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

[vern_humphrey]

The answer is very simple. The Republican Party has no inherent interest in eliminating abortion as flogging the abortion issue gains them the unquestioning votes of millions of Christians without having to make any expenditures whatsoever.

Ah, with enough spite and bile, one can believe anything.

 

[MelanieAnne]

So true. And never mind facts!

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Is nobody here interested in returning to the original topic?

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Bump goes the weasel:

Originally Posted by DanteAlighieri
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

 

[rlg94086]

Bump goes the weasel:

Nothing personal Dante, but I’ve read your post a couple of times…it’s not on topic either.

The topic is about the supposed inaction on the part of Republicans because they didn’t make abortion illegal when they had the majority in government.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Nothing personal Dante, but I’ve read your post a couple of times…it’s not on topic either.

The topic is about the supposed inaction on the part of Republicans because they didn’t make abortion illegal when they had the majority in government.

Au contraire: I was responding to Ribozyme, who said:

Originally Posted by ribozyme
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.

…to which I responded

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.

I admit, it’s a bit tangential, but it’s at least about abortion and not welfare.

Peace,
Dante

 

[ProVobis]

The only viable solution is to return the power to the States as they would have the ultimate decision on how to enforce the law, as well as the punishment.

If the argument is that, by doing so, one who seeks the abortion would find another state to get the abortion, that doesn’t wash. If all the states punished the abortionist, then one determined to get an abortion would find it in another country. There’s not much we can do there.

 

[weddy]

without reading more than the first page:
I can only think of 2 reasons as to why they( dem or rep) won’t get rid of abortion:

1 - $$$$ money $$$$ - with so much money going into the wholesale murder of infants, who would get rid of revenues???

2 - population control - opening up a center of voluntary pop. control worked out to their advantage (not enough people to remove them from office & turn our country around)

Yes, it angers me to no end

 

[MelanieAnne]

without reading more than the first page:
I can only think of 2 reasons as to why they( dem or rep) won’t get rid of abortion:

1 - $$$$ money $$$$ - with so much money going into the wholesale murder of infants, who would get rid of revenues???

2 - population control - opening up a center of voluntary pop. control worked out to their advantage (not enough people to remove them from office & turn our country around)

Yes, it angers me to no end

The only problem with that pro-abortion line of thinking (for them) is that they are aborting themselves out of existence. That is the only thing about this tragedy that gives me hope.

 

[scott1228]

My understanding was that the Republican approach is to appoint constructionist judges to the Supreme Court so that Roe v Wade can be overturned.

Are you not aware that Alito and Roberts are strict constructionists, but also Catholic?

As long as we get another President who appoints contructionist judges, we are on the right path. However, I have grave doubts about that.

Scott

 

[sosayi1960]

Do you not believe that between abortion and restrictions on breeding, such people should be caused to perish out of the race?

You’ve already told us you HATE the Republicans, so what you think about “Republican ideology” is hardly based on objective facts, now is it?

If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. Kinda funny ain’t it

 

[scott1228]

No, I do not think that is funny. Not in the least.

 

[MelanieAnne]

No, I do not think that is funny. Not in the least.

I agree that it isn’t the least bit funny, in fact to say “If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament” strikes me as a form of blasphemy.

Anyone who would say that (in this case the poster was ‘sosayi1960’) has obviously had their values, morals and very conscience so seared by the current-day culture of death that they have become unable to discern right from wrong, for what person with morals and values could advocate the murder of innocent children?

This person obviously needs our prayers, and if they ever do re-discover morality, this person will need our support because the guilt and the grieving will be overwhelming.

 

[mangy_dog]

Is nobody here interested in returning to the original topic?

Peace,
Dante

The reason why Republicans (or Democrats or any other party) didn’t make abortion illegal is because it is not about the sanctity of life or when life begins or anything like that. It’s about the votes and the power. Not because any political party “believes”. Once in office - promises are broken, forgotten, put on the back burner or rejected all together for alledged fear of being partial to one faith or the other.

It would take a Warning from God or a Miracle of some sort to change the hearts, minds and agendas of political party members to enact humane, ethical, moral laws. I pray that the hearts and minds and agendas would change soon - otherwise I believe that a great Chastisement will befall us. All we can do is pray…that’s our job, to pray.

Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. Kinda funny ain’t it

I’m active in the Pro-life movement, and oddly enough, most of the people in that movement are women.

And last time I checked, women can get pregnant.

Kinda funny ain’t it?

 

[steveandersen]

Is nobody here interested in returning to the original topic?

Peace,
Dante

IRRC it is approved of by the majority of voters if not a large plurality.
Political parties can’t routinely both oppose the majority and try to stay in power.
(A cynical man might even observe that an emotional divisive issue like this is useful for rallying the troops at election time. After all how many “I prefer the Democrats’ social policies but I could never vote for a pro abortion candidate” threads have we seen on these forums? I of course couldn’t be that cynical.)

Also the “constructionist” judges that conservatives tend to look for are usually loathed to overturn precedents. So even the most ideal candidate will most likely try to refine the decision more precisely than toss it out completely.

Additionally judges can only rule on cases that are brought before them. A person who wants to have an abortion already can in most instances and is likely not to bring the matter to court. A third party who opposes abortion may not have standing and thus can’t bring the matter to a court. So we are stuck with challenges to incremental restrictions rather than outright bans. As time goes on and we have more and more of these hairsplitting decisions the legislative wiggle room for news laws that can pass muster gets smaller and smaller.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I think that something that has gotten lost here is that even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would not make abortion “illegal”, it would merely return the law to what it was before Roe v. Wade ~ which was that the individual states, and not the Federal Government, have the authority to decide what is, and is not, legal in their state in regards to this practice.

 

[rlg94086]

IRRC it is approved of by the majority of voters if not a large plurality.
Political parties can’t routinely both oppose the majority and try to stay in power.
(A cynical man might even observe that an emotional divisive issue like this is useful for rallying the troops at election time. After all how many “I prefer the Democrats’ social policies but I could never vote for a pro abortion candidate” threads have we seen on these forums? I of course couldn’t be that cynical.)

The problem with that very partisan cynicism is that on the CAF, the threads regarding abortion and politics (from both sides) are non-stop…not just at election time. Your cynicism should at least have a little bit of evidence to back it up, don’t you think? Otherwise, I could make the same argument regarding liberal anti-war stances which seem to be more prevalent while a Republican is in office but strangely silent when a Democrat is in office bombing the heck out of people.

 

[RobbyS]

The problem with that very partisan cynicism is that on the CAF, the threads regarding abortion and politics (from both sides) are non-stop…not just at election time. Your cynicism should at least have a little bit of evidence to back it up, don’t you think? Otherwise, I could make the same argument regarding liberal anti-war stances which seem to be more prevalent while a Republican is in office but strangely silent when a Democrat is in office bombing the heck out of people.

Not surprising that the Republican party has done so little about reducing abortion. Fifty years ago, the Republicans had the closest ties to Planned Parenthood. But in 1972 the liberals gained control of the Democratic Party and denied power to Catholics in the national leadership. Catholics opposed to abortion gradually moved to the Republican Party but they weren’t welcomed with open arms by a Party with a long Protestant history. Only when southern evangelicals also came into the Party did the majority become pro-life. Many liberal Republicans crossed the Aisle to the now liberal Democratic Party, but enough remained–including the most affluent members–that the pro-choicers have strong support in the GOP… Reagan was pro-life, but Nancy is pro-choice. Judge Clark is pro-life, but Jim Baker is not. The head of the party only reluctantly follows the heart. Look at the poor reception that Pat Buchanan got at the 1992 convention.

 

[BarbG]

There seems to be quite a “hassle” here as to which party is more pro-life. I “hate” to upset any Democrats in this discussion but I did participate in the Walk for Life here in San Francisco – a few days after the Walk here I watched on the Catholic TV channel - EWTN - the March for Life in the East. A number of politicians spoke at the mike – and NOT ONE of them was a Democrat – ALL of them were Republicans. I do hope Roe vs. Wade will eventually be overturned – I do have 3 adopted children in my family and wonder every day what would have happened to them if their birth mother had decided to have an abortion.