Say it ain’t so, pnewton. You sound as if the election is over. It isn’t . Say what you want but there is big differences between Obama and the GOP. Yes, the GOP was bad on spending during the Bush years. The GOP seems to support adventurism abroad. But on social issues, they couldn’t be further apart. That alone differntiates the two parties such that it should be no-brainer as to which party deserves the support of catholics. And it is between two parties.
Speaking as a political atheist.
I agree. It’s hard to get enthused about a guy who thinks killing babies isn’t important enough to be a federal issue - that it’s somehow a “states right issue” - when the DOJ prosecutes for violent crimes all the time. Ron Paul’s position on abortion, which he reiterated Thursday night for everyone watching the CNN debate, is that he doesn’t think there should be any laws against abortion on the federal level. Overturn Roe v. Wade and kick it back the state level, which is the pollyanna view espoused by Ron Paul, and you’ll get MORE killing of babies, not LESS. What’s wrong with the federal government taking a position on abortion? Why is that so “unconstitutional”?
If even a single state outlawed abortion, wouldn’t this result in less abortions, and therefore save more lives than the current federal policy?
Um…no, it wouldn’t, because the woman could still cross state lines to kill her baby. It happens all the time. Legal in one state, illegal in another state. Put a strong federal law in place, problem solved - transporting women across state lines to get an abortion would be a thing of the past. Lives saved. As Rick Santorum correctly pointed out, Ron Paul doesn’t exactly have the most “pro-life” voting record.
If even a single woman in a single state decided not to cross state lines (or for whatever reason, couldn’t) to have an abortion, would that one life be enough to justify letting the states decide? Either way, I don’t see how deciding the matter at the state level would result in MORE abortions than there already are.
You bring up a good point there, and I acknowledge that leaving it up to the states isn’t perfect, but it’s still progress. Also as of tomorrow we’ve sadly had federal legal abortion for 39 years, which tells you there’s enough people in power to put legal abortion up there and keep it that way for a while. If it was nationally banned I doubt it would last very long, though I honestly prefer it were otherwise. If I thought it would be up there long term, I’d gladly support a strong federal law.
Then I guess I have no choice but to escape to northwestern Montana and build a compound - if the black helicopters will let me.
Great points, Cascadian. If we hold out for perfection we will be disappointed. From a legal standpoint, the best strategy is to do what we can to reform our laws and it starts with overturning Roe V Wade. It woudn’t end there, as we’d have to deal with each individual state and their laws. However, I would rather deal with a local legislator than with an elite member of the U.S. senate. Which do you think would be more accessable and easier to influence? Right off the bat you’d have states outlawing abortion in most cases. As someone pointed out earlier, some might cross state lines, but the net effect of overturning Roe V Wade would be to reduce the number of abortions.
Thinking the matter is not federal is not the same as thinking it unimportant. If that is your belief then really you should think there should be a worldwide law against abortion and anyone who doesn’t advocate that is soft on abortion. Of course you can’t have worldwide laws without worldwide government. In the meantime maybe Republican candidates should make a promise to make war on any country that allows abortion. They can start with China. Instead they make war on countries like Iraq where abortion was generally illegal in part in defense of Saudi Arabia where abortion is more permitted. If you focus solely on abortion that issue would make many other actions problematic.I agree. It’s hard to get enthused about a guy who thinks killing babies isn’t important enough to be a federal issue - that it’s somehow a “states right issue” - when the DOJ prosecutes for violent crimes all the time. Ron Paul’s position on abortion, which he reiterated Thursday night for everyone watching the CNN debate, is that he doesn’t think there should be any laws against abortion on the federal level. Overturn Roe v. Wade and kick it back the state level, which is the pollyanna view espoused by Ron Paul, and you’ll get MORE killing of babies, not LESS. What’s wrong with the federal government taking a position on abortion? Why is that so “unconstitutional”?
The Republicans have controlled the SC with 8 of 9 Justices, have controlled the Congress and the Presidency, all at one time, and yet want you to believe they are someday going to do something about abortion. If Ron Paul’s solution will do nothing how is that different from the actual experience of electing other Republicans?
What is a federal law that is ruled unconstitutional by the SC going to do? Why didn’t Santorum push for an amendment or to remove SC authority in abortion when he was in Congress? If any Republican actually stopped abortion that would put an end to one of their best party platform planks and put a lot of anti abortion lobbyists out of business.
Don’t be such a pessimist. I am not enthralled with Romney, but I think he would certainly do a better job than what we have now. This country simply can’t take four more years of Obama.
Why would Romney be any different than Obama? Romney actually said that he trusts Obama with his new power to indefinitely detain without trial any person on the planet, including American citizens (not that there should be a distinction in law). If Romney trusts Obama’s power regarding this, which is one of the greatest powers a man can have, why should I not trust Obama? If I can trust Obama why does is he a bad president? It seems to me trust is the most important quality of a president. If Obama not only has it but has it in the most important matters why shouldn’t I vote for him?
Well, I’m glad you finally got to the heart of what you think - that the GOP secretly wants abortion to continue so that they can use it as an issue to get more votes. Really? Let’s see, Santorum, Henry Hyde, et al were really frauds who wanted the slaughter to continue to get votes. I appreciate you candor, but at the same time I note that you are accusing good men of being evil. You should probably think about that.
That is the usual excuse of Democrat Catholics as to why its ok to support the party of death. I am somewhat surprised to see a Ron Paul supporter advance the same old tired canard.
Exactly. 50% NRL rating and he’s still held up as The McDreamy Candidate For Catholics. “Strange” does not nearly begin to cover it. :coffeeread:
Both issues are important. No, the election is not over. I do believe the GOP may not nominate the candidate most likely to beat Obama, the only one that will pull people from his own power base by supporting the very issues that the GOP boos. It makes me doubt the sincerity of the GOP of the importance of abortion when decreasing military presence abroad overshadows it. No, I don’t think the GOP will nominate based on social issues like family and abortion, but on money and power, who will most help the rich and who is most hawkish.
