-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Rate of Abortion is highest in countries where it is illegal
- Thread starter Gwendolyn
- Start date
- Apr 11, 2005
- 73,951
- 10,060
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Private
He is ordering Catholics to give drugs to abort babies - ordering them.
You not getting this?
You not getting this?
Upvote
0
Actually, what she is talking about is Obama's aggressive efforts to force everyone pay for the pill through their insurance. And the contraception pill is designed to cause a micro-abortion.
Upvote
0
StThomasMore
Christian Democrat
This is totally wrong. 84% of all abortions were performed on unmarried single women. Its roots lie in premarital sexual relations. Many young people who engage in such activities have been raised by single mothers also. Are single mothers responsible for the most number of abortions? The shocking answer is yes when you look at the percentages.
50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25
Over 60% were already using contraception
47% of women who have abortions had at least one previous abortion
8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control (AGI).(kinda interesting when people say contraception will lower abortion rates, it does the exact opposite!!)
9 in 10 women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method (AGI).
At current rates, nearly one-third of American women will have an abortion
...SAD..
http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_statistics/
Upvote
0
StThomasMore
Christian Democrat
I agree
For abortion to become illegal, the issue would have to come again before the Supreme Court and have the Roe v. Wade (and subsequent rulings) overturned- that's something that has to do with the judicial branch, not the executive branch.No President can do that. It would take a Constitutional Amendment or a new Supreme Court decision.
Similarly, the ruling could be overturned if Congress passed a Constitutional amendment, which again, is not the executive branch, but the legislative one.No politician can touch abortion. I don't care what anyone says, it would have to be overturned by the Supreme Court, not Congress
There are plenty of things a President can do when it comes to abortion- they can harshly or laxly enforce the laws that are on the books, they can instate or revoke the global gag rule, they can appoint judicial nominees who meet their criteria on the litmus test of abortion, and so on, but a president cannot make abortion illegal.
The problem today is that state prosecutors and the president assume that their duty to support the Constitution means obedience to Supreme Court opinions even when they were never parties to the cases. Rightfully understood, their duty is to interpose their office between Roe v Wade a constitutionally erroneous opinion, and the people whose rights they are duty bound to protect.
Even in states where the statutes have been changed to conform to the Roe formula, a prosecutor may still have ample authority under the state's law and constitution to bring criminal actions against abortion promoters and providers.
When election time comes, ONLY vote for candidates that will make abortion illegal on a FEDERAL level. Don't vote for them if they "claim" to be prolife but will not do this. Look into this, think about it. Only vote for your state reps to be prolife as well. Put life first.
A great bill to push on your state officials is the Texas de-funding of Planned Parenthood bill that has passed. It is genius, and you should all write/call/mail your state reps to try to pass the same bill Texas did in de-funding Planned Parenthood. As of November 2011 13 Planned Parenthoods in Texas have closed their doors, that is MANY women and children and families SAVED. DO your part. PLEASE. You are responsible.
In Virginia, for example, producing an abortion, except to preserve the life of a mother, remains a felony. At the same time, by statute, a physician is permitted to perform abortions according to different rules governing the first, second, and third trimesters of a woman's pregnancy. To put it simply, the authority to legalize abortion is not in the Constitutional authority of the federal government, but they have taken it. As long as it stays in the authority of the federal government, it will never be made illegal.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No but they do make a huge long term impact on the Supreme Court. That's why it does matter. I mean. It really does. Each of our last presidents since at least Clinton ahve appointed at least one if not more of the only 9 lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court. It's assumed by most (we can't know for sure) to be prolife by a thread- 5-4.
Upvote
0
I would have agreed with you a couple weeks ago but to my naive shock I was wrong. His health care plan forces all institutions except Churches to provide Birth Control in their insurance including Catholic Universities. You have to specifically be a Church. I know this from NPR which does not ever spin this to the right's advantage.
Upvote
0
That's not true. I'm not demonizing you because you vote democratic. If you believe criminalizing it impossible and therefore it is something to give up on, that's your right but the only practical way this is goingt o happen in the US is the same way it became legal... through the court system and it will get challenged to the highest level- the Supreme Court.
Josh
Upvote
0
He also appointed two solidly conservative Catholics to the Supreme Court. And he's the one who signed the protection of marriage act into law.
Upvote
0
MikeK
Traditionalist Catholic
See, that didn't impress me. Partial-birth is a type of abortion, but it isnt any worse than any other type. I don't believe there is any difference between murdering the unborn and murdering the half-born.
....now, had he outlawed 3rd trimester abortions (not that he could have, that easily) I would hav been impressed. He'll, I would have been impressed had he managed to outlaw abortions at any stage...or have at least made an overt attempt to.
Upvote
0
StThomasMore
Christian Democrat
Abortion clinics are able to loophole partial birth ban simply by changing the procedure. The only difference now is that the abortionist must kill the baby before he attempts to remove it from the womb. So instead of partially removing the baby and killing it they are able to loophole around it by killing it while its whole body is inside the womb. Dr. Tiller did it for years until he was shot dead
A lot of people thought partial birth abortion meant late term abortions. But it is not. A woman can get an abortion in the US right up to one day before her birthing date.
That's not to say that the partial birth abortion ban wasn't a good thing. It was a very small baby step in the right direction. Sadly the pro-life movement isn't as well funded, backed up and organized like the pro-abortion side is, who have the heavyweights behind them like the ACLU, NARAL, PP, NOW and even the American Medical Association. We on the pro-life side have? what? The National Right to Life Committee and the American Life League? The Catholic Church would have been a great contender if Catholics in the US actually believed its teachings regarding abortion.
A lot of people thought partial birth abortion meant late term abortions. But it is not. A woman can get an abortion in the US right up to one day before her birthing date.
That's not to say that the partial birth abortion ban wasn't a good thing. It was a very small baby step in the right direction. Sadly the pro-life movement isn't as well funded, backed up and organized like the pro-abortion side is, who have the heavyweights behind them like the ACLU, NARAL, PP, NOW and even the American Medical Association. We on the pro-life side have? what? The National Right to Life Committee and the American Life League? The Catholic Church would have been a great contender if Catholics in the US actually believed its teachings regarding abortion.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
S.ilvio
Newbie
- Jul 16, 2011
- 40,529
- 3,984
- Country
- Ireland
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
I don't feel liek you're demonising me at all. On the abortion issue I'd say we're pretty close. what I am saying is that no President whether Republican or democrat can abolish abortion. If only it were that simple.
A referendum of the People is a clear way it could be achieved but no candiate has proposed it...
Upvote
0
Brooklyn Knight
On a narrow road but not narrow minded
- Nov 21, 2011
- 4,438
- 187
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Others
Aren't those banned? From what I remember, the only time it's allowable is if the mother's life is in danger.
Upvote
0
I don't think your theory has any precedence (a national referendum-- have we ever had one?). Maybe prohibition but that also required cooperation with the president and the congress. We have however changed laws via the Courts and every year, sometimes in big ways. If you have a majority pro-choice supreme Court (which we are on the brink of having) it will make it much easier to further the cause for choice. I imagine your understanding of US politics is worlds beyond my understanding of European and certainly Irish politics (of which I know nothing). But I do know that national referendums is actually something you guys do. But it's just not a part of the political fabric here. We do state referendums, perhaps that's what you;re referring to? But those can be overturned by a State Court if it is found unconstitutional and that often depends on the Justice's perspectives since constitutional questions are rarely black and white if they have to read the State supreme Court and especially if they must reach the Supreme Court of the nation.
Also, do you know how we would even go about having a national referendum? I have no idea but I imagine Congress has to do with it (?) and if that's the case you need a pro-life congress (at least in label who is willing to pander to their constituency) to approve one (or call for one or whatever they would have to do) in a political climate that gives the most chance to pro-life laws. While with Republicans you won't get heartily pro-life group of people in there (but more just decoration), you definitely won't get that with democrats. There are very few. I remember hearing of one in PA and we had one in MI but he resigned after he compromised with Obama on the Health Care Program. I am sure there are and have been more in the COngress but the point is that they are few and far between to make any difference. But I would probably vote for one.
Upvote
0
It's funny, I've always known about national referendums from learning about France's post=war V Republic and the countless referendums around Europe regarding sovereignty and the EU, etc. But I never thought to ask if in the US we can have or ever have had a national referendum. It seems the answer is indeed no both because our constitution doesn't provide for one. We use our congress which begs the question if you have a democratic Congress.
Referendum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, I am not propping up republicans to be the great hope for the cause for life. They aren't. They are a pitiful group of polititians for the most part who will only do the littlest they have to do beyond pure rhetoric (if anything) to appease the pro-life electorate. But, that's also because in the end, push come to shove, the pro-life eletorate is mostly pro-life by convenience. They just need their favorite candidate to say a few strong words against abortion so they don't feel guilty voting for them. That's the truth. So it goes back really to the weakness of the pro-life constituency. If calling for a constitutional ammendment with real hopes to pass one against abortion truly meant they would guarentee another term in office, you can bet your bottom dollar that these Republicans would no longer be so indifferent on the issue not because of amazing morals but because of a sadomasochistic desire to continue in public office.
On the other hand, I will say that there are many pro-choice candidates who are seem to be truly pro-choice at heart. I beleive there is more conviction there among representatives.
All of this is why I struggle with who to vote for. If I believed a presidential or congressional candidate were heartily pro-life (which means they would keep young children nad their mothers in mind when voting on all legislation), I would vote for them. But apart from that issue, Republicans are useless in my mind. So I generally don't vote for Republicans because they guarentee inaction. but I can never bring myself to vote for a pro-choice candidate (usually democrats) including Obama as much as I respect him (I truly do respect him) because he has a horridly misguided view on abortion. I believe he truly believes in the pro-choice movement and furthering "choice" and that scares the h*ll out of me.
Referendum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
By the way, I am not propping up republicans to be the great hope for the cause for life. They aren't. They are a pitiful group of polititians for the most part who will only do the littlest they have to do beyond pure rhetoric (if anything) to appease the pro-life electorate. But, that's also because in the end, push come to shove, the pro-life eletorate is mostly pro-life by convenience. They just need their favorite candidate to say a few strong words against abortion so they don't feel guilty voting for them. That's the truth. So it goes back really to the weakness of the pro-life constituency. If calling for a constitutional ammendment with real hopes to pass one against abortion truly meant they would guarentee another term in office, you can bet your bottom dollar that these Republicans would no longer be so indifferent on the issue not because of amazing morals but because of a sadomasochistic desire to continue in public office.
On the other hand, I will say that there are many pro-choice candidates who are seem to be truly pro-choice at heart. I beleive there is more conviction there among representatives.
All of this is why I struggle with who to vote for. If I believed a presidential or congressional candidate were heartily pro-life (which means they would keep young children nad their mothers in mind when voting on all legislation), I would vote for them. But apart from that issue, Republicans are useless in my mind. So I generally don't vote for Republicans because they guarentee inaction. but I can never bring myself to vote for a pro-choice candidate (usually democrats) including Obama as much as I respect him (I truly do respect him) because he has a horridly misguided view on abortion. I believe he truly believes in the pro-choice movement and furthering "choice" and that scares the h*ll out of me.
Upvote
0
MikeK
Traditionalist Catholic
No, in the United States a woman may get an abortion at any time during her pregnancy and for any reason. The majority of abortions that are performed here are 1st trimester abortions, and there are certain Doctors who refuse to provide very late abortions, but there is no law against n abortion of convinience at any time up until birth.
Upvote
0
Roe v Wade guaranteed the right of a woman the right to abort until viability to be determined by the doctor or an abortionist) at which time it was up the states. Before RvW, it was completely up to the States.
However, in 2002, PP v Casey did away with the standard of viability for determining the contitutionality of State restrictions of abortion and placed it with the standard of undue burden. It instead focused on the basis of this "right" due to the 14 Ammendment and seemed to focus on the XIV's emphasis on liberty.
ANd that's current reality. It's not about viablity (And I assert that it never has been about viability for the bulk of the movement even if it was for the sitting judges at the time of Roe), it's about choice- 100%. If it were, then PP, NOW, NARAL etc would be crying foul upon the 2002 decision. But they won't because it supports their real agenda which they don't keep secret at all... choice.
So let's please stop bringing up viability as if that were part of the true agenda. Viability was a menas to an end and oddly enough would act as a barrier to the agenda if taken too seriously. "Thank goodness" it's not.
However, in 2002, PP v Casey did away with the standard of viability for determining the contitutionality of State restrictions of abortion and placed it with the standard of undue burden. It instead focused on the basis of this "right" due to the 14 Ammendment and seemed to focus on the XIV's emphasis on liberty.
ANd that's current reality. It's not about viablity (And I assert that it never has been about viability for the bulk of the movement even if it was for the sitting judges at the time of Roe), it's about choice- 100%. If it were, then PP, NOW, NARAL etc would be crying foul upon the 2002 decision. But they won't because it supports their real agenda which they don't keep secret at all... choice.
So let's please stop bringing up viability as if that were part of the true agenda. Viability was a menas to an end and oddly enough would act as a barrier to the agenda if taken too seriously. "Thank goodness" it's not.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
