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

[ribozyme]

Tell me who a man’s heroes are, and I’ll tell you a great deal about the man.

Top five on my head:

1. George Soros
2. Paul Krugman
3. Peter Singer
4. Robert Greenstein
5. James Hughes

 

[vern_humphrey]

Top five on my head:

1. George Soros
2. Paul Krugman
3. Peter Singer
4. Robert Greenstein
5. James Hughes

Just one of those would be enough to make me doubt your position!

 

[Adonis33]

I believe it is important to point out that people do not choose what type of life they will live. I understand that some Republicans here are opposed to government programs that are designed to help the unfortunate. I do not see how one can oppose abortion because they allegedly have concern for the unborn while wanting to abolish programs that are designed to help them .

But I am not influenced by the CCC, instead people such as Rawls and Singer form the basis of my definition of social justice.

“The type of life they will live” determines whether or not somebody is murdered in the womb? Do you believe that some human beings deserve life - and other do not?

 

[ribozyme]

“The type of life they will live” determines whether or not somebody is murdered in the womb? Do you believe that some human beings deserve life - and other do not?

I will not answer that question directly, but personally I will say that I do not know if I deserve life. I do not know if I am worth preserving when during my fledgling stage as a fetus in my mother’s womb. I will not attempt an argument for or against it here.

It does not answer your question… but I believe my answer would not be as insensitive if I used myself as an example in my attempt to answer your question.

Just one of those would be enough to make me doubt your position!

Hmm… Do not respond to this remark here, but do so in this thread (and it would be more appropriate) as I do not want to derail this further:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=219263

Well, I do not how you could dislike a person such as Greenstein who advocates and does research on the behalf of the poor. Do you know who Greenstein was when I mentioned him in that litany?

 

[MelanieAnne]

I remember from a recent act of contrition that we need to avoid things that are evil and that could lead us to sin.

That list of 5 names looks like just the sort of thing a wise person would avoid. I know I will avoid them, and all who support such persons.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I will not answer that question directly, but personally I will say that I do not know if I deserve life. I do not know if I am worth preserving when during my fledgling stage as a fetus in my mother’s womb. I will not attempt an argument for or against it here.

The position of the Church is not that everyone deserves to live or that anyone is “worth preserving”; rather, that nobody gets to decide whether an innocent life should end. The reason for this is simple: God is the author of life, and as such is the only one who may choose to end it (for simplicity’s sake, I’m disregarding capital punishment here).

Thus, the quality or utility of a given life is immaterial; one’s self-awareness is immaterial (sorry, Singer). Human life possesses a dignity that cannot be cast aside by ethical slights of hand because of the very fact that each of us is created as a unique individual by the hand of God – body and soul.

Peace,
Dante

 

[seekerz]

with your logic, not only should we not try and make abortion illegal, despite what the church teaches, but we should get rid of all laws, including those prohibiting murder, rape and chilid porn because like you said, only we can change hearts, not the legal system.

this argument is absurd. the law is there to encourage you to live virtuous lives. it reflects the law written in the hearts of men. that is why all must obey it.

it sounds like many catholics think legalized abortion is a non issue politically.

Let me say that I feel you unfairly picked one paragraph out of my post and discussed it totally out of context. A law against abortion, in my opinion will only serve to sweep the practice under the rug where we cannot see it. That is so because of the widespread acceptance of and indifference to abortion as well as to the fact that there are many ways to deliberately end a pregnancy, some of which are undetectable.

To take my statement and compare it to murder, rape or child porn (none of which have ever been legal in this country) is so far out that you leave me speechless.

The fact remains, though secular laws may or may not curb abortion they cannot turn someone from supporting abortion to abhorring it. The more we place the onus on politicians to do what is actually the task of Christians, the less we achieve.

P.S. We in America love to live and think in a bubble, considering our problems to be unique and to belong to one side or other of the political fence. In fact, the abortion issue has plagued man for centuries, affects the whole world and certainly predated modern political ideologies. If it is not the definition of a spiritual malaise, I don’t know what is. If there exists a secular entity which can definitively solve a spiritual problem, I’d like to learn about it.

 

[rlg94086]

I believe it is important to point out that people do not choose what type of life they will live. I understand that some Republicans here are opposed to government programs that are designed to help the unfortunate. I do not see how one can oppose abortion because they allegedly have concern for the unborn while wanting to abolish programs that are designed to help them .

Republicans are opposed to government programs…they are not opposed to helping the unfortunate. There is a difference. I know you consider yourself smart, so you should be able to figure out the distinction there.

But I am not influenced by the CCC, instead people such as Rawls and Singer form the basis of my definition of social justice.

Lou Rawls is a pretty good Singer, but that is no basis for a philosophy of life.

 

[ribozyme]

Republicans are opposed to government programs…they are not opposed to helping the unfortunate. There is a difference. I know you consider yourself smart, so you should be able to figure out the distinction there.

Do you honestly believe that charity will solve all needs? I do not care if it is virtuous, but I doubt charity will fulfill the functions of many government programs. Do you have any evidence that it would?

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.

But if people are unwilling to help the unfortunate, I could understand how some people think it is the lesser evil to abort a child than to raise in an environment with severe disadvantages. It, of course, is a rather Painful Choice (pun intented) and not one made with delectation.

 

[rlg94086]

Do you honestly believe that charity will solve all needs? I do not care if it is virtuous, but I doubt charity will fulfill the functions of many government programs. Do you have any evidence that it would?

I’m sorry, but can you show me the evidence of the efficacy of government programs versus charity? You made a charge that Republicans don’t care for the unfortunate. It was a baseless charge.

Also, I should amend my previous statement - Republicans are not against all government programs. However, we are for changing the way they are administered.

For example, we believe in vouchers or real choice in schools, and we believe in privatizing Social Security. Both of these efforts would do far more for the impoverished than they currently do, and they treat people with more dignity than the current programs do.

 

[ribozyme]

I’m sorry, but can you show me the evidence of the efficacy of government programs versus charity? You made a charge that Republicans don’t care for the unfortunate. It was a baseless charge.

Also, I should amend my previous statement - Republicans are not against all government programs. However, we are for changing the way they are administered.

For example, we believe in vouchers or real choice in schools, and we believe in privatizing Social Security. Both of these efforts would do far more for the impoverished than they currently do, and they treat people with more dignity than the current programs do.

I think charity will be underfunded… do you have evidence that the rich in general will munificently give to charity? To the contrary you advocate policies that discourage charity.
cbpp.org/8-3-04tax.htm

Here is some evidence that government programs are somewhat effective:

cbpp.org/7-19-05acc-pr.htm

But, I’ll post something that will make you extremely happy:

In the poverty area, funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) would be cut $570 million or 22 percent, even before adjusting for changes in energy prices. This would require cutting more than 1 million low-income families and elderly people off the program entirely, shrinking the average amount of assistance provided to poor families by 22 percent, or some combination of the two. The funding level the President proposes for LIHEAP in 2009 — $2.0 billion — is identical to the program’s funding level in 2001, even though home energy prices are now 65 percent higher than in 2001.
• The budget would freeze funding for child care assistance for low-income families for the seventh consecutive year. After adjusting for inflation, child care funding has already fallen by almost 17 percent since 2002. (Between 2002 and 2006, the last year for which data are available, the number of low-income children grew by more than 8 percent.) According to the Administration’s own data, 200,000 fewer children in low-income families would receive federal child care assistance in 2009 than in 2007, under the President’s budget.
• The budget reduces or freezes funding for a number of other low-income assistance programs, as well. For example, because of cuts in the Section 8 housing voucher program, the nation’s largest low-income rental assistance program, at least 100,000 fewer low-income households would receive voucher assistance.

cbpp.org/2-4-08bud2.pdf

 

[rlg94086]

I think charity will be underfunded… do you have evidence that the rich in general will munificently give to charity? To the contrary to advocate policies that discourage charity.
cbpp.org/8-3-04tax.htm

:yawn: Not evidence…just opinion by people who are pro-taxation.

Here is some evidence that government programs are somewhat effective:

cbpp.org/7-19-05acc-pr.htm

Not what I asked…do you have evidence of the government working better than charity? I never claimed that government programs aren’t “somewhat effective.” What I will argue is that they are inefficient and some of them have a negative impact by encouraging reliance on the government.

 

[ribozyme]

:yawn: Not evidence…just opinion by people who are pro-taxation.

Not what I asked…do you have evidence of the government working better than charity? I never claimed that government programs aren’t “somewhat effective.” What I will argue is that they are inefficient and some of them have a negative impact by encouraging reliance on the government.

But some people do not have the ability to help themselves. They will always be dependent and do not have anyone else to rely one.

 

[rlg94086]

But some people do not have the ability to help themselves. They will always be dependent and do not have anyone else to rely one.

That is a very, very small group of people. Do you have evidence that Republicans don’t believe in helping those people with government assistance? Tell you what…why don’t we compromise and drop all government programs, except that those that help the severely mentally and physically disabled.

 

[ribozyme]

That is a very, very small group of people. Do you have evidence that Republicans don’t believe in helping those people with government assistance? Tell you what…why don’t we compromise and drop all government programs, except that those that help the severely mentally and physically disabled.

Look above, look at Bush’s budget cuts? Are you happy when you read that?

 

[rlg94086]

Look above, look at Bush’s budget cuts? Are you happy when you read that?

Are you arguing…that those effected are mentally and/or physically handicapped?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I note that no one asks, “What are these budget cuts?”

Are they actual cuts, that is, a reduction in spending? Or are they merely reductions in the planned increase in spending?

And how does amount spent correlate with effectiveness? Are we actually accomplishing something with the funds, or are we merely throwing money at the problem? Where is the true accountability – a demonstration that we are actually getting our money’s worth from the spending?

 

[ribozyme]

Are you arguing…that those effected are mentally and/or physically handicapped?

That is a very, very small group of people. Do you have evidence that Republicans don’t believe in helping those people with government assistance? Tell you what…why don’t we compromise and drop all government programs, except that those that help the severely mentally and physically disabled.

I think a significant minority are like that… maybe 10-15 percent of the population. I referenced that in another thread, but you called it “elitist, academic excrement.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think a significant minority are like that… maybe 10-15 percent of the population. I referenced that in another thread, but you called it “elitist, academic excrement.”

Those would be the same people you want to eliminate from the population, right?

 

[ribozyme]

Those would be the same people you want to eliminate from the population, right?

What do you mean I want them eliminated from the population? Illegal immigrants consume more in public services than they contribute, but I do not go on rants arguing for their deportation unlike some conservative commentators.

But instead, I think it would be compassionate to establish a nanny state that can provide for people who lack the ability to completely provide for themselves. I think that is what people would agree on if they are in the “original position.” I do believe that is relevant to the thread because we should not only care for people in the womb, but also throughout their entire lives. I think the Republican ideology is inconsistent with a concern for life.