Where did you learn history?
Laura is certainly not of an age to be having any more children so why would Bush be using ABC? It would be a waste of good coins to use those abominable rubbers. Are you implying one or the other has a venereal disease ? As my retarded grandson would say about your comment,“That was not appropriate.”
Why torment yourself? Just vote for life - always - it is good for your conscience and soul. Despite the history lessons your are learning here, if you think someone that doesn’t put life first is going to make sound moral choices on other matters of social justice, well IMHO you are putting your trust in dust. Second if you think you can find the perfect candidate or perfect political party or perfect solution to mankind’s poblems based on mankinds ideas of perfection, you will always be tormented and full of anger, for men cannot do what only God can do and for now God has given us all, the good and the bad free choice/ free will, so no matter what good intentions one has it will be frustrated by another, even with those with similar good intentions.
I think you are right here. I believe its quite clear that Republicans have claimed to be pro-life and done well in securing the vote of the evangelical religious right, but in 8 years they have done essentially nothing, and I suspect they really don’t intend to. I think its merely a ploy to get this base. Then its introduce a bill, watch it die and they say…ahh so sorry…We’ll try again…sometime…The pandering has gotten out of hand this election cycle it seems.
It’s traditionally democratic, with a recent shift to the right.
Is abortion one of those policies?
I didn’t follow politics much when I was 12, so no
I don’t know, I know he did some things for workers, and Hillary tried to get universal health care, ultimatly I don’t care about Bill Clinton
How do you figure?
ok, I have no interest in Hillary Clinton
My what?
Really? What republican canidate is running with the promise to end abortion?
Yes, and there is also a chance that tomorrow every abortion doctor will have a change of heart and abandon their morally repugnant practice, however we can’t vote based on what there is an abstractly possible chance of happening, is there any reasoniable reasone to beleive that if the republicans are given power, they will end or seriously limit abortion?
From public schoolWhere did you learn history?
The American Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865.
The “Civil War Ammendments” were:
The XIII Amendment – ratified December 6th, 1865
The XIV Amendment – ratified July 9th, 1868
The XV Amendment – ratified February 3rd, 1870
Plessy vs Ferguson, declaring “separate but equal” was constitutional was handed down in 1895 – 25 years after the last of the “Civil War Amendments” and 30 years after the end of the Civil War.
the vast majority of the nation views Birth Control as totally accecptiable, Bush has never given the slightest indication he disagreas, it’s a safe bet.Laura is certainly not of an age to be having any more children so why would Bush be using ABC? It would be a waste of good coins to use those abominable rubbers. Are you implying one or the other has a venereal disease ? As my retarded grandson would say about your comment,“That was not appropriate.”
So let us stipulate that the Court can and has in the past overturned earlier rulings. With Brown vs the Board of Education being a prime example, overturning Plessy vs Ferguson.From public school
I was thinking of dred scott and the abolition of slavery.
sorry
I know of no candidate who actually holds the Catholic position on abortion - Republican or Democrat. They all, at the least, make exceptions for incest and health of the mother. Further, there is the issue of what is the best way to end this scourge. I’m no longer convinced that criminalization of abortion is the best civil response with the current state of society. This is not to say that a woman has a “right” to an abortion - only that criminalizing an abortion is not the answer in this society. In much the same way that the Church holds adultery, fornication, sodomy, remarriage after divorce, etc., to be grave sins - it would be counterproductive to declare any or all of them crimes. Indeed, those that are still crimes in some states are not enforced, are ridiculed and promote a disrespect for the law and morality. So personally I continue to argue and oppose abortion - but not in the civil arena - I keep it personal hoping to change society and minds over time.
Marriage in the civil arena is mostly a matter of taxes (including benefits), property law, estates and inheritance. I agree the Church has already lost the battle on the hearts and minds of the west on the morality issue especially vis-a-vis divorce. It happened, IMHO, when marriage was bifurcated into a sacrament and a civil contract. Again, the battle on same-sex “marriage” is lost on this issue in the civil society - and I agree that we need to address it like we do with divorce, contraception, adultery, fornication, etc. We need to regroup and change hearts and minds and not try to use the civil authority to enforce such norms.
I know a lot of people on this board disagree with what I wrote above, but after some considerable thought, I have concluded that the use of the civil power to enforce morality in these areas is counterproductive. We need to take the long hard road of making our case and instilling morality in these areas in the individual - and use the state police power elsewhere. As to how that effects an election choice I submit: 1. Since no candidate fully supports the Catholic teaching on abortion, one can consider this issue as one among many. Even with that, the decision as to how best to stop abortion is a matter of prudence on which any number of options are possible; 2. tax policy, property rights and estates are matters in which the Church has no particular competence and the choice of the civil government to extend rights heretofore limited to married couples is a matter of prudence. While called “marriage” and potentially confusing, what often is called “marriage” today is not a sacramental marriage in any event. We do not need to let semantics drive our decisions. My suggestion is to vote for that person who you believe will best lead the country.
Is the use of the civil power to enforce morality in the areas of rape, murder, robbery, fraud, and so on, counterproductive?
How do we do that when one political party has taxpayer-funded abortion as a plank in its platform? How do we do that when the official position is “abortion is a right?”
No because the general population agrees that it is an appropriate use of the state police power to enforce those moral standards. So this makes my point exactly. The general population overwhelmingly disagrees with the use of the police power to stop abortion - certainly in the cases of incest and the health of the mother. hence it is counterproductive until we change society.
Choices still need to be made about which candidate is best for the country. I’m not pumping for either the Dems or the Reps. However, make no mistake that the Republicans overwhelmingly hold that a woman has a right to an abortion in the case of incest and health of the mother - at the least.
Well, I believe that battle is lost and it’s imprudent to seek to criminalize the matter. Too often the easy answer of “let’s outlaw what we see as immoral” is proferred as the answer - when any look at society today easily demonstrates the weakness of such position. I truly believe we need to change society - a difficult matter, not change the law - a facile answer.
When did the general population ever get to vote on that?
Ah, the old “one side isn’t perfect, so I’ll vote for the other side, which is less perfect” argument.
The battle is lost only when we surrender.
You have made a thoughtful and thought provoking post. I think there is much truth in what you state and you have sure stated it better than I could.
They didn’t have to - because it is generally accepted.
Indeed the general population can be - and often is- wrong. I submit until the general population’s opinion of the “Arena” changed it would have been counterproductive to try and have an election.
I never said who I’d vote for - or against, for that matter. It’s true that neither the Reps nor the Dems maintain the Catholic position, however.Ah, the old “one side isn’t perfect, so I’ll vote for the other side, which is less perfect” argument.
The battle in the legislatures is lost, IMHO. The general public opinion is overwhelmingly against us. The fight needs to shift to the general public. Until we have a general consensus from the public, it’s just so much wasted time and effort - again IMHO. If you are so hellfire and brimstone ready to fight - I expect to see you rallying the troops to criminalize contraceptives, condoms, and remarriage after divorce. That should move you down the raod to control of the government
Those were also not moral issues in those circumstances - those were political issues. Non sequiturs do not help your argument.
And you know that, how?
And yet you advise us not to use the best strategy to change their opinion, a law, an official statement that abortion is wrong.
No one said they did – but who will not vote for the lesser of two evils automatically votes for the greater of those evils.
So you say – and run up the white flag.
Ah, yes – the old, “I give up, and if you don’t, then you must perform superhuman acts” ploy.The fight needs to shift to the general public. Until we have a general consensus from the public, it’s just so much wasted time and effort - again IMHO. If you are so hellfire and brimstone ready to fight - I expect to see you rallying the troops to criminalize contraceptives, condoms, and remarriage after divorce. That should move you down the raod to control of the government
Where did you learn history?
And if it was legal for parents to kill their children up to three years of age, and if the majority was okay with it, would this still be your answer? And what would prevent society from someday seeing infanticide as only a “moral question”; something not to be prevented by law. To the ancient Romans, and in some societies today, it isn’t even that. It’s just a practical question. To the main Democrat contender, “partial birth abortion”, which is really infanticide, was only a “moral question”…and of someone else’s morals than her own.
it’s like judicial notice - it’s obvious if you’re not obtuse.
it’s not the best strategy in this instance IMHO. It simply won’t work, IMO.
I submit the law was changed because the general attitude had changed - NOT vice-versa. The segregationists had already lost - the law simply followed. Again you make my point with this example.
I suggest you have it backwards.
Well, one can certainly decide what is the lesser…
True it is my opinion. Sometimes reality should be taken into account.
You mean you’re running up the white flag on those moral issues? have you given up the fight? What sort of attitude is that. KEEP FIGHTING. Certainly, you who fight every moral evil will not concede victory to the forces of evil on divorce, contraception, etc. Or, maybe you have simply seen in those issues what I see has happened in abortion and “same sex marriage”?Ah, yes – the old, “I give up, and if you don’t, then you must perform superhuman acts” ploy.
Well, I know not to compare geopolitics with issues of sexual morality. Not sure where I learned that specifically. Just seems obvious…Where did you learn history?
You forget, I was there.
The reality of history is that the most comprehensive social change for the better in this nation was led by changing the law first, and the “hearts and minds” came later.
That’s a good one – form a man who says we are beaten and wants to surrender.
Killing innocent children is an “issue of sexual moralty?!?!”
It seems obvious that the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west – but it doesn’t.
That isnot the reason we have laws. It is not based on the will of the majority, but the rights of the individual. Like the example above of Christians being thrown to the lions, we recognize in this country that we can not subject anyone to oppression of the majority. The reason we have abortion legal is because babies are not recognized as having any rights until they clear the birth canal. I have never heard anyone explain the difference in rights the week before birth and the week after birth. Abortion being legal makes as much sense as giving parents one year from the birth to kill their baby.