Abortion, Legal Or Illegal

[Winchester]

[quote name='musturde' post='1893134' date='Jun 16 2009, 12:48 PM']No, making it illegal will only outrage the people who fight to keep it legal. Abortion is legal now but you're not convinced that it's right. You cannot change people's minds simply by changing laws. The heart must be changed first.[/quote]
You're advocating keeping a form of murder legal until we change society.

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' post='1893134' date='Jun 16 2009, 12:48 PM']I'm sure there are some that won't. I also believe there will be a popular black market for abortions.



Yes, but "rape" and "murder" are not accepted by a majority of society.



No, making it illegal will only outrage the people who fight to keep it legal. Abortion is legal now but you're not convinced that it's right. You cannot change people's minds simply by changing laws. The heart must be changed first.[/quote]
So according to you, should the law reflect [i]justice[/i], or merely whatever the current popular opinion of the time happens to be?

As I've said repeatedly, if the law does not defend innocent human life at its most vulnerable, it is without moral foundation, and worthless.

If rape and murder (of persons already born, that is) were in fact accepted by a majority of the population, should laws against them be repealed?

Maybe we should we start repealing laws against murder and theft in high-crime areas, then?

Of course outlawing any evil will "outrage" those who wish to commit those evils without hindrance from the law.
This again begs the question: should the basis for law be justice, or the feelings of miscreants?

And if people would be outraged about abortion being illegal, that contradicts your idea that laws against abortion would be entirely worthless. Pro-abortion people would be outraged and upset precisely because such laws would make it more difficult for those who wish to be able to kill unborn babies.
No law can totally eliminate evil behavior (after all plenty of people commit murders and thefts every day), but they[i] do[/i] act as a deterrent; plenty of people everyday avoid doing certain things they might be inclined to do because they don't want to face jail-time or other penalties. (Such people simply don't make the headlines.)

It seems that law in your view should not be based in justice--objective right and wrong--at all, but rather be determined ultimately by mob sentiment.
And that is a prescription for barbarism at its worst.

And here's one for all you bleeding hearts who claim to believe abortion is wrong, but should be legal:
Do you think laws against slavery would be wrong if slavery was accepted by much of the population? (Or even laws against lesser forms of racial discrimination, for that matter?)
After all, back in the day, a lot of people were perfectly fine with slavery.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Two Hearts' post='1893151' date='Jun 16 2009, 12:57 PM']Unfortunately, if abortion is illegal, then more babies will born into situation where they are not wanted and abused/neglected and so on. I realize this is a very general statement and do not mean it to be [i]the [/i]answer....but if society is going to ban a woman's right to choose what is best for her and her unborn child, then we must have provisions for their complete and loving care.

What troubles me about the pro-life debate is that many pro-lifers support the death penalty and yet are blind to the connection that a life is a life.[/quote]
As the Church recognizes, there is a difference between an innocent life, and the life of of one guilty of committing murder and other horrific crimes, and has become a threat to his fellow man.
The Church teaches that capital punishment may be necessary in certain cases, but that abortion, the killing of the innocent, is [i]never[/i] morally acceptable.
Sadly, it seems the concept of basic justice is entirely lacking in modern liberalism.

[quote]I voted for Obama b/c there was more at stake in our country and no one else running could even come close to making the needed changes.[/quote]
So what exactly is so wonderful now that Obama is in the White House that it justifies supporting the of killing of innocent children?

[quote]I would not have an abortion and would try to dissuade friend from having one....have also provided child care so a friend would choose life rather than terminate a pregnancy.

In my heart it is not a cut and dry issue. I wish it was as it would be so much easier.

Now, you can tear me apart all you like. Doesn't matter...this is a place where we can have our say.[/quote]
You can have your say, but there's no reason we shouldn't tear your drivel apart.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Socrates

[Angel*Star]

[quote name='Two Hearts' post='1893151' date='Jun 16 2009, 12:57 PM']In my heart it is not a cut and dry issue. I wish it was as it would be so much easier.[/quote]


----------------

So, are you a person or not? It would be easier for me to decide if this were a cut and dry issue.

What is not so cut and dry about a baby? The two cells ALWAYS grow into a baby, which grows into a child, which grows into an adult.

----------------

Edited June 18, 2009 by Angel*Star

[musturde]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1894518' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:17 PM']You're advocating keeping a form of murder legal until we change society.[/quote]

I'm arguing strategy. We're both in favor of the same outcome. I just believe your methods won't be effective.

[musturde]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1894543' date='Jun 17 2009, 05:41 PM']So according to you, should the law reflect [i]justice[/i], or merely whatever the current popular opinion of the time happens to be?[/quote]
Justice...

[quote]As I've said repeatedly, if the law does not defend innocent human life at its most vulnerable, it is without moral foundation, and worthless.[/quote]
I agree.

[quote]If rape and murder (of persons already born, that is) were in fact accepted by a majority of the population, should laws against them be repealed?[/quote]
That's an interesting question. However, I never said abortion should never be illegal. I just believe the Church should focus on changing people's views on it before we enact legal measures.

[quote]Maybe we should we start repealing laws against murder and theft in high-crime areas, then?[/quote]
I'm not sure where you're going with this one...

[quote]Of course outlawing any evil will "outrage" those who wish to commit those evils without hindrance from the law.[/quote]
Okay, now I see.

[quote]This again begs the question: should the basis for law be justice, or the feelings of miscreants?[/quote]
Justice...

[quote]And if people would be outraged about abortion being illegal, that contradicts your idea that laws against abortion would be entirely worthless.[/quote]
Interesting point.

Edited June 19, 2009 by musturde

[musturde]

[quote]Pro-abortion people would be outraged and upset precisely because such laws would make it more difficult for those who wish to be able to kill unborn babies.
No law can totally eliminate evil behavior (after all plenty of people commit murders and thefts every day), but they[i] do[/i] act as a deterrent; plenty of people everyday avoid
doing certain things they might be inclined to do because they don't want to face jail-time or other penalties. (Such people simply don't make the headlines.)[/quote]
That is a good argument. I just don't know how many people would actually follow this law. I showed my Egypt example above and I view Egypt as more conservative than the U.S.

[quote]It seems that law in your view should not be based in justice--objective right and wrong--at all, but rather be determined ultimately by mob sentiment.[/quote]
That's not what I'm saying.

[quote]And that is a prescription for barbarism at its worst.[/quote]

I think of it as a prescription for a mob-run government.


[quote]And here's one for all you bleeding hearts who claim to believe abortion is wrong, but should be legal:[/quote]
I don't know if anyone has said that....

[quote]Do you think laws against slavery would be wrong if slavery was accepted by much of the population? (Or even laws against lesser forms of racial discrimination, for that matter?)
After all, back in the day, a lot of people were perfectly fine with slavery.[/quote]

Yes! Thank you for bringing this up. Thomas Jefferson was also against slavery. However, he never outlawed the practice when he was president. Obviously both of these topics are very different. However, I believe nothing will come out of the politicians who rally against abortion. They're just securing your vote. Even if Mccain won the election and put restrictions on abortion, what is it to stop the next president from taking away those restrictions? The legal part is important, but if you want to make abortion illegal, you need to actually get the country behind this idea. Otherwise, the strategy is off.

Edited June 19, 2009 by musturde

[Socrates]

[quote name='musturde' post='1895795' date='Jun 19 2009, 02:37 AM']That's an interesting question. However, I never said abortion should never be illegal. I just believe the Church should focus on changing people's views on it before we enact legal measures.[/quote]
And why should we not work to change people's views on abortion and work to change unjust laws at the same time?
I don't know why everybody seems to be brainwashed into thinking the two goals are somehow mutually exclusive.

I mean, the civil rights movement simultaneously worked to change people's views on race and overturn unjust laws. The two go hand-in-hand.

[quote name='musturde' post='1895796' date='Jun 19 2009, 02:38 AM']That is a good argument. I just don't know how many people would actually follow this law. I showed my Egypt example above and I view Egypt as more conservative than the U.S.[/quote]
All evidence indicates that abortion rates were much lower in America before abortion-on-demand became the law of the land in 1973.
Quite frankly, if anti-abortion laws saved the life of even [i]one[/i] baby, they would not be in vain.
Only an idiot would argue that making abortion illegal would [i]increase[/i] the number of abortions.

[quote]Yes! Thank you for bringing this up. Thomas Jefferson was also against slavery. However, he never outlawed the practice when he was president. Obviously both of these topics are very different. However, I believe nothing will come out of the politicians who rally against abortion. They're just securing your vote. Even if Mccain won the election and put restrictions on abortion, what is it to stop the next president from taking away those restrictions? The legal part is important, but if you want to make abortion illegal, you need to actually get the country behind this idea. Otherwise, the strategy is off.[/quote]
Obviously, Mr. Jefferson was something of a hypocrite with regards to slavery. I don't see your point in bringing him up.

And the way to keep the next president from taking away restrictions on baby killing, is to continue to vote pro-life. It's that simple.
And remember that SCOTUS justices long outlast the president.
If self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" keep voting for politicians who blatantly support abortion, of course no progress will be made on the legal/political front.

Polls show that today over half the country considers themselves "pro-life." However, we elected a blatantly pro-abortion president.

I am utterly sick of listening to self-proclaimed "pro-lifers" making defeatist excuses for voting for blatantly pro-abortion politicians, arguing that the political cause is hopeless. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

How can we "change people's views" on abortion if we can't even flip the lever for a pro-life candidate? That just sends the message to others that the issue of protecting innocent human life really can't be all that important to us.

[Sirklawd]

quick thoughts:

-you have to fight both sides of the conflict. the frontal assault against the laws, and the more subtle fight of changing people's hearts on the issue one at a time. Overturning RvW wont stop abortions. But it will close the flood gates. What about punishment? Has anyone thought about not just putting women in prison to rot, but instead put them in rehab sorta places where they can get social workers to help them. The last thing these women need is to be locked in a cell.

-stop abortion at the source: promiscuity. "women's reproductive rights" means "we want to be as detached from the offspring as men can be". From the ground up, sex education needs to be responsibility education, and true love education. Teaching kids about contraceptives exacerbates the idea that we should be able to have sex with eachother and walk away. This thought needs to become as unacceptable as slavery. Teaching that every life is valuable is a great way to start. Teaching that the dignity of the person they want to have sex with is more important than using them for a quick sexual fix will help even more.

laws can only do some of these things. they cant fix all of these problems. but everyday people can do alot. we can change the media by deciding what not to watch/buy, we can help our children by setting examples upholding dignity and responsibility.

final thing, we need to stop trying to "prove" a fetus is alive. ie: "but its got a heartbeat" or "its got toenails!" etc. we need to all agree that its human from conception. period. because it is.

Edited June 26, 2009 by Sirklawd

[Sammy Blaze]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1892108' date='Jun 15 2009, 10:45 PM']If even all self-described "pro-lifers" would actually vote pro-life, rather than making various excuses for voting for blatantly pro-abortion politicians, some significant progress could be made in this country.[/quote]

If all self-described "pro-lifers" would actually step out of their comfort zone to minister and support those who are the most vulnerable; the unborn with the much needed prenatal care, the pregnant mother who is struggling on so many levels (emotionally, physically, spiritually, financially) the family, and yes, even those who are proposing abortion in that specific situation, rather than encompassing their entire "pro-life" efforts to the yearly "pro-life" rally, maintaining a pro-life rant blog, and a few votes every few years, some significant progress could be made in this country.

No doubt we must be politically involved, we are compelled and convicted by our faith to stand for justice in all arenas, and do so courageously. I think many miss the most effective aspect though. How do we defeat a CULTURE of Death? WE affect the CULTURE. We promote a culture of Life. How do we do this? We LIVE it. We don't just vote it, or post it.

What's the point of this poll? The vast majority of this boards posters agree that abortion should be illegal. Is it to find the few that may hold a different view, and overwhelm them with responses that are more likely to chase them away from the discussion out of intimidation rather than invite them to genuine dialogue? This doesn't promote a culture, it further polarizes it. As far as I can tell, the first dissenting view was merely playing "devil's advocate" and even I was so bewildered by the substantial responses thereafter, that I stopped reading posts.

I wonder if you asked the people who consider themselves "pro-life" what they have done to promote their cause and culture,
how many do you think will respond with something to the effect of:
"I vote for life"


And that's the extent of their work. What's wrong with this picture?

AMDG!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sammy Blaze' post='1906584' date='Jun 30 2009, 06:39 PM']If all self-described "pro-lifers" would actually step out of their comfort zone to minister and support those who are the most vulnerable; the unborn with the much needed prenatal care, the pregnant mother who is struggling on so many levels (emotionally, physically, spiritually, financially) the family, and yes, even those who are proposing abortion in that specific situation, rather than encompassing their entire "pro-life" efforts to the yearly "pro-life" rally, maintaining a pro-life rant blog, and a few votes every few years, some significant progress could be made in this country.

No doubt we must be politically involved, we are compelled and convicted by our faith to stand for justice in all arenas, and do so courageously. I think many miss the most effective aspect though. How do we defeat a CULTURE of Death? WE affect the CULTURE. We promote a culture of Life. How do we do this? We LIVE it. We don't just vote it, or post it.[/quote]
I don't know if you've read the rest of what I've posted in this thread, because you seem to be missing the point.

I would agree with most of what you've said so far - I think we could probably all be doing more actively to help promote a Culture of Life.

My beef is with the idea that doing all this is somehow in conflict with voting pro-life and working to fight unjust laws which promote abortion - that it's some kind of either/or deal.

Most of the people I know who are heavily involved in the pro-life effort--ministering to women in crisis pregnancies, running centers and charities for pregnant women, educating people about pro-life issues etc.--also vote pro-life. In fact, they would find voting for a politician who blatantly supports abortion unthinkable.

Neither I nor anyone else on here was saying we shouldn't help women with difficult pregnancies and such.

My issue is with those folks who use the whole "we need to change the culture first" argument to justify voting for pro-abortion politicians.
From what I've seen, it's not really a valid argument, but a weak excuse.

[quote]What's the point of this poll? The vast majority of this boards posters agree that abortion should be illegal. Is it to find the few that may hold a different view, and overwhelm them with responses that are more likely to chase them away from the discussion out of intimidation rather than invite them to genuine dialogue? This doesn't promote a culture, it further polarizes it. As far as I can tell, the first dissenting view was merely playing "devil's advocate" and even I was so bewildered by the substantial responses thereafter, that I stopped reading posts.[/quote]
I can't speak for the intention of the op (this is an old poll).
However, I think this is certainly a topic worthy of discussion, and one in which the truth should be proclaimed boldly.
Avoiding stating any "controversial" position for fear of "scaring people away" or "polarization" is not charity, but cowardice.
Catholics/Christians should clearly proclaim the truth on moral issues more often, not less.

This may come as something of a shock to some of the bleeding hearts on here, but Jesus Himself was a rather "polarizing" figure during His earthly ministry.

[quote]I wonder if you asked the people who consider themselves "pro-life" what they have done to promote their cause and culture,
how many do you think will respond with something to the effect of:
"I vote for life"[/quote]
And some apparently cannot bother to do even that.

[Sammy Blaze]

I hope my post didn't come off abrasive or anything, not my intention at all. I also hope you didn't take my post as directed towards you, it was just a springboard for my 2 cents.
I too agree with you for the most part. I think anyone who seeks to promote a culture of life, especially a faithful Catholic, must have a consistent pro-life ethic, which includes political, social and pastoral action.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1906672' date='Jun 30 2009, 09:10 PM']I can't speak for the intention of the op (this is an old poll).
However, I think this is certainly a topic worthy of discussion, and one in which the truth should be proclaimed boldly.
Avoiding stating any "controversial" position for fear of "scaring people away" or "polarization" is not charity, but cowardice.
Catholics/Christians should clearly proclaim the truth on moral issues more often, not less.

This may come as something of a shock to some of the bleeding hearts on here, but Jesus Himself was a rather "polarizing" figure during His earthly ministry.[/quote]

Well, I never stated that we should not discuss controversial issues. Furthermore, if anything, arguing that abortion should be illegal on this particular phorum is not a controversial stance to take.

The Catholic position is not given a fair shake in any form of media, so there is a definite need to proclaim the truth more often in the public arena, and even where necessary within the church.
Defending the Catholic perspective on the dignity of the human person and hardlining are two different things though. To present the truth with clarity and charity in a way that does not completely alienate those whose hearts and minds you're trying to change is not cowardly in my mind, but prudent.

And true, Jesus was pretty polarizing, mostly controversial to the Sadducees, the religious authority. He was too progressive for the majority of them.

AMDG

[Socrates]

[quote name='Sammy Blaze' post='1906968' date='Jul 1 2009, 02:00 AM']I hope my post didn't come off abrasive or anything, not my intention at all. I also hope you didn't take my post as directed towards you, it was just a springboard for my 2 cents.
I too agree with you for the most part. I think anyone who seeks to promote a culture of life, especially a faithful Catholic, must have a consistent pro-life ethic, which includes political, social and pastoral action.[/quote]
Sorry, I wasn't totally clear. Since you were quoting me, I kind of got the impression you were chiding me and others arguing in this thread that abortion should be illegal. My apologies if my tone was unduly hostile - it's all cool.

[quote]Well, I never stated that we should not discuss controversial issues. Furthermore, if anything, arguing that abortion should be illegal on this particular phorum is not a controversial stance to take.

The Catholic position is not given a fair shake in any form of media, so there is a definite need to proclaim the truth more often in the public arena, and even where necessary within the church.
Defending the Catholic perspective on the dignity of the human person and hardlining are two different things though. To present the truth with clarity and charity in a way that does not completely alienate those whose hearts and minds you're trying to change is not cowardly in my mind, but prudent.[/quote]
Thank God that most of those voting in the poll think abortion should be illegal, but whether or not such a stance is particularly "controversial" here, the truth should still be defended. There are still some here (including some who consider themselves "pro-life") who think that we should not currently work to make abortion illegal, or who think we should support "pro-choice" politicians.
Considering that the majority of Americans now consider themselves "pro-life" on the abortion issue, yet a majority (including a majority of "Catholics") voted for a strongly pro-abortion politician, I think this is an issue in the Church which should be confronted.

I guess I'm just not really clear on what you consider "hardlining," and what exactly you consider a problem on this thread. Winchester, myself, and others offered what I consider to be well-reasoned arguments as to why abortion should be illegal. I think both clarity and charity were exercised.
And, after all, this is the [i]debate[/i] table, so those who want to avoid controversy and just sit around holding hands singing Kumbaya can go elsewhere.


[quote]And true, Jesus was pretty polarizing, mostly controversial to the Sadducees, the religious authority. He was too progressive for the majority of them.[/quote]
Actually, the Pharisees were the "conservatives" and the Saducees the "progressives."
In any case, I think it's safe to say that Jesus would have little use for today's "progressive" ideology. We should also remember, that unlike today's "progressive" idols opposed to "religious authority," Jesus actually [i]is[/i] the Messiah.

[Sammy Blaze]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1907497' date='Jul 1 2009, 06:55 PM']I guess I'm just not really clear on what you consider "hardlining," and what exactly you consider a problem on this thread. Winchester, myself, and others offered what I consider to be well-reasoned arguments as to why abortion should be illegal. I think both clarity and charity were exercised.
And, after all, this is the [i]debate[/i] table, so those who want to avoid controversy and just sit around holding hands singing Kumbaya can go elsewhere.



Actually, the Pharisees were the "conservatives" and the Saducees the "progressives."
In any case, I think it's safe to say that Jesus would have little use for today's "progressive" ideology. We should also remember, that unlike today's "progressive" idols opposed to "religious authority," Jesus actually [i]is[/i] the Messiah.[/quote]

I understand your view, I mean you come from the perspective where many talk pro-life but justify their non pro-life vote, among other frustrations. I suppose being in the conservative Bible Belt, my frustration is with those who consistently vote pro-life but more often than not, place more passion in their candidate and political ideologies than involvment in the other arenas of the pro-life movement.
And yes, you got me, every once in a while I'll wander in the debate table, and forget it is a forum to debate. And being the internet some methods and debates are good, others are ill conceived. Kudos to the tireless souls who do maintain the fruitful discussions, its currently beyond my time constraints, and my current ministerial call.

I won't avoid controversy(that's for sure), maybe just the forum, and probably not sing kumbaya, maybe hold hands though haha.

But joking aside, I'm not so naive as to not understand subtle (and not so subtle) jabs in discussion. I've heard that undertone more than a few times on pm, and its about as much as an overgeneralization as it would be to assume that those who frequent the debate table are pigeon-holed fundamentalists looking to pick a fight or prove a point for the sake of one's ego etc...

So in honesty, its those subtle gestures that are the object of my frustration here, not the logical arguments. This is a debate table, and that comment was not conducive to winning an argument, possibly useful in proving a point in a non-charitable way.
Just my view for people's consideration, because while that comment doesn't effect me personally, some may and do take offence and that only hampers meaningful dialogue.

About the reference to the NT Jesus, I kinda kicked myself as soon as I posted. It would be more correct to say on some issues Jesus was radically conservative, while in other disputes radically progressive, of course depending on the 1st century theology you're viewing it from. Either way, the "Jesus" reference is as ambigious as he is dynamic. But that's yet another debate haha.

This concludes my tangent haha. Back to grad papers,

~S.

[Winchester]

I'm dizzy.