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

[SILVERNAME]

Who says pro-life republicans were in control of the Suprme court??

They have not been in control of the Supreme Court for a very long time. And they still aren’t.

That is why there is still abortion on demand.

And besides many in the Republican party aren’t even social conservatives. But the whole of the Democrat party is socially liberal.

You cannot rely on judges, a human life amendment is the only way.

 

[john1863]

You cannot rely on judges, a human life amendment is the only way.

Well,

Good luck on that anytime in the near future. I’m 50 and relatively certain that I’ll never see it, and even more certain that it would accomplish little.

John

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

The only law that going to cure people like that is the law of God’s love touching their hearts and the only ones who can do the touching are we who live in His love: not the legal system, not the political system, but us.

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.

 

[vern_humphrey]

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.

Many Catholics will tie themselves in knots defending and supporting pro-abortion politicians and obstructing those who are working to end abortion.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Many Catholics will tie themselves in knots defending and supporting pro-abortion politicians and obstructing those who are working to end abortion.

I don’t support pro-abortion politicians and will not in the future, but as we have seen on this thread, making abortion illegal will, at best, take quite some time.

In the meantime, we can also make efforts to educate, to reduce the numbers of those who would even seek abortion. That is something we can do any time any where.

Another fact that gives me courage, although we have to be patient to see the results, is that while millions of people in our country have had abortions, millions of others have not, even when abortion has been freely available, even when many have suggested abortion would be the best choice for a young unwed mother. The children being raised are now often being raised by mothers who oppose abortion. In the long term, this is a good thing. Summary ~ Those that favor abortion have been aborting their legacy for years. Those that don’t have been having children. In a generation or two, the process to legally end the practice will not meet the opposition it meets now. We may not all be around to see it, but we can help make it happen by supporting life and educating young women.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I don’t support pro-abortion politicians and will not in the future, but as we have seen on this thread, making abortion illegal will, at best, take quite some time.

Yes – but however long it takes, if we wait until tomorrow to start, it will take a day longer.

In the meantime, we can also make efforts to educate, to reduce the numbers of those who would even seek abortion. That is something we can do any time any where.

And that’s what we’re doing – along with offering assistance to women who might otherwise be tempted to abort their children.

Another fact that gives me courage, although we have to be patient to see the results, is that while millions of people in our country have had abortions, millions of others have not, even when abortion has been freely available, even when many have suggested abortion would be the best choice for a young unwed mother. The children being raised are now often being raised by mothers who oppose abortion. In the long term, this is a good thing. Summary ~ Those that favor abortion have been aborting their legacy for years. Those that don’t have been having children. In a generation or two, the process to legally end the practice will not meet the opposition it meets now. We may not all be around to see it, but we can help make it happen by supporting life and educating young women.

That’s exactly what we’re doing.

 

[Adonis33]

“It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can stop him from lynching me, and I think that’s pretty important.”

–Martin Luther King Jr.

I think trying to change people hearts in regards to abortion is extremely important. However - the idea that we should do nothing because “people will do it anyway” is ridiculous. That way of thinking could be applied to any law.
At the moment - we may or may not be successful in changing everybody’s hearts about abortion - but we should at least stop the lynching.

 

[ribozyme]

We need to re-define CHOICE as a society. I am pro-CHOICE too, I just make the CHOICE at a more appropriate time.

A person can CHOOSE not to have sex, not to risk making a baby. That’s REAL choice because the only one you are choosing for is yourself. This kind of CHOICE applies to both male and female.

When abortion is chosen, the baby doesn’t get to pick. That’s not real choice. That’s why the time of the choice has to be narrowed down to the right time.

What? Do people get to choose whether they are born in affluence inheriting millions or whether they are born in poverty? Do people choose whether they would have diseases such as Down syndrome or not?

 

[Adonis33]

What? Do people get to choose whether they are born in affluence inheriting millions or whether they are born in poverty? Do people choose whether they would have diseases such as Down syndrome or not?

Irrelevant. none of these is an excuse for the choice of murdering your child while in the womb.

 

[ribozyme]

Irrelevant. none of these is an excuse for the choice of murdering your child while in the womb.

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.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I believe it is important to point out that people do not choose what type of life they will live.

And that gives other people the right to choose that they die? When they have been accused of no crime, and recieved no trial?

I understand that some Republicans here are opposed to government programs that are designed to help the unfortunate.

Where did you see that? I have only seen opposition to programs that have failed.

But on the other hand, you oppose programs that work – like universal world-quality education.

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 .

Which programs are those?

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

People who believe they can improve the race of man by selectively removing sub-standard people from the breeding stock.

 

[ribozyme]

And that gives other people the right to choose that they die? When they have been accused of no crime, and recieved no trial?

People who believe they can improve the race of man by selectively removing sub-standard people from the breeding stock.

Do you have any evidence that John Rawls and Peter Singer advocate coercive sterilization? Other proposals do not involve such methods although they have the potential of exacerbating inequality, but that’s another topic.

But on the other hand, you oppose programs that work – like universal world-quality education

I never opposed it; in that other thread, I simply stated that it is rather limited. I do not think it will solve every problem.

Here is something to support my assertion about the Republicans:

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

 

[vern_humphrey]

Do you have any evidence that John Rawls and Peter Singer advocate coercive sterilization? Other proposals do not involve such methods although they have the potential of exacerbating inequality, but that’s another topic.

Did I say “coercive sterilization?”

I said they seek to selectively limit the ability of “sub-standard” people to breed. Do you deny that?

I never opposed it; in that other thread, I simply stated that it is rather limited. I do not think it will solve every problem.

On the grounds that the unemployed are too stupid to benefit?

Here is something to support my assertion about the Republicans:

cbpp.org/2-4-08bud2.pdf
Ah, yes – a partisan flack piece.

And one which has no bearing at all on this thread.

 

[ribozyme]

Did I say “coercive sterilization?”

I said they seek to selectively limit the ability of “sub-standard” people to breed. Do you deny that?

You said “selectively removing sub-standard people” … I thought that meant sterilization. Could you clarify what that means or will you choose to remain enigmatic?

 

[vern_humphrey]

You said “selectively removing sub-standard people” … I thought that meant sterilization.

You thought wrong.

Could you clarify what that means or will you choose to remain enigmatic?

I mean what they mean. Do you actually support these people and their policies without understanding them?

 

[ribozyme]

You thought wrong.

I mean what they mean. Do you actually support these people and their policies without understanding them?

Well, this is going off topic, but you do have any evidence that Peter Singer and John Rawls advocate those positions (at least overtly)?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, this is going off topic, but you do have any evidence that Peter Singer and John Rawls advocate those positions (at least overtly)?

“(at least overtly)?”

Tell me, what does “trans-humanism” mean?

 

[Steeltemplar]

I would suggest, Ribozyme, that you read up a bit on Singer before you identify yourself with him:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Do you really support the things he supports? (Yes, it is Wikipedia, but it is a decently sourced article)

Peter Singer is one of the most depraved people now living.

 

[ribozyme]

I would suggest, Ribozyme, that you read up a bit on Singer before you identify yourself with him:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer

Do you really support the things he supports? (Yes, it is Wikipedia, but it is a decently sourced article)

Peter Singer is one of the most depraved people now living.

I know who Peter Singer is and I have read his book Practical Ethics. I do not support all of his positions, of course, but I still agree with many of his views.

I have to thank him for outlining an ethical theory that does not require resourse to a theistic entity.

And yes, I do not eat meat (with the exception of occasional fish) anymore because of Peter Singer’s work.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I know who Peter Singer is and I have read his book Practical Ethics. I do not support all of his positions, of course, but I still agree with many of his views.

I have to thank him for outlining an ethical theory that does not require resourse to a theistic entity.

And yes, I do not eat meat (with the exception of occasional fish) anymore because of Peter Singer’s work.

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