Good point. Consider the abortion pill. I think it can be used in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. If the war on drugs has been such a dismal failure, does anyone thing the abortion pill can be kept off the streets regardless of courts and laws?So many good answers -
But if the politicians / doctors/abortion clinics / prospective mothers, etc., won’t listen to God, then why would they listen to an earthly court judge?
By the time God really speaks aloud to the universe - it will be too late.
Congress could remove jurisdiction so that the Court couldn’t hear future abortion cases. That would have the effect of vacating the decision. The states would be free to make laws that couldn’t be challenged at the federal level anymore. Then it could pass a law either to reinstate 14th Amendment equal protection of the unborn and or place jurisdiction over abortion cases back with the states. Congress and/or the President could also refuse to enforce a particular decision, that would in effect vacate that decision. These are also possibilities in our system of checks and balances.No, I didn’t forget it. Congress can regulate courts, but it cannot vacate decisions.
It’s still true.Again, your opinion of incoherence has no legal standing.
I’m talking possibilities. I realize the politics isn’t there yet. If it was, the Court decision would have been gone a long time ago.I realize it is fashionable for anti-abortion folks to offer their personal interpretations of the constitution as reason for greivance. They rally around these opinions and hesitate to question them. But, the reason we have courts is because those opinions can differ so much.
Now, if these personal opinions had any weight, how come they haven’t done any good for the last 37 years?
There are lots of thngs that can happen in the political world. What’s your point?Congress could remove jurisdiction so that the Court couldn’t hear future abortion cases. Then it could pass a law either to reinstate 14th Amendment equal protection of the unborn and or place jurisdiction over abortion cases back with the states. Congress and/or the President could also refuse to enforce a particular decision, that would in effect vacate that decision. These are also possibilities in our system of checks and balances.
It’s still true.
I’m talking possibilities. I realize the politics isn’t there yet. If it was, the Court decision would have been gone a long time ago.
If Bork had been confirmed, RvW would have been overturned by a majority vote of the Court. That’s why Kennedy went after him with hammer and tong. Indeed many states would have simply passed statutes that created the same rights, but many others would not.So, suppose RvW was overturned by the Supreme Court. Then the issue is no longer centralized, but is up to the legislatures in 50 states. Abortion was available in some form in 12 states before RvW. The states will simply enact it in law.
My point is that there are other Constitutional remedies besides the two you listed.There are lots of thngs that can happen in the political world. What’s your point?
That’s a plausible theory about Bork.If Bork has been confirmed, RvW would have been overturned by a majority vote of the Court. That’s why Kennedy went after him with hammer and tong. Indeed many states would have simply passed statutes that created the same rights, but many others would not.
And even if they could, there are alternatives. Medicines with other, legitimate, uses, and herbs that grow wild or can be cultivated, are old fashioned abortifacients.Good point. Consider the abortion pill. I think it can be used in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy. If the war on drugs has been such a dismal failure, does anyone thing the abortion pill can be kept off the streets regardless of courts and laws?
“Current conditions” is the situation imposed by Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. “Current conditions” essentially allows abortion on demand for virtually any reason that an abortionist deems acceptable, throughout nine months of pregnancy.In terms of the states, only about 18-23% of the people want abortion completely outlawed, and only 21-26% want it available under any conditions. That leaves 53-57% who want it available under certain conditions.
“Current conditions” is the situation imposed by Roe v Wade and Doe v Bolton. “Current conditions” essentially allows abortion on demand for virtually any reason that an abortionist deems acceptable, throughout nine months of pregnancy.
I think you misread “certain conditions” as “current conditions.”Consequently, using the figures you quoted, only 21-26% of people agree with the current abortion law as imposed by Roe and Doe.
You’re right, I did misread that.I think you misread “certain conditions” as “current conditions.”
We don’t know poll responders meant by “certain conditions.”
Well, whenever the status quo favors a given side, it will struggle to keep things as they are. Abortion advocates have no reason to start all over from ground zero.You’re right, I did misread that.
There was a poll some time ago which actually phrased the questions so as to elicit the actual conditions and gestation times under which people would allow abortion. I don’t have the results at hand, but I do recall that the conditions under which most in the U.S. would allow abortion were considerably more restrictive than what Roe and Doe now allows.
That, I think, is the main reason that the abortion lobby opposes leaving this legislation to the people or the states.
Roe and Doe gave them abortion on demand, and they are fiercely opposed to any attempt to overturn it and return the decision to the people.
I’m not sure that it would be only women who would feel this way. Legal abortion benefits men by relieving them of responsibility for their actions, and of any responsibility for child support. And many of the leaders of the pro-life movement are women.WOMEN will never allow Roe v Wade to be overturned.
So if you want to decrease abortion, all women must be educated and advised of the many alternatives, including all forms birth control. Women especially need also need affordable heathcare. If we want women to bring their babies to term instead of aborting them, then they have to have medical care.
What ever happened to the “institutions” where pregnant women could go to live and have their babies before giving them up for adoption? That would be a place for all pro-lifers to support.
How many pregnant teenagers have a back up plan? Not many. But if there was a place where they could go and safely deliver a healthy baby-how could that be bad? Without money, a place to live, go, and heathcare, of course abortion looks good as a short term fix.
Go into your parishes and ask if there are families willing to take in a pregnant women and pay her medical expenses.
Millions of dollars were paid out to settle countless molestation lawsuits. That money could have been used to build safe housing for women who choose to have their babies.
Some could have been used for healthcare for these women and children. Above all, some of it could have been used for education.
Women will never give up their right to choose. Some of them will see abortion as the only alternative because they can’t see any others. That’s pretty sad.
If a court refuses to hear arguemntst the law then the law will stand.Doesn’t work that way. The court will just refuse the case. But, if some people find that idea comforting, then I recommend they believe it. It doesn’t hurt anything.
I don’t know anything about gall baldders operations meant to kill people.
If your arguement is to get rid of the law because it is hard to enforce, then wouldn’t that law also apply to speeders, drunk drivers, rapist, etc. all of these laws are hard to enforce the most we can do is offer detterents and prosecute where people happen to be caught. We also clearly establish that these things are wrong.And even if they could, there are alternatives. Medicines with other, legitimate, uses, and herbs that grow wild or can be cultivated, are old fashioned abortifacients.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient
Yes, the change needs to be in hearts and minds, and education (real education, not biased propaganda on either side) will help. But providing viable alternatives that reduce the demand is essential.
Some women maybe but many mothers have that traditional instinct to protect children.WOMEN will never allow Roe v Wade to be overturned. .
Including abstinence. Also, this has to be taught to men, who tend to have some involvement in unwanted pregnancies. Men also need to start being responsible for the women. How about this. assuming it costs 20,000 to bring a child to term and cover costs till the child could be addopted, fine/tax all unwed fathers $10,000 to cover those costs. If the woman miscarries or other wise looses the baby, the money will go to a charity for other unwed mothers. This will give men more incentive to not mess around if they don’t want a baby.So if you want to decrease abortion, all women must be educated and advised of the many alternatives, including all forms birth control. Women especially need also need affordable heathcare. If we want women to bring their babies to term instead of aborting them, then they have to have medical care. .
I suspect the government welfare system put these places out of buisness. If I had the money, I would consider oppening such a place. The ins and outs and various complexities of this would warrant a whole other thread.What ever happened to the “institutions” where pregnant women could go to live and have their babies before giving them up for adoption? That would be a place for all pro-lifers to support. .
If they are teenagers where are there parrents and other family members? Also, the statutory rape laws should be beefed up and better enforced to help limmit this. If they are too young to have a child, they are too young to be consenting.How many pregnant teenagers have a back up plan? Not many. But if there was a place where they could go and safely deliver a healthy baby-how could that be bad? Without money, a place to live, go, and heathcare, of course abortion looks good as a short term fix…
A couple of weeks ago I did ask our priest the same thing (actually, in broader terms about how we could use some extra resources to help someone in need ) and he said that those in need in our parrish were being helped through fammily. Maybe the church or this web site could offer a matching situation.Go into your parishes and ask if there are families willing to take in a pregnant women and pay her medical expenses. .
That was not the fault of the church, that was the fault of a few errant priests and lawyers who were exploiting the large perceived resources of the church. The settlements prevented the church from paying out even larger court rullings.Millions of dollars were paid out to settle countless molestation lawsuits. That money could have been used to build safe housing for women who choose to have their babies.
Some could have been used for healthcare for these women and children. Above all, some of it could have been used for education. .
“right to choose” is a missnomer since the only choice they are actively addressing deals with killing babies. “right to abort babies” is more accurate. One reason they can not see any others is that the pro abortion lobby keeps stressing to these women that they must have access to abortion because it is their only option. In fact the pro abortion movement is taking money that could be used to help these women and funnelling it into the pro abortion movement.Women will never give up their right to choose. Some of them will see abortion as the only alternative because they can’t see any others. That’s pretty sad.
The only way to get to an appeals court is via an appeal to a decision by a lower court. Appeals courts refuse to hear cases where the lower court finds in accordance with precedent that has already been settled, like abortion rights. They do agree to hear when the lower court decision is at odds with the higher court’s precedent.If a court refuses to hear arguemntst the law then the law will stand.
Then you can not compare a gall bladder opperation to an abortion whose sole intent is to kill the patient.
That would depend on the effectiveness of the law in controling the behavior. The law has great effect against speeders, DWI and rapists. It has proven futile against marijuana and other drugs. Nothing will stop traffic in abortion drugs.If your arguement is to get rid of the law because it is hard to enforce, then wouldn’t that law also apply to speeders, drunk drivers, rapist, etc. all of these laws are hard to enforce the most we can do is offer detterents and prosecute where people happen to be caught. We also clearly establish that these things are wrong.
I didn’t say stop I said deter.That would depend on the effectiveness of the law in controling the behavior. The law has great effect against speeders, DWI and rapists. It has proven futile against marijuana and other drugs. Nothing will stop traffic in abortion drugs.