakroeger]

Once again, my use of the words ‘common ground’ is not to ask you to alter your core beliefs in any way. However, I believe it is true that the majority of the population - on both sides of the issue - believe that reducing the number of abortions would be a good thing. Are you so rigid in your beliefs that you would fail to engage in constructive dialogue with those you oppose - even if the end result is a reduction in the number of abortions?

Of course we would all like to see the number of abortions reduced, unfortunately this is the same argument that was used to help elect Obama. The ridiculous logic was since we had a pro life president for 8 years and he did not eliminate abortion, let us elect a president that “claimed” he would work to reduce abortions. He claimed this even though he promoted the passing (and bragged about he would sign) FOCA which would have virtually eliminated all state passed restrictions of abortion. And, we are still in danger of him signing this legislation; the only thing preventing it right now is the extremely vocal pro life groups.

Once again my objective here is to get people to recognize abortion for the terrible act that it is. So many have trivialized it and refuse to face the reality that these are our sons, daughters, brothers, and sisters that are being annulated. The really sad part of this is planned parenthood has turned abortion into an industry that functions on growth, they are ever expanding and operating in every way like a corporation looking to grow larger and larger. The person who founded planned parenthood, Margaret Sanger is in every way a racist and established planned parenthood to eliminate the poorest of the poor. One of her many quotes on blacks, immigrants and indigents was; “…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ 'spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” For more of her ideals go to this website:

http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

I know that many people would like abortion prosecuted as murder. I am opposed to this course of action because I don’t think it will work, and I’ll explain why. First of all, if we assume that approximately half the population is pro-choice and half the population is pro-life, then half the population would be opposed to this - regardless of what the law is. Drug abusers will abuse drugs whether or not they are legal or not. And someone who is insistent on having an abortion will find a way to have one whether is is legal or not. If abortion is made illegal, then illegal abortions will occur. I have said several times that the only true solution is to change people’s hearts and minds - because if you do that then women who are faced with an unwanted pregnancy will not consider abortion as a viable alternative. This also the difference between ‘persuading’ someone versus ‘coercing’ them. People have a natural tendency to resent and recoil from those who try to coerce them into certain behaviors or beliefs. But people react favorably when they are persuaded into something by positive methods. And finally, you stated you were in agreement with me about government and it’s inefficiency. I’m surprised anyone would want the government to help solve whatever their particular issue is - haven’t they been to the Post Office or DMV lately? Government at it’s finest.

Christopher68, the problem here is that you are assigning the unborn to a classification less than human. Once you accept this lie you are immediately in conflict with Church teaching. Once we start (which we obviously already have) to classify various humans as having more or less rights then others, there is no end to it, this line can and will be moved by those in power to suit their own agendas. Since a large percentage of people have already agreed that the unborn do not deserve the same protection and rights as those already born, we have started down this road of splitting additional people into categories lower than others. The courts decided, against her family’s wishes to starve to death Terry Schiavo because although she was not terminally ill she was an inconvenience to her husband and he wanted her out of the way. This is now a precedent and future cases will follow suit. Obama has clearly stated his preference for death counseling instead of treatment for some terminally ill patients. One can without much effort see how this can easily progress to the government deciding that old and sick people who are a drain on the health care system should be “mercifully” put to sleep like your family pet.

Ran out of space, continued on next post…