And There You Have It. We All Are Paying For The "morning After&#3

[JimR-OCDS]

Ash Wednesday'


This topic started with blaming Obama for allowing the military to pay for the morning after pill for female soldiers
who get pregnant.

Some one else stated that we can thank Catholics who voted for Obama for this.

I disagreed and so I asked, would John McCain have done different?

His record says no, so its a mute point on whether it was Obama
or McCain who is president.

The point is, our society accepts abortion especially early term abortions and the use of the morning after pill, especially
in the case of rape. We don't like it, but we have to face the reality of the situation.

We live in a society of laws set up by a representative government which must not have one religion dictating what
laws should or should not be passed.

You have to be honest here. If you were a legislator here in the US, would you work to pass a law making early abortions
illegal?

If so, what would you make the penalty be for women who obtain abortions, surgically or through a pill? Would you have
them do jail time? After all, pro-lifers call it murder.

Until you can't answer that question and think about whether or not you could get the majority of the legislature to go along with the bill, how do you suppose any other politician could do so? The entire argument of not voting for pro-choice politicians falls on its face, because
the so-called pro-life politicians like John McCain, know that they couldn't get legislation passed banning abortions and so, just
use the issue as a means of obtaining their base support. He has voted to fund abortions in the past, so his pro-life position during the election was a lie. I'll take the person who is honest enough to state his position, over one who lies about it.

Then there are politicians like Scott Brown, who was honest about his position.

Scott Brown is truly pro-choice. He opposes abortion personally, but knows that getting a law passed that would ban it is impossible. So, he has to let it remain as an individual choice. However, because he is pro-choice in the literal sense, he opposes forcing tax payers to fund abortions and allows those health-care providers who are opposed to abortion, to opt out.

Scott Brown's opponent Martha Coakely says she's pro-choice. However, this isn't true at all, because she attempted to force Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions and hand out morning after pills. When such a politician says they're pro-choice, they're either lying or
really have no concept on what "freedom of choice" actually means.


Jim

[Winchester]

Jim's right about the ensoulment issue, but it's not scientific to state that human life begins at any point apart from conception. An egg splits into twins, that is the moment of a second human life, or perhaps there's a quality in the egg prior to conception that we haven't discovered, yet. But, from a purely scientific standpoint, human life begins at conception. There's no argument against that. The secular state can decide at which point it begins to protect that human's rights, but to argue against it being human is frikking Rahmarded.

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]You have to be honest here. If you were a legislator here in the US, would you work to pass a law making early abortions
illegal?

If so, what would you make the penalty be for women who obtain abortions, surgically or through a pill? Would you have
them do jail time? After all, pro-lifers call it murder. [/quote]

Yes.

Mandatory long-term counselling.

You never know, it could fly in a red state. People are attracted to strong leadership. Besides, we shouldn't let other people decide the stances we take on these issues just because they outnumber us.

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 February 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1265467757' post='2051933']
You have to be honest here. If you were a legislator here in the US, would you work to pass a law making early abortions
illegal?

If so, what would you make the penalty be for women who obtain abortions, surgically or through a pill? Would you have
them do jail time? After all, pro-lifers call it murder.

Until you can't answer that question and think about whether or not you could get the majority of the legislature to go along with the bill, how do you suppose any other politician could do so? The entire argument of not voting for pro-choice politicians falls on its face, because
the so-called pro-life politicians like John McCain, know that they couldn't get legislation passed banning abortions and so, just
use the issue as a means of obtaining their base support. He has voted to fund abortions in the past, so his pro-life position during the election was a lie. I'll take the person who is honest enough to state his position, over one who lies about it.
[/quote]
The Church says we must fight to get it made illegal. I don't have to figure out the penalties--I didn't put myself in the position of legislator. That's simply a distraction. I've seen it used before by those who don't want abortion made illegal. It's an emotional argument.

[Winchester]

And after 8 years of pretending the president was an autocrat, it's our turn to ridicule the Comrade, whether it's right or not.

If I could figure out a way to pin the deaths of puppies on Dear Leader, I would. All this croutons is only so much performance, anyway. Scott Brown cares about getting elected, same as Kennedy, same as Dear Leader. They care about one thing and that is themselves--all these supposed causes dear to them are pieces in their game. Their job is to run for office. They know it and anyone who thinks differently has been duped.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Winchester' date='06 February 2010 - 11:08 AM' timestamp='1265468881' post='2051940']
The Church says we must fight to get it made illegal. I don't have to figure out the penalties--I didn't put myself in the position of legislator. That's simply a distraction. I've seen it used before by those who don't want abortion made illegal. It's an emotional argument.
[/quote]


If you fight to get it illegal, you have to know what a legislator is going to use to penalize those who violate the law.

That's how laws work. If you make a law with no consequence for breaking it, its meaningless.

Fact is, Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island, couldn't answered the question when he was on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

[MOD]negative criticism of a Bishop-MIkolbe[/mod]


Jim

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 February 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1265467757' post='2051933']
If so, what would you make the penalty be for women who obtain abortions, surgically or through a pill? Would you have
them do jail time? After all, pro-lifers call it murder.
[/quote]

Of course I'd have them do jail time.

[KeenanParkerII]

Well, punishment is, theoretically, a form of rehabilitation. So naturally, whatever form of rehabilitation is necessary to help mothers and doctors willing to commit abortion back into the realm of morality will suffice as a form of punishment. If we're looking at it from a more classical sense, we could always throw some jail-time in for good measure.

But I agree with Winchester that these are secondary details. First, we need people willing to stand up and say that it is wrong and should be illegal.

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 February 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1265488422' post='2052113']
If you fight to get it illegal, you have to know what a legislator is going to use to penalize those who violate the law.

That's how laws work. If you make a law with no consequence for breaking it, its meaningless.

Fact is, Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island, couldn't answered the question when he was on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

The Bishop was pretty much shown to be incompetent, when trying to explain how a law could be made and what penalty
would violation of the law bring. He stumbled all over himself trying to get out of the question.


Jim
[/quote]
Thank you for illustrating my point.

[Winchester]

[quote name='KeenanParkerII' date='06 February 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1265488666' post='2052116']
Well, punishment is, theoretically, a form of rehabilitation. So naturally, whatever form of rehabilitation is necessary to help mothers and doctors willing to commit abortion back into the realm of morality will suffice as a form of punishment. If we're looking at it from a more classical sense, we could always throw some jail-time in for good measure.

But I agree with Winchester that these are secondary details. First, we need people willing to stand up and say that it is wrong and should be illegal.
[/quote]
Initial penalties for the mother would have to be very limited due to many years of the state implying it to be morally licit. Doctors would face harsher penalties to discourage them doing it and because they are less emotionally involved and more informed as to the nature of life, with less excuse for ignorance.

But the fact remains that this question is a last redoubt for nancies.

[StMichael]

I posted this a few pages back. The legal route can turn this around, as you can see it has been built upon since Roe and now we are publicly funding abortions. So lets look into this.

OK. Aside from this country being based on Judeo-Christian basics, lets look into how the ruling of Roe V. Wade violates the Constitution (which is the law of our land regardless of what some, including our President believe).

The Supreme Court allowance for abortion is based on the 14th amendment, which came into being after the Civil War, giving a broad definition of CITIZENSHIP. The Court mangled the due process clause claiming "right to privacy" based on the 14th Amendment.

Furthermore, the Federal Government ripped away the rights of the States on this single matter. This court, made abortion a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

The dissent tells us far more than the hocus-pocus of the ruling.

"I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court." - Justices White & Rehnquist

This flawed ruling has found other arguments built upon it, referencing the 13th Amendment (abolished slavery and involuntary servitude), whereby banning or limiting abortions would force mothers who want to abort into involuntary servitude.

You do not have to be Roman Catholic to believe that life begins at conception, because without it none of us would be here.

That said, it has not stopped at the first trimester (12 weeks) but has extended all the way to 9 months. We have amazing technology today that you can see in the very 1st trimester, a fetus responding to sound and touch.

Where we stand as a society, and killing off over 50 million children since this ruling, is more barbaric than the Ottoman Empire was to Catholics.

The rights of these unborn are stolen as it says in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

And their Creator knew them before they were in the womb.

This also violates our rights by having us participate in government sanctioned and tax payer funded abortions, regardless of the stage, venue and performance.

As for country, 93% + are Christian, whether practiced or not, therefore the New Testament applies where we were told He knew us before we were formed in the womb.

Up until roughly the 16th Century, there was no distinction between Child and Fetus, an unborn was called a child. This fetus nonsense does nothing to change that we are denying a life that God has granted.

We are not Jewish, as Jesus is the Messiah and their laws do not apply, previously, Jews adhered to Exodus 21:22 which says "And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no [further] injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any [further] injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." They believed that the personhood would not take place until the head of the child exited the mothers womb. They also taught and eye for an eye, do we subscribe to that as well?

Muslims, who I have zero use for, allow for any and all prevention of pregnancy (contraception) but that abortion is a crime, except where the life of the mother is in danger and their law would need to rule that as such otherwise it is a crime.

So, who is for this? What religion? Combine these 3 and you are at roughly 98% of the US population and have a Constitution that had to be violated to allow this to take place.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 February 2010 - 02:33 PM' timestamp='1265488422' post='2052113']
If you fight to get it illegal, you have to know what a legislator is going to use to penalize those who violate the law.

That's how laws work. If you make a law with no consequence for breaking it, its meaningless.

Fact is, Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island, couldn't answered the question when he was on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

The Bishop was pretty much shown to be incompetent, when trying to explain how a law could be made and what penalty
would violation of the law bring. He stumbled all over himself trying to get out of the question.


Jim
[/quote]
Bishop Tobin, incompetent?

Don't go there. Don't even try it.

Edited February 6, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 February 2010 - 09:49 AM' timestamp='1265467757' post='2051933']
Ash Wednesday'

You have to be honest here. If you were a legislator here in the US, would you work to pass a law making early abortions
illegal?[/quote]

Well, I'm not an American, but if I was in govt. I'd work to get abortion restricted or banned completely.

[quote]If so, what would you make the penalty be for women who obtain abortions, surgically or through a pill? Would you have
them do jail time? After all, pro-lifers call it murder. [/quote]

It would depend on, of course, how the new law against abortion deems abortion. Is it a form of manslaughter, murder II, or murder I? So, whatever the punishment for murder or what ever form of homicide that the jury finds the woman guilty of, should be what she is given for procuring an abortion.

Of course, the law is not an ogre. It would not execute a woman who sought an abortion for rape. The law would acknowledge there are mitigating circumstances for murder in much the same way as it does now. If a woman were to find out her rapist lived three doors down and so one night slit his throat, she'd be given a lighter sentence. If a man comes home and finds his wife in bed with his brother and kills them both, the law gives him a lighter sentence.

Plus, I think a lighter sentence should be given to women who give up the abortionist. If the woman was forced into the abortion, and the defence can prove she was forced, then she should not be held accountable. Same with young girls, a 10 year old can't really make a proper decision regarding abortion and so if she was forced or "choose" an abortion then the law could view her act of pre-natal murder in much the same way as it views any minor who commits a serious crime.

It'd all depend on the situation, and the motives and those who were involved to determine whether or not the woman was truly seeking an abortion for the purposes of killing the child or whether she was seeking an abortion because she was forced into.

While the risk of a pregnancy to a mother's life is slim, I think any abortion banning law would need to have a clause where the situation of a mother's life would be mentioned - if only to appease those who feel uncomfortable with an outright ban. Their discomfort, of course, being the result of missinformation and a campaign of lies by the pro-abortion movement.

With this said, it needs to be based on science and medical reasoning, not this BS of "mental health risk" but a list of know fatal illnesses the pregnancy can cause - but in reality, the list would probably only have ectopic pregnancy on it, as all other "risky pregnancies" can be ended without killing the child. Pre-term birth can be used.

[quote]Scott Brown's opponent Martha Coakely says she's pro-choice. However, this isn't true at all, because she attempted to force Catholic Hospitals to perform abortions and hand out morning after pills. When such a politician says they're pro-choice, they're either lying or
really have no concept on what "freedom of choice" actually means.


Jim
[/quote]

The problem with "personally pro-life, politically pro-abortion" politicans is that the Pro-Life movement doesn't seem to have the intestinal fortitude to punish them by withholding our votes.

Instead, people are now not one issue voters, this needs to change. People need to realise that abortion might be ONE issue but it is a heck of an issue!

If a pro-life politican votes in a pro-abortion way, don't re-elect them. We need to be firm with our representives, as, after all, they're representing us! We need to have a hard core education campaign where people are taught to vote for completely pro-life candiates and not for the pro-abortion candiates who might be offering a carrot in the way of greater social benefits.

And really, there is no concept of "freedom of choice' in regards to "pro-choice". Choice = abortion.

How?

Well, when someone says they are "pro-choice" we all knwo that to mean they support a woman's right to choose abortion. HOwever, when someone says "that person over there is anti-choice" they are saying that that person is against abortion, not against the act of choosing. As no one is truly "anti-choice".

So, if pro-choice is for abortion and anti-choice is against abortion, we can conclude, in all semantical correctness that:

Choice = Abortion.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='06 February 2010 - 03:33 PM' timestamp='1265488422' post='2052113']
If you fight to get it illegal, you have to know what a legislator is going to use to penalize those who violate the law.

That's how laws work. If you make a law with no consequence for breaking it, its meaningless.

Fact is, Bishop Tobin of Rhode Island, couldn't answered the question when he was on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

The Bishop was pretty much shown to be incompetent, when trying to explain how a law could be made and what penalty
would violation of the law bring. He stumbled all over himself trying to get out of the question.
[/quote]
1. Overturning Roe v. Wade would not make abortion illegal.

2. Assuming it is overturned and states make abortion illegal, the penalties would more than likely fall on the doctor and pretend doctors. Abortion was illegal in America at one time. There is a wealth of legal history that can be tapped to determine what penalties would ensue for killing an unborn.

3. Prohibition on the killing of the unborn would have consequences. The presence of a debate about what those consequences are does not eliminate the presence of consequences.

4. It is not the bishop's job to decide the implementation of civil law. He is not a lawyer or legislature. It is up to politicians to develop civil law which satisfies moral law.

[KeenanParkerII]

[quote]4. It is not the bishop's job to decide the implementation of civil law. He is not a lawyer or legislature. It is up to politicians to develop civil law which satisfies moral law. [/quote]

Bravo. This point is so valid that I feel I have to re-quote it. Neither the Bishop nor the Bible have the responsibility of providing legal or scientific justification of anything. They provide moral and spiritual guidance, and any justification through reason [ie. theology] is secondary to those imperatives. Once again, bravo Kamiller.