Let's stop kidding ourselves

Status
Not open for further replies.

Debi1967

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62
Site Supporter
Dec 2, 2003
20,535
1,129
57
Green Valley, Illinios
Visit site
✟71,555.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Woah here guys, just because someone has said that they are republican, which I am, does not mean that they woudl still support that if it contradicted what their moral values are.... so before one says anything about being tribal....

Then as far as Rudy Giuliani is concerned, I judge the man and what he stands for so i will have to look into it further, all I have to judge him on right now is that he was wonderful during a crisis in which took this whole nation by surprise and by which many of us were left devastated with loss and grief...

As far as anything else I will have to look into what his platform is and if I think that he represents things that I would not condone or could not morrally condone then I would not be able to vote for him even though I and most of NY is grateful for his direction during a very turbulent time....

Is my position cleared here... It was meant to be a joke guys .... You know some of that good old NY humor .... nevermind...LOL
 
Upvote 0

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
45
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
You are as clear as day. and you were as clear as day too. I don't see where the disagreement is here. I never said that ALL republicans think this or that.... but many think that Republicans support morals more than they actually do.

BTW, I honestly like Giuliani and I hate the fact that I probably won't vote for him (unless he changes his position... which is possible and as long as the Rep party proves itself to fight for pro-life values should the occasion arise to do so) in 2008.
 
Upvote 0

Ann M

Legend
Feb 20, 2004
12,930
211
52
Brisbane
✟29,179.00
Faith
Catholic
Is it my imagination, or is it true that many of those pro-abortionists are also the ones complaining that the taxes are too high, the government departments aren't doing their job properly, the health system sucks, pensions are too low, theirs no provisions for decent maternity pay and no provisions for paternity leave etc, etc, etc. If only these guys would sit down and think things through occasionally they might also realise that a population in decline cannot afford to support itself indefinately, and that the health system is probably wasting money funding these medical procedures in the first place. As the number of baby boomers rise, and more and more start to go into retirement, then the 'burden' of their financial situation is placed on those still in the workforce, who are trying to pay their taxes to keep the health system afloat, and governments in business, and when they retire they will have the expectations that those still in employment will do the same for them. Any logical person knows that if you destroy your own marketplace you destroy your company, but many don't seem to have worked out that if you destroy your future you can annihilate your present.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xpycoctomos
Upvote 0

PeterPaul

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2004
9,263
299
49
✟18,494.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
If I may be allowed, I'd like to post something. Something that may garner criticism, but so be it.

I'm an oddity in my country. You see, from an early age I was exposed to the Austrian school of economics, as well as to the Spanish scholastics. Most of my friends and family are socialists (though they don't know why). I come from a nation that was ripe with divisions. After General Franco died and we had a transitional democractic government, the nation turned to the PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol), and after they left, we turned to the PP (Partido Popular). During this early stage there were many parties (Izquierda Unida, Comissiones Obreras to name a couple) who recently have lost so much power they are nonexistant. However, we still have other parties who once were thought not viable at a national level that are gaining momentum (Convergencia i Unio, Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, two different parties I supported and still do). I always felt like I argued with my entire country because I was a strong supporter of capitalism.

Even then, I knew of Republicans in the U.S., and with their concepts of small government, power to the States, and free markets and enterprise I was much attracted to it. Now, to think they were the proponents of moral values was even more attractive.

When I came to this country, I worked very hard to climb the corporate ladder. I was returning to my Catholic roots, supporting Reagan like leaders (my grandfather adored him) and as a Catholic I found I was at odds with most Catholics. The Republican party wasn't exactly the hotbed of Catholic sympathizers, but there were a few.

I never questioned the two party system. I thought it was fine, good versus evil and all that. I never questioned the concept of "survival of the fittest" economics. And if there was one thing that I was and continue to be is anti-socialist. I thought Mises ate them for breakfast a long time ago.

I have to admit, that my love affair with the Republican party started to fade with Bush senior. During this time, Ross Perot came into the picture. Not only did this man pose a threat to both parties, but he actually displayed a common sense approach to Americans. Not only was this threat viable, but it proved a third party was dangerous. To whom? To the two party system. So much in fact, that they have done everything in their power to keep history from repeating itself. Is this free competition or annhilation?

The question in my mind was truth. What is truth, where does it come from, and should we always strive to be true? The answer to these questions is Christ, Chriet and yes. So if we are to be true, should we support an either/or situation? Should anyone defend the indefensible?

Is the economy supposed to reflect our humanity or act mechanically? If we expect out leadership to act holy should our economy not do so as well? Certainly this doesn't mean socialism. Again, it isn't an either/or but a "what is true" situation. I'm thinking there is a third way. A Catholic way.

My change of heart towards capitalism and the Republican party doesn't mean I've become a socialist and a democrat. Absolutely not. But it does mean I want to find a human way, a moral way. Economical systems are not perfect, but there must be a better way. Darwin isn't one of those.

Guiliani, if I were to be a hypocrite, would make an excellent President. I say that because the difference between him and Clinton is that he admitted his affair. He is pro-abortion as well.

The neo-conservatives that have joined the recent ranks of the Republican party do not make me warm and cozy inside. People like Guiliani, Bloomberg, Arnie, and Spector are not friends of that moral code I spoke of earlier, and the party has increasingly gotten not only pro-abortion, but pro federal expansion. I'm appalled by the amount of Republicans who now applaud Federal rights over the individual states! This is like Catholics applauding a democratically elected Pope!

(On Spector, I'll say this again. You mean Bush just realised he was pro-abortion? C'mon...and now this is biting him in the rear with the Judicial appointments).

No, it isn't an all or nothing situation, but I know when I'm being strung along.

Now before anyone complains that they had to vote for Bush think about this. Yes, you did, the election is over. Let's work on the future. Because if we continue to say, we need to vote for them again in '08, and refuse to support another party, we will fall in a bottomless pit of "inactivity for the pro-life movement but its better than..." We need to restore the moral fabric of this nation, because we are the last frontier for the West. Everywhere we have fallen. My nation included. It may take twenty years to come out with a powerhouse, but if that's what it takes its worth it. We need to start at local levels of government and climb the ladder.

Just my 1,000 pesetas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maximus
Upvote 0

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
45
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Are you sure yo're from Spain? lol

Good thoughts. I will need to talk another look at this in '08.

1000 pesetas... rule of 6... hmmm.. that's a lot considering we usually jsut give two cents worht ;)

I was returning to my Catholic roots, supporting Reagan like leaders (my grandfather adored him) and as a Catholic I found I was at odds with most Catholics. The Republican party wasn't exactly the hotbed of Catholic sympathizers, but there were a few.


Catholics were traditionally Democrat since they started arriving here because the Democratic Party represented the Blue Collar worker. Scott Hahn recognizes this and said that this made sense but that whent the Democratic Party took on a pro-abortion platform, these Catholics should have been running the other way. We see this now (since Bush won the majority of the Catholic vote) but you bring up a good question... Pro-life Catholics may be running away from something bad... but are they running to something good (I include myself in this since i voted for Bush). We shall see. I stand next to my promise to abandon the Republican Party should the Bush Administration not act on what it seemed to promise.

John
 
Upvote 0

PeterPaul

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2004
9,263
299
49
✟18,494.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I'm sorry. When I said "returning to my Catholic roots" and then followed it with "supporting Reagan" I gave the false impression that the Republican party was at the heart of most Catholics.

What I meant to say was that I was coming back to the Church theologically.
 
Upvote 0

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
45
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
PeterPaul said:
If I may be allowed, I'd like to post something. Something that may garner criticism, but so be it.

I'm an oddity in my country. You see, from an early age I was exposed to the Austrian school of economics, as well as to the Spanish scholastics. Most of my friends and family are socialists (though they don't know why). I come from a nation that was ripe with divisions. After General Franco died and we had a transitional democractic government, the nation turned to the PSOE (Partido Socialista Obrero Espanol), and after they left, we turned to the PP (Partido Popular). During this early stage there were many parties (Izquierda Unida, Comissiones Obreras to name a couple) who recently have lost so much power they are nonexistant. However, we still have other parties who once were thought not viable at a national level that are gaining momentum (Convergencia i Unio, Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, two different parties I supported and still do). I always felt like I argued with my entire country because I was a strong supporter of capitalism.

Even then, I knew of Republicans in the U.S., and with their concepts of small government, power to the States, and free markets and enterprise I was much attracted to it. Now, to think they were the proponents of moral values was even more attractive.

When I came to this country, I worked very hard to climb the corporate ladder. I was returning to my Catholic roots, supporting Reagan like leaders (my grandfather adored him) and as a Catholic I found I was at odds with most Catholics. The Republican party wasn't exactly the hotbed of Catholic sympathizers, but there were a few.

I never questioned the two party system. I thought it was fine, good versus evil and all that. I never questioned the concept of "survival of the fittest" economics. And if there was one thing that I was and continue to be is anti-socialist. I thought Mises ate them for breakfast a long time ago.

I have to admit, that my love affair with the Republican party started to fade with Bush senior. During this time, Ross Perot came into the picture. Not only did this man pose a threat to both parties, but he actually displayed a common sense approach to Americans. Not only was this threat viable, but it proved a third party was dangerous. To whom? To the two party system. So much in fact, that they have done everything in their power to keep history from repeating itself. Is this free competition or annhilation?

The question in my mind was truth. What is truth, where does it come from, and should we always strive to be true? The answer to these questions is Christ, Chriet and yes. So if we are to be true, should we support an either/or situation? Should anyone defend the indefensible?

Is the economy supposed to reflect our humanity or act mechanically? If we expect out leadership to act holy should our economy not do so as well? Certainly this doesn't mean socialism. Again, it isn't an either/or but a "what is true" situation. I'm thinking there is a third way. A Catholic way.

My change of heart towards capitalism and the Republican party doesn't mean I've become a socialist and a democrat. Absolutely not. But it does mean I want to find a human way, a moral way. Economical systems are not perfect, but there must be a better way. Darwin isn't one of those.

Guiliani, if I were to be a hypocrite, would make an excellent President. I say that because the difference between him and Clinton is that he admitted his affair. He is pro-abortion as well.

The neo-conservatives that have joined the recent ranks of the Republican party do not make me warm and cozy inside. People like Guiliani, Bloomberg, Arnie, and Spector are not friends of that moral code I spoke of earlier, and the party has increasingly gotten not only pro-abortion, but pro federal expansion. I'm appalled by the amount of Republicans who now applaud Federal rights over the individual states! This is like Catholics applauding a democratically elected Pope!

(On Spector, I'll say this again. You mean Bush just realised he was pro-abortion? C'mon...and now this is biting him in the rear with the Judicial appointments).

No, it isn't an all or nothing situation, but I know when I'm being strung along.

Now before anyone complains that they had to vote for Bush think about this. Yes, you did, the election is over. Let's work on the future. Because if we continue to say, we need to vote for them again in '08, and refuse to support another party, we will fall in a bottomless pit of "inactivity for the pro-life movement but its better than..." We need to restore the moral fabric of this nation, because we are the last frontier for the West. Everywhere we have fallen. My nation included. It may take twenty years to come out with a powerhouse, but if that's what it takes its worth it. We need to start at local levels of government and climb the ladder.

Just my 1,000 pesetas.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PeterPaul again.



ai laikt iur post
 
Upvote 0

PeterPaul

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2004
9,263
299
49
✟18,494.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Xpycoctomos said:
Are you sure yo're from Spain? lol

John

LOL. Most of my friends and family ask me the same question. Then again, they often support leftist parties while complaining about high taxation, Federal government usurping regional ones (we have our own Parliaments and Presidents in autonomous regions), and that they own very little. The truth is that ignorance exists everywhere, because I heard the same thing echoed in my coworkers who were voting Kerry. They supported Kerry but their platform was a Republican one.

Now, ever since Spain allowed gay marriage, any thought of returning home for good has gone out the window.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeterPaul

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2004
9,263
299
49
✟18,494.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Xpycoctomos said:
Are you a US Citizen or Spanish? If the latter, do you vote in the Spanish and EU elections?

Spaniard, but I don't receive absentee ballots because I did something I wasn't supposed to at 18. And it has to do with the pre-EU draft. :(

I still go home every year, but it took a lot of paperwork to clear that up. Now I only vote if I'm in time to. I didn't get to vote for Aznar in the last election. I prefer him to the socialists any day. I also wanted to vote against Pasqual Maragall for President of the Generalitat de Catalunya, but he won on an electoral college.
 
Upvote 0

princess_ballet

Senior Veteran
Jul 8, 2003
5,463
435
Michigan
✟16,089.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Wait a second...remember the ban on partial birth abortion that Bush and the Republicans just signed into office?

Of course you can always find nay sayers on this issue (especially from Catholics!), but I don't think that's a reason to just up and stop voting for the party. But who ever said I condoned single-issue voting? ;)
 
Upvote 0

PeterPaul

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2004
9,263
299
49
✟18,494.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
princess_ballet said:
Wait a second...remember the ban on partial birth abortion that Bush and the Republicans just signed into office?

Of course you can always find nay sayers on this issue (especially from Catholics!), but I don't think that's a reason to just up and stop voting for the party. But who ever said I condoned single-issue voting? ;)

I guess you didn't read the article.

It isn't reason to stop voting for the party? How about an economical system that acts as if its neutral yet is ignores the reality of man, how about the materialism it causes? How about a party that decides to increase spending and just expanded government, which is against its mandate? How about its attempt to decrease state powers?

And what, please tell, is the "party" doing with a majority Congress and President by even bothering with a partial birth ban on abortion, when they can pass a law to make abortion illegal?
 
Upvote 0

Wiffey

He is my refuge and my fortress...
Oct 27, 2004
2,448
260
✟18,913.00
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
PeterPaul, the rep police stopped me from rightfully repping you!

I am currently a Republican, very socially conservative, but not thrilled with a lot of Republican policies. I would LOVE to see a viable 3rd party that combined social conservatism with human rights and concern for the poor. It seems we sometimes end up choosing the lesser of 2 evils rather than getting to vote for someone we fully support.:sigh:

Unfortunately our current 2 party system is so entrenched that I am not sure any 3rd party would stand any kind of real chance. But I think more options would be a LOT better for Democracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nyj
Upvote 0

Debi1967

Proudly in love with Rushingwind62
Site Supporter
Dec 2, 2003
20,535
1,129
57
Green Valley, Illinios
Visit site
✟71,555.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Let us look at this in perspective....

Again I will say this, we are talking about Polliticians. In there, very few will you find that truly do, above all else, represent the moral values they should stand for. Many do use as as their excuses that their constiguents want something other than what they do. That, because they are their representatives they must follow their desires and wishes instead of their own. This was never more evident this election with the whole Abortion issue, and the Catholic Polliticians that used this as an excuse.

There used to be a time when religion and politics were synonymous with each other, that time is no more. Especially in this country that was built, they claim on certain foundations of Christianity, a separation of Church and State exists like never before.

If the Church, appears with the State then it is used as a publicity stunt, but really nothing more. This we all know and to us that are intelligent, we see through the obvious ploy, to use the Church to the advantage only to garner more votes of those that are religious. But such is government.

Does this mean that some of the decisions that have come down from this government are not for the betterment? NO, absolutely not. With every decision that comes down from the government you will find those that are opposed and because of this, trying to find ways around what the Law that was passed intended.

Does this mean that we should take this as completely negative? NO, absolutely not. We must always remember that a step in the right direction is exactly that. And that because people will find ways to bend these rules or even break them does not make it negative. We also have to remember where these things are coming from, imperfect men trying to rule a world that is ruled by sin itself. Tell me that all of your Journeys towards what is righteous was complete and not frought with these same battles and does not continue to be till this day? Tell me that sometimes coming to the understanding that we all must, as His Righteous, does not take us sometimes down a long path full of stages?

We have achieved steps in the right direction in many matters that effect us morally. With these effects we will be able to hopefully, to effect more change steadily towards that ultimate goal. But to ask, those that are firmly entrenched in what they believe to pick up and now change midstream, would probably set us back, instead of moving us forward at this point in time IMHO. The steady stream of pressure that has already been applied is what is getting this done to begin with and that too is also my opinion.

So, now let us take the small victories that have been achieved and make them expand into larger ones. Let us realize that with any change, change takes time to achieve. And, most importantly, let us pray for patience, with those that do not see the error of their ways.

The Government that we all want will one day be achieved, but never will it be without the Lord as the Head of it.... So as long as men rule this earth and they are influenced by the sin that is cast here, we will have to deal with the governments we now have until such time.

Pax Christi
Debi
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

PeterPaul

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2004
9,263
299
49
✟18,494.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
debiwebi said:
Does this mean that we should take this as completely negative? NO, absolutely not. We must always remember that a step in the right direction is exactly that. And that because people will find ways to bend these rules or even break them does not make it negative. We also have to remember where these things are coming from, imperfect men trying to rule a world that is ruled by sin itself. Tell me that all of your Journeys towards what is righteous was complete and not frought with these same battles and does not continue to be till this day? Tell me that someimes coming to the understanding that we all must, as His Righteous, does not take us sometimes take us down a long path full of stages?

Debi, you are comparing our lives as pilgrims to that of politics? So we are to hold true to the Republican party no matter what because they are the bearers of truth and the light in the darkness? There are just some men that fail in that course and we must stay it even if they fail?

But, you see, this is my contention. That we don't have to. That there can be a viable third option, and that capitalism in itself has failed as much as socialism because it renders its inhabitants as nothing but matter (they are both rooted in social darwinism, not a reality of man).

I believe the Republican party is dragging its feet on abortion and morality. I could be wrong, but I certainly don't think that even if I am, we MUST stick to any of the BIG two. Why? Why when the very platforms between the two parties have been blurred. I can't tell the difference anymore, except on one proposing immorality and the other one not championing morality, but being forced to eat its vegetables.
 
Upvote 0

Dream

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2003
5,089
212
✟6,389.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
PeterPaul said:
And what, please tell, is the "party" doing with a majority Congress and President by even bothering with a partial birth ban on abortion, when they can pass a law to make abortion illegal?
Come on PeterPaul, I thought you were quicker than that. Congress creates the laws, but the judicial system interprets them. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade in '73 that the government can not infringe on the right of women to have an abortion during their first trimester.

That being said, Congress cannot simply pass a law outlawing all abortions. It would go against the Supreme Court ruling. However, the government can create regulations and restrictions on abortions outside the first trimester. Thus the partial birth abortion ban.

As I said before, which was ignored, the Unborn Victims of Violence act, which was passed under Bush, is the biggest step that has been taken in the last 30 years for outlawing abortion. No, unfortunately Bush is not the most pro-life guy out there, but look at the alternatives. There was John Kerry, who is as pro-abortion as one could possibly be. He had voted against the partial birth abortion ban, he voted no on on disallowing overseas military abortions and military base abortions; he was even rated 100% by NARAL. Then of course there was Peroutka, a hypocrite who didn't even make the ballot in most states, and then there was Bardanik and Nadar (both extremely pro-choice candidates).

Basically, having abortion become legal or not all comes down to the Supreme Court. And since the members of the Supreme Court are now getting old and looking to be retiring soon, we need a new conservative justice to take the stand. Having a Republican controlled Legislative and Executve branch is the only way that this can be accomplished. (The President nominates a justice, Congress aproves).

So even though Perotuka was clearly more pro-life than Bush was, a vote for him would be a vote against Bush, ending up being beneficial for Kerry and all of the pro-choice extremists. Even if Perotuka was elected, he would never be able to get a justice in the Supreme Court. He would nominate somebody who was a ultra-conservative, and Congress would no doubt disprove.
 
Upvote 0

PeterPaul

Well-Known Member
Feb 17, 2004
9,263
299
49
✟18,494.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
DreamTheater said:
Come on PeterPaul, I thought you were quicker than that. Congress creates the laws, but the judicial system interprets them. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe vs. Wade in '73 that the government can not infringe on the right of women to have an abortion during their first trimester.

That being said, Congress cannot simply pass a law outlawing all abortions. It would go against the Supreme Court ruling. However, the government can create regulations and restrictions on abortions outside the first trimester. Thus the partial birth abortion ban.

As I said before, which was ignored, the Unborn Victims of Violence act, which was passed under Bush, is the biggest step that has been taken in the last 30 years for outlawing abortion. No, unfortunately Bush is not the most pro-life guy out there, but look at the alternatives. There was John Kerry, who is as pro-abortion as one could possibly be. He had voted against the partial birth abortion ban, he voted no on on disallowing overseas military abortions and military base abortions; he was even rated 100% by NARAL. Then of course there was Peroutka, a hypocrite who didn't even make the ballot in most states, and then there was Bardanik and Nadar (both extremely pro-choice candidates).

Basically, having abortion become legal or not all comes down to the Supreme Court. And since the members of the Supreme Court are now getting old and looking to be retiring soon, we need a new conservative justice to take the stand. Having a Republican controlled Legislative and Executve branch is the only way that this can be accomplished. (The President nominates a justice, Congress aproves).

So even though Perotuka was clearly more pro-life than Bush was, a vote for him would be a vote against Bush, ending up being beneficial for Kerry and all of the pro-choice extremists. Even if Perotuka was elected, he would never be able to get a justice in the Supreme Court. He would nominate somebody who was a ultra-conservative, and Congress would no doubt disprove.

And my contention is not that a vote against Bush fails him, but that a vote for Bush fails a viable party. Not either/or.

As there is no law on abortion, and R v. W was a judicial decision, are you telling me the Legislative Branch and Executive can only limit the scope without contradicting that decision? I think there is a lot more than can be done.

BTW: I didn't ignore your comment on the ACT, as you probably didn't ignore the article.
 
Upvote 0

Xpycoctomos

Well-Known Member
Aug 15, 2004
10,133
679
45
Midwest
✟13,419.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I agree with your "small victories" perspective. We just need to be able to decipher between that which will offer us "small victories" and that which does nothing more than dangle a carrot in front of us.

We shall see if he will give us small victories or just keep dangling more carrots in frong of our faces. I hope and pray it is the former. If it is the latter, the Republican party doesn't deserve my vote (since the pro-life stance is the only thing I agree with... social services in the States are a disaster since Bush took office).

But I agree... Bush offers us much more hope than a firmly pro-choice candidate and he is more pro-life than any president I can remember (of course the earliest president I can remember is Reagan ;)).

Honestly, I don't think we're disagreeing (on anything fundamental to this thread)... I just think we need to hold Republicans to their word and call em out on it if they back down. I imagine you would agree. Also, I'm not saying that you should not vote for Republicans even if they prove themselves to be less pro-life than once thought. You probably agree with a lot of other issues. I'm just saying that since pro-life is practically the only thing holding me to the far right, if they let go of that... they've lost me. The wil have also decieved me, so I would probably just not vote for them, at least not in 08, out of protest.

John
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Dream

Well-Known Member
Aug 7, 2003
5,089
212
✟6,389.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Private
PeterPaul said:
As there is no law on abortion, and R v. W was a judicial decision, are you telling me the Legislative Branch and Executive can only limit the scope without contradicting that decision? I think there is a lot more than can be done.
Roe vs. Wade ruled that a woman has a constitutional right to have an abortion during the first 6 months of her pregnancy. In doing so, it overturned all state laws criminalizing abortion.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.