Why wasn't abortion made illegal when the Republicans had all the power?

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by cazayoux
He asked “when the Rep’s had control of the House, Sen, Presidency and the Supreme Court, why wasn’t a law passed banning abortion?”

… and it’s got me thinking.
Why DIDN’T a law get passed making abortion illegal.

IMHO, that’d be taking away the golden carrot. Before the current president was elected, all my Republican friends told me I HAD to vote for him because of the abortion issue. I told my dad that just watch and see the dancing and the excuses that get made if a republican was elected. Well no sooner than when he got elected I saw in the Crisis magazine exactly what I predicted - talk about ‘changing hearts before changing laws’. Well guess what argument was made when he was up for re-election? Well you gotta vote for him because of abortion, etc. etc. etc. I know MANY people who do not vote democrat because of abortion. Take that issue off the plate and who’s going to get into the White House?

Just my honest opinion.

Neither the President nor the Congress can* successfully* pass a law making abortion illegal. The Court has decreed that abortion is a Constitutional right.

If you look at the history of the issue, the Court overturned laws against abortion with Roe vs Wade and has overturned or vitiated almost every law limiting abortion that has been passed since then. But with new justices on the bench, the Partial Birth Abortion Ban was upheld.

The solution is to have a court majority willing to overturn Roe vs Wade.

As a side-note, could you imagine if the ex-mayor of NYC got elected? A pro-abortion republican?!?! The democrats would have won by a land-slide!

And it was heartening to see so many Republicans turn against this pro-choice candidate and reject him as the party’s standard-bearer. Would that the Democrats would do the same.

 

[ribozyme]

Exactly. Most people have not only not seen one, they have not even heard it described.

One day I actually told my adult daughter what a “partial birth” abortion was. To me, any reasonable person, even one that was “pro-choice” for the 1st trimester, would classify “partial birth” abortion as infanticide. But my daughter didn’t even know what it was. When she found out, she was horrified. I suspect that most people have no idea what these procedures really consist of.

Only people from NARAL dislike the partial-birth abortion ban… it is not a popular issue. The partial birth abortion ban isn’t a significant victory for the pro-life cause. But I am glad that people are more willing to pay attention of real social justice issues such as poverty reduction, not being vehemently anti-choice for the first trimester. I think people such as Paul Krugman who criticizes vast economic inequality contributed more for “social justice” than Frank Pavone.

 

[rlg94086]

Only people from NARAL dislike the partial-birth abortion ban… it is not a popular issue. The partial birth abortion ban isn’t a significant victory for the pro-life cause. But I am glad that people are more willing to pay attention of real social justice issues such as poverty reduction, not being vehemently anti-choice for the first trimester.

So, you think we could get the Democrats to agree to ban all abortions past the first trimester? If so, I would be thrilled to have made some progress toward the eventual ban of all abortion. I won’t be holding my breath though…up until recently Democrats were 100% against any prohibitions on abortion. Funny how defeat makes them suddenly say…“the partial birth abortion issue is no big deal.”

As far as the social justice issues, we are perfectly able to be “vehemently anti-choice for the first trimester” and pay attention the reduction of poverty at the same time. One does not negate the other. Your statement is the typical false dichotomy we hear from those who are pro-choice. All those of us who are pro-life are saying is that human life is sacred from conception and that the taking of an innocent life is a greater evil than poverty.

 

[living_water]

If only we could get CATHOLICS to either support Pro-Life issues, or stop calling themselves Catholic!!

According to an ABC News poll, more than half of all Catholics support legal abortion.This is a tragedy and a shame.

abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/poll010702.html

 

[ribozyme]

As far as the social justice issues, we are perfectly able to be “vehemently anti-choice for the first trimester” and pay attention the reduction of poverty at the same time. One does not negate the other. Your statement is the typical false dichotomy we hear from those who are pro-choice. All those of us who are pro-life are saying is that human life is sacred from conception and that the taking of an innocent life is a greater evil than poverty.

I would advise the Democrats to play their cards correctly; I know that being vehemently pro-abortion would turn off some Catholic Democrats who are also disillusioned with the neo-con agenda.

I think poverty is a greater evil than abortion; in the first trimester, a fetus would not be able to feel pain nor have any interests. However, poverty causes stress, discomfort, and violates people’s preferences. Some, however, think it is an act of mercy to abort an early stage fetus than to bring it up in poverty. But if God loves the fetus, why would he allow it to be brought up in an environment of poverty?

It’s also about those who see abortion as the lesser of two evils: the greater evil in their eyes being bringing a child into less than perfect circumstances.

I know of some people out there have had their innermost beings so warped by negative life experiences that they truly seem to believe a child is better off dead than unhappy in life. No amount of shouting abortion is wrong is going to sway such people because life as they know it itself seems wrong to them; their own lives seem wrong and they have no clue it is they lack that makes them feel that way.

 

[rlg94086]

I would advise the Democrats to play their cards correctly; I know that being vehemently pro-abortion would turn off some Catholic Democrats who are also disillusioned with the neo-con agenda.

Indeed - I agree with you. They have very much softened their pro-choice rhetoric to attract Catholics and other Christians.

I think poverty is a greater evil than abortion; in the first trimester, a fetus would not be able to feel pain nor have any interests. However, poverty causes stress, discomfort, and violates people’s preferences. Some, however, think it is an act of mercy to abort an early stage fetus than to bring it up in poverty. But if God loves the fetus, why would he allow it to be brought up in an environment of poverty?

Yes, I understand that is your viewpoint. I also believe it is an evil viewpoint.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Indeed - I agree with you. They have very much softened their pro-choice rhetoric to attract Catholics and other Christians.

Yes, I understand that is your viewpoint. I also believe it is an evil viewpoint.

I often wonder if those who wish to arbitrarily decree who is and who is not a human ever imagine someone else applying such distinctions to them, personally?

 

[rlg94086]

I often wonder if those who wish to arbitrarily decree who is and who is not a human ever imagine someone else applying such distinctions to them, personally?

Exactly. A point not lost on my handicapped brother, who could have been aborted by some “well-meaning utilitarian” who felt they would save him the pain of living with a handicap.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly. A point not lost on my handicapped brother, who could have been aborted by some “well-meaning utilitarian” who felt they would save him the pain of living with a handicap.

And, depending on the severity of his handicap, there are those actively working to rectify the “mistake” of his birth.

Handicapped people, the elderly, and “defective children” will all one day be routinely put to death unless we put a stop to this culture of death.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The “abortion is the solution to poverty” argument is a re-affirmation of the racist origin of Planned Parenthood is it not?

 

[vern_humphrey]

The “abortion is the solution to poverty” argument is a re-affirmation of the racist origin of Planned Parenthood is it not?

It is, indeed.

It takes the position that by eliminating the “inferior” people, we leave the field to the “superior” types.

 

[MelanieAnne]

And, depending on the severity of his handicap, there are those actively working to rectify the “mistake” of his birth.

Handicapped people, the elderly, and “defective children” will all one day be routinely put to death unless we put a stop to this culture of death.

As the mother of a Type 1 diabetic (who is due to become a father himself in about 3 months) I am particularly sensitive of the “defective children” term, as that would be what my son may be called in some future society. I shudder at the thought.

Does anyone think it is a coincidence that the same people who believe they can define which persons are worthy to be born are the same people that are seeking to control all aspects of medical procedures? And as long as there is national health care, that’s what we can look forward to.

Who knows? These people may eventually come to believe it is in our collective “best interest” for them to decide who is to live, who is to be aborted, who is to be treated and who is to be left to die, and perhaps even how long each of us is given to live, healthy or not. With virtually unlimited abortion available and with national control of all health care, it’s anyone’s guess what sort of future we can look forward to.

 

[vern_humphrey]

As the mother of a Type 1 diabetic (who is due to become a father himself in about 3 months) I am particularly sensitive of the “defective children” term, as that would be what my son may be called in some future society. I shudder at the thought.

Does anyone think it is a coincidence that the same people who believe they can define which persons are worthy to be born are the same people that are seeking to control all aspects of medical procedures? And as long as there is national health care, that’s what we can look forward to.

Who knows? These people may eventually come to believe it is in our collective “best interest” for them to decide who is to live, who is to be aborted, who is to be treated and who is to be left to die, and perhaps even how long each of us is given to live, healthy or not. With virtually unlimited abortion available and with national control of all health care, it’s anyone’s guess what sort of future we can look forward to.

There are already threads in the wind – for example, proposed laws forbidding doctors to accept cash from people on Medicare or Medicade. What happens if you need treatment and the government has decided you shouldn’t have it – even if you pay for it yourself?

You may have read a thread a while back where someone defending the Canadian system told of a friend of his father’s who was unable to wait out the list to get treatment, and who decided to try in the US. He was unable to afford the treatment out of his own pocket (and Canada would’t pay it.)

And when he went back home, he was penalized by being sent to the bottom of the list – and died before getting treatment.

 

[MelanieAnne]

There are already threads in the wind – for example, proposed laws forbidding doctors to accept cash from people on Medicare or Medicade. What happens if you need treatment and the government has decided you shouldn’t have it – even if you pay for it yourself?

You may have read a thread a while back where someone defending the Canadian system told of a friend of his father’s who was unable to wait out the list to get treatment, and who decided to try in the US. He was unable to afford the treatment out of his own pocket (and Canada would’t pay it.)

And when he went back home, he was penalized by being sent to the bottom of the list – and died before getting treatment.

Exactly. And there are age limits on certain procedures in Canada. Above a certain age, some procedures are simply not available. So a person either has to pay cash in the US for the procedure or die. Anytime the government controls health care there is rationing. This is one form of rationing care. There will be others. It’s hard to find the compassion that is supposed to be an integral part of the system.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly. And there are age limits on certain procedures in Canada. Above a certain age, some procedures are simply not available. So a person either has to pay cash in the US for the procedure or die. Anytime the government controls health care there is rationing. This is one form of rationing care. There will be others. It’s hard to find the compassion that is supposed to be an integral part of the system.

A wiser man than I said a government single-payer system will have all the efficiency of the Post Office, and all the compassion of the IRS.

 

[MelanieAnne]

A wiser man than I said a government single-payer system will have all the efficiency of the Post Office, and all the compassion of the IRS.

Another wise person once pointed out that socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.

But that’s enough of a “downer” for today. I’m off! Cheers!

 

[Al_Masetti]

A wiser man than I said a government single-payer system will have all the efficiency of the Post Office, and all the compassion of the IRS.

Well said. But somehow we have to fit FEMA in there. And maybe the Oil for Palaces program.

 

[jediliz]

Its not as easy as you think. The way to make abortion illegal is to get R vs W overturned. Our current Supreme Court leans 5-4 in FAVOR of abortion. Petitions from Doe and Roe (Roe is Norma McCorvey) to overturn the decision that has killed 40 Million + babies that were used for (well, Norma was the poster girl until her conversion) were rejected.

Education, advances in showing the details of fetal development, etc will help reduce abortiion.

Joe Congressman just can’t introduce a bill that outlaws abortion.

 

[ribozyme]

Another wise person once pointed out that socialism has failed everywhere it has been tried.

But that’s enough of a “downer” for today. I’m off! Cheers!

It’s called Sweden…

and if you are unemployed, you will be sent to AMS-åtgärder or “labor market political activities.”

And, the liberals are less pro-choice than before. Look at the groups that the Democracy Alliance funds; the only pro-choice group is EMILY’s list. But I think funding think tanks such as the Economic Policy Institute, Center for American Progress, and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (all funded by the Democracy Alliance) would promote the social justice agenda of liberals better than funding NARAL.

ACORN
America Votes
Center for Community Change
Data Warehouse
EMILY’s List
Sierra Club
USAction
Air America Radio
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
Media Matters for America
Center for Independent Media
People for the American Way
Center for American Progress
Economic Policy Institute
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Center for Progressive Leadership
New Democrat Network
Progressive Majority

 

[MelanieAnne]

It’s called Sweden…

and if you are unemployed, you will be sent to AMS-åtgärder or “labor market political activities.”

And, the liberals are less pro-choice than before. Look at the groups that the Democracy Alliance funds; the only pro-choice group is EMILY’s list. But I think funding think tanks such as the Economic Policy Institute, Center for American Progress, and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (all funded by the Democracy Alliance) would promote the social justice agenda of liberals better than funding NARAL.

There may be some point to what you posted but I don’t know what it is nor how that point relates to this thread.

Lists of groups that support abortion in some form or another doesn’t seem to fit with the direction this thread was going. If I understood correctly you yourself support abortion to reduce poverty. That’s had its own response.

So what is the point of making this exhaustive list of organizations and think tanks ? To establish Sweden as the socialist model we should all strive for and admire? OR to highlight it as an example of yet another failed socialist experiment?

Failure and socialism go together, kinda like cheese and crackers, they’re historical partners. Yet failures never seem to deter socialists, they just move on and try it somewhere else. It’s the only system which fuels hope in its supporters when the system fails. By any objective assessment that hope must be irrational. Yet it’s quite remarkable how they continue to cling to failed beliefs, and continue to believe systems and programs as viable when proved over and over to be total failures.