You ‘make a law’ simply because protecting innocent human life is a legitimate function of government and is the right thing for government to do.It would be easy to say, ‘make a law’, but we have no evidence, despite multiple large studies over the last decade, to suggest that secular law has any impact on abortion rates world wide at all.
Changing the law is a must, but not the sole answer. In another context the Vatican said the civil law, for better or worse, is a guiding principle in society. What does it say to us that we have codified child killing into law?Particularly since the Holy Grail of overturning Roe v. Wade does not have much in the way of evidence suggesting it would be effective. For example:
nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
On the flip side, we have quite a bit of evidence suggesting a strong link between poverty rates and abortions…
You missed the point entirely. The numbers in no way negate the morality of either.Assuming your figures are correct for the sake of argument, do you seriously propose there is a connection between deaths from abortion and refugees in Iraq?
If we killed more children, would there be fewer refugees?
You come up with some of the most inventive statistics. There are over 400 published and peer reviewed studies regarding the correllation just in the US alone, since 2000.There is no valid, peer-reviewed study that shows a correlation between health insurance and access to health care.
First of all overturning Roe v. Wade will not reduce the number of abortions by even 1. That is because the issue in Roe v. Wade is not the criminality of abortion but who decides its status (we the people or the supreme court). Nevertheless you still must reverse Roe v. Wade because it is absolutely boneheaded constitutional law that totally federalizes the abortion issue. After the abortion issue is (rightly) returned to the states, it is up to each individual state to determine the criminality of abortion.Particularly since the Holy Grail of overturning Roe v. Wade does not have much in the way of evidence suggesting it would be effective. For example:
nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
On the flip side, we have quite a bit of evidence suggesting a strong link between poverty rates and abortions…
I do not disagree. I agree with the Church that the law’s existance alone is a moral problem. But that does not change the secular evidence that a legal change seemingly has little effect. As the Church notes:Changing the law is a must, but not the sole answer. In another context the Vatican said the civil law, for better or worse, is a guiding principle in society. What does it say to us that we have codified child killing into law?
If I encapsulate my entire pro-life belief into a single litmus test involving secular law, and ignore evidence about the actual effect of other Church teachings on abortion, I am ignoring my Christian obligation.In this context [limiting the harm of secular laws], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.
Changing the law will save lives. You argue that numbers do not matter, right? The change in law will save more than one life. It is a must. And, the Church says so.I do not disagree. I agree with the Church that the law’s existance alone is a moral problem. But that does not change the secular evidence that a legal change seemingly has little effect. As the Church notes:
The test is not some academic point. The test, in this context, is deciding whether we will further abortion and break our friendship with Christ by formally cooperating with evil. The choice is obvious, no?If I encapsulate my entire pro-life belief into a single litmus test involving secular law, and ignore evidence about the actual effect of other Church teachings on abortion, I am ignoring my Christian obligation.
Refusal to answer the question is noted.
I refused to answer nothing…I did answer. Your point was no point at all.
Per your personal interpretation that is what Aquinas suggests. I prefer the clear teachings of the Church,
Its not my personal opinion actually but that of a priest in good standing.
They may very well cause one not to vote fo ar pro-life candidate but they can never cause one to vote for a Pro–abortion Canidate.
That won’t give you the result you want. Legal abortion started to soar prior to Roe v. Wade when 15 states adopted more permissive abortion laws. It peaked about about 1.6 million, then dropped substantially in the 1990s to roughly were it is today (though we are seeing evidence of a reversing trend).Second of all, comparing abortion rates in Uganda and Eastern Europe is an apples to oranges comparison. A more valid comparison might be abortion rates in the US immediately prior to and immediately after Roe.
But at what other costs? An unjust war, systematic oppression of minorities and the poor? Forced abortions and profiteering in Saipan? The indigent dumped out of hospitals on the street to die?Changing the law will save lives. You argue that numbers do not matter, right? The change in law will save more than one life. It is a must. And, the Church says so.
What was the abortion rate in the year prior to Roe v. Wade and the abortion rate in the year immediately after Roe v. Wade.That won’t give you the result you want.
Prior to roe v wade the number of abortoins in the country was aprox 400,000 legal and illegal. Within 3 years of it being imposed on the countryit had increased to 1.5 million.What was the abortion rate in the year prior to Roe v. Wade and the abortion rate in the year immediately after Roe v. Wade.
I propose that the difference in these two abortion rates is a direct result of Roe v. Wade.
That is credible.Prior to roe v wade the number of abortoins in the country was aprox 400,000 legal and illegal. Within 3 years of it being imposed on the countryit had increased to 1.5 million.
The problem is that things don’t fit neatly into compartments. Secular law is unchanged, abortions drop 400,000 a year. We pass a new secular law and the decline slows, even reversing in some states…No, what I am saying is that abortion is more important than how healthcare is funded, or whether we need certain social programs. Prudential issues are one thing. Killing innocent people is quite another.
Among incumbants, it is easy to tell. Look at how they have voted. And, look at what they have refused to act on. With newcomers, it is hard to tell. Most tell you want they think you want to hear. For example, I’ll bet every GOP candidate in the country talk tough on gays, family values, and abortion, but we still have problems in public restrooms, a gay male escort getting a free pass into the White House pressroom for two years, and a lot of embarrassing connections to forced abortions for profit in campaign funding.Which candidate supports murder of prisoners?
See for yourself:What was the abortion rate in the year prior to Roe v. Wade and the abortion rate in the year immediately after Roe v. Wade.
I propose that the difference in these two abortion rates is a direct result of Roe v. Wade.
It is “credible”, because it is what you already want to believe. But the number is essentially made up. The history is that pro-life groups were widely citing a study from 1981 that statistically calculated the number of illegal abortions pre-Roe v. Wade as 68,000 to 443,000, with a median estimate of 210,000 per year. Most folks used the 68-210, but never mentioned the 400+. However, scientific peers noted that the study could not be reconcilled with census data and some assumptions were challenged and the authors acknowledged that their numbers are undoubtedly flawed. Since then, you see the high number from the study pop up a lot, but it is just a number, pulled out of thin air - much like the 40 million, 50 million, etc. you just threw out earlier.That is credible.
And of those 400K abortions, I would bet a high percentage of those were in states where it was already legal (a better comparison would be limit the states to where it was illegal prior to Roe…Roe changed nothing where it was already legal.
Well, so much for the theory that there is no correlation between the abortion rate of a population and the criminality of abortion.
OK.Most studies place the numbers significantly higher, but still are not very compelling. There just isn’t much data. Note that the Guttmacher institute, which I linked to above, won’t even cite illegal abortion data, merely noting that the studies vary wildly.