What is stopping the current government from making abortion illegal in the USA?

[archer75]

You can apply that logic to just about anything.

"Nothing can stop people from speeding up and down the Interstate. No law or anything else."

It's not a matter of "logic". Anti-abortion activists seem to think abortion will stop if it's illegal, but it won't. However, there are changes that could be made that would greatly reduce the incidence of abortion, so why not make them if it's that important?

 

[Theo Book]

It's not a matter of "logic". Anti-abortion activists seem to think abortion will stop if it's illegal, but it won't. However, there are changes that could be made that would greatly reduce the incidence of abortion, so why not make them if it's that important?

Since the "Militant" women who started the "Women's rights movement" began attacking any and every person with whom they disagreed, with the nasty disposition and foolish argument about when life begins in the process, way too many women who were totally in the dark at first, "jumped on the band wagon" as it were, and joined themselves to a cause having no merit, and no truth whatsoever on their side.

You are correct, making a law will not be the end of it. But showing the stupidity of the position will go a long way toward justifying the effort legally.

 

[mindlight]

Making abortion illegal would involve overturning "Roe v. Wade," which found that there was a constitutional right to privacy and that right allows women to choose an abortion under certain circumstances. The Supreme Court has been known to reverse prior decisions, of course, but there is another consideration -- what of the right of privacy established in "Roe v. Wade?"

In short, undoing 40 years of precedent is a big deal. We might see that happen, though, should the Court pick up another couple of conservative justices.

Privacy does not trump the right to life. You can violate a persons privacy when you have grounds to suspect they are planning murder.

Roe v Wade changed the centuries old principle from life begins at conception to one of the viability of the fetus.

The biggest barrier to overturning Roe v Wade is the retroactive admission by 2 generations of women and their male accomplices that they murdered their children.

 

[archer75]

Roe v Wade changed the centuries old principle from life begins at conception to one of the viability of the fetus.

As I understood, early on in the US, it was legal until the fetus "quickened" (which Wikipedia tells me is 15-20 weeks).

 

[HawgWyld]

Privacy does not trump the right to life. You can violate a persons privacy when you have grounds to suspect they are planning murder.

Roe v Wade changed the centuries old principle from life begins at conception to one of the viability of the fetus.

The biggest barrier to overturning Roe v Wade is the retroactive admission by 2 generations of women and their male accomplices that they murdered their children.

The Court has rejected the "right to life" argument consistently over the years. Essentially, the notion is that a fetus is a collection of cells that has no rights at all until it can live outside of the womb.

I strongly disagree with that assessment and I am somewhat shocked there are Christians out there who take the opposite view (arguing that the government shouldn't interfere in the rights of a woman to choose to abort a child is one thing, embracing the ghoulish talking points of a number of people in the pro-choice camp is another matter completely).

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

I'm not judging him on past behavior alone. I'm judging him on his job performance as President, a public office which I have the legal and moral right to pass judgment upon. I simply do not believe the man when he claims to be a Christian. If he's a Christian, I'm a kangaroo. You may not see any wrong in his behavior - I see PLENTY wrong in his behavior. The fact that you are either oblivious to his actions or don't consider them problematic has no bearing on my ability to discern the impropriety of his actions and non-actions in public office.

Such as??

 

[mindlight]

As I understood, early on in the US, it was legal until the fetus "quickened" (which Wikipedia tells me is 15-20 weeks).

Actually you are correct. Those who framed the American constitution considered life began with the quickening at 15-20 weeks. So the major differences brought in by Roe v Wade are Federal enforcement against the wishes of individual states and the principle of viability which makes abortion possible at a later time. A strictly constitutional position supported by SCOTUS for most of its history would therefore be to reduce the time at which abortion could take place and shift the decision about it to the individual states. From a Christian POV that is still not ideal but better that what there is now.

Given that modern medecine is bringing into question at what time a baby becomes viable outside the womb an earlier limit makes increasing scientific sense also.

 

[Kimchi Expert]

Republican majorities in the House and Senate.
Republican President
Majority conservatives on the court.

What is the hold up, if anything?

Because they CAN'T make abortion illegal, for practical reasons. Women have been getting abortions for as long as women have been getting pregnant. Thousands of years ago, women with unwanted pregnancies would devise ways of terminating their pregnancies. That'll never stop.

Imagine what the status of abortion in this country will be like 50 years from now. Does abortion still exist? If so, you're on the wrong side of history by seeking to make it illegal.

 

[SPF]

Really? I'm fairly sure rape is going to exist in 50 years, does that means we should consider making it legal? I'm fairly sure that heroin is still going to exist in 50 years, does that mean we should consider making its usage legal? I'm fairly sure that people are still going to steal in 50 years, does that mean we should consider making stealing legal?

In fact, I'm fairly sure that until Christ returns, every single sin under the sun is still going to "exist" and be practiced in 50 years. Does that mean we should stop standing up for actions that are wrong?

People will always, as they always have, find a way to do what they want. We live in a world that as James says that in order to be friends with, makes us enemies of God. People sin, it's what they do without Christ. Does that mean that we should shrug our shoulders and not hold to what we know to be true?

Whether or not someone engages in the practice of an action does not determine the principle of whether or not the action is moral.

 

[archer75]

Really? I'm fairly sure rape is going to exist in 50 years, does that means we should consider making it legal? I'm fairly sure that heroin is still going to exist in 50 years, does that mean we should consider making its usage legal? I'm fairly sure that people are still going to steal in 50 years, does that mean we should consider making stealing legal?

In fact, I'm fairly sure that until Christ returns, every single sin under the sun is still going to "exist" and be practiced in 50 years. Does that mean we should stop standing up for actions that are wrong?

People will always, as they always have, find a way to do what they want. We live in a world that as James says that in order to be friends with, makes us enemies of God. People sin, it's what they do without Christ. Does that mean that we should shrug our shoulders and not hold to what we know to be true?

Whether or not someone engages in the practice of an action does not determine the principle of whether or not the action is moral.

But if the action itself is objectionable, why not take measures to reduce its actual incidence rather than criminalizing it when that won't actually reduce it?

It seems like some people object to that abortion is legal more than to abortion itself.

Here are two worlds, you pick:
-abortion legal but never occurs
-abortion illegal but occurs often

 

[SPF]

The answer is both/and, not either or.

The first thing we as Christians need to do is stand for the Truth. If abortion is immoral and wrong, then we need to be against its practice. That should be fundamentally obvious.

Women are going to get abortions whether abortion is legal or not. That is also obvious. In the same way, people who want to sin by any manner of sin are going to regardless of what the law says. But just because a person is going to sin does not mean that we should then make it easier for them to do so. That's just such horrible thinking and we would never apply that to other areas of our lives.

It would be like telling my son since I know he's going to get into a fight at school to go ahead and keep a pair of brass knuckles in his pocket so he can make sure he wins. But don't worry, I'll make sure to tell my son first that it's wrong to fight and that he shouldn't, but since I know he will anyway he should have this nice shiny pair of brass knuckles.

I'm sure the conversation would go over great with the police when I get a call from the school saying my son just beat the crap out of some kid with a pair of brass knuckles that he said I gave him to use if he got into a fight.

Keeping abortion legal is the same as endorsing it as acceptable.

 

[archer75]

The answer is both/and, not either or.

The first thing we as Christians need to do is stand for the Truth. If abortion is immoral and wrong, then we need to be against its practice. That should be fundamentally obvious.

Women are going to get abortions whether abortion is legal or not. That is also obvious. In the same way, people who want to sin by any manner of sin are going to regardless of what the law says. But just because a person is going to sin does not mean that we should then make it easier for them to do so. That's just such horrible thinking and we would never apply that to other areas of our lives.

It would be like telling my son since I know he's going to get into a fight at school to go ahead and keep a pair of brass knuckles in his pocket so he can make sure he wins. But don't worry, I'll make sure to tell my son first that it's wrong to fight and that he shouldn't, but since I know he will anyway he should have this nice shiny pair of brass knuckles.

I'm sure the conversation would go over great with the police when I get a call from the school saying my son just beat the crap out of some kid with a pair of brass knuckles that he said I gave him to use if he got into a fight.

Keeping abortion legal is the same as endorsing it as acceptable.

It's not substantially "easier" to do so with it legal. In a lot of areas, it's quite difficult to get a legal / medical abortion, but quite easy to find a set of stairs to accidentally on purpose fall down a couple times.

In any case, if it's both / and, I continue not to see why the most visible anti-abortion activists aren't screaming for, for example, 100% funding of pre-natal care and 18 years of guaranteed income for mothers, for instance. And if the answer is "that would be expensive," then I guess abortion isn't really the priority, after all.

 

[SPF]

It's not substantially "easier" to do so with it legal. In a lot of areas, it's quite difficult to get a legal / medical abortion, but quite easy to find a set of stairs to accidentally on purpose fall down a couple times.

You're absolutely right. It's also a lot easier to quietly pocket a candy bar at a gas station than it is to stand in an overly long line when you're late for a meeting.

In any case, if it's both / and, I continue not to see why the most visible anti-abortion activists aren't screaming for, for example, 100% funding of pre-natal care and 18 years of guaranteed income for mothers, for instance.

Those are separate issues. You typically hear pro-life people talking about ending abortion because that's what the thrust and core and central focal point of the pro-life movement is about. First things first. If abortion is immoral, then we should stand up against it, period.

For instance, there are about 4 running threads on abortion that I have been engaged in on this forum, and I think about 98% of my posts have been directly discussing abortion and the morality of that act. You could easily accuse me of not caring about the mother. But that would be fallacious because the issue is the morality of abortion. I have never needed to talk about the fact that my wife and I are foster parents and that we have helped support hundreds of single mothers.

And as for the fallacious argument that Christians only care about making abortion illegal and not caring about the mothers, here's a quote from redlegal which helps dispel that poor line of argumentation.

On the contrary, being quite involved in Evangelical community I've seen great charity and love with respect to helping women before and after the birth. The family life pastors also do good work with women who have had abortions. We don't hear much because many of these churches won't let the left hand know what the right is doing.

Any Google search can show these ministries in all 50 states. From pregnancy crisis centers, shelters and adoptive services to post birth academies of education and job placement.

Here's a sampling:

Christian Pregnancy Services and After Care:

Just a few examples here:

https://cmda.org/resources/publication/crisis-pregnancy-centers
Pregnancy Centers in PA
Listing Of Crisis Pregnancy Centers In Illinois
Christian Life Resources
Special Delivery | Overlake Christian Church
Top 10 Non Profit Organizations that help Mothers
Creating a Cradle Care Ministry for Expectant & New Parents

These are a few examples of Christian ministries which span all 50 states.

Sanctuary of Hope:

https://www.jhm.org/SOHCares
The above is a grand scale example of after and future care. Others include Catholic charities and Samaritans Purse.

Becoming Adoptive Parents - FAQs
Counseling
Help Protect Vulnerable Women


Here's just one example of a conservative Evangelical charitable organization's ministry:


Help Families Fleeing the Fighting in Mosul

Emergency Field Hospital Sent as Christmas Gift to Iraq

Loving Care for an Orphan | Samaritan’s Purse Gift Catalog

A Brighter Future for Ebola Widows

Women’s Programs

Crisis & Disaster Response

Feeding Programs

Health & Medical Ministries

Water, Sanitation & Hygiene

Children’s Heart Project

Putting a Stop to Human Trafficking

Deadly Earthquake in Nepal

U.S. Disaster Relief

The bottom line is that if abortion is immoral, then Christians (all people really, but really Christians) should be against it. In addition to that -as Christians, we should also have great compassion, forgiveness, grace, mercy, and love towards women who are so discouraged that they feel an abortion is the best choice, and find ways to support them.

 

[archer75]

For instance, there are about 4 running threads on abortion that I have been engaged in on this forum, and I think about 98% of my posts have been directly discussing abortion and the morality of that act. You could easily accuse me of not caring about the mother. But that would be fallacious because the issue is the morality of abortion. I have never needed to talk about the fact that my wife and I are foster parents and that we have helped support hundreds of single mothers.

And as for the fallacious argument that Christians only care about making abortion illegal and not caring about the mothers, here's a quote from redlegal which helps dispel that poor line of argumentation.

Just for the record, I didn't accuse you of anything (and neither did you say I did). And I didn't make any fallacious argument or claim Christians only care about making abortion illegal. The OP asked why an apparently powerful Republican / conservative majority of elected / appointed officials at the federal level (I guess I don't know whether this includes you personally, but I guess just by the numbers, the chances are low) doesn't do this and that was my best answer: they don't want to.

It is true that in my opinion, such aid to mothers is better handled as a country than through private charity, but that's a matter of opinion.

The work you mention and link to is excellent.

 

[SPF]

With regards to the OP, wouldn't it have to come from the Supreme Court? And didn't we literally JUST have the newest Supreme Court Justice appointed? I personally suspect we will see the issue come up during Trump's Presidency.

 

[archer75]

With regards to the OP, wouldn't it have to come from the Supreme Court? And didn't we literally JUST have the newest Supreme Court Justice appointed? I personally suspect we will see the issue come up during Trump's Presidency.

I can't say you're wrong. My suspicion is that we will not see the issue re-heard in any way by the SC during this presidency.

 

[BukiRob]

I do not think they should make it illegal ( have a max time in which it must be done) but beyond that it should be up to the state and frankly if they want to change the law on abortion that is their best bet anyway.

One can NOT claim to be a believer and be okay with abortion. PERIOD. It is MURDER, the slaughter of babies. G-d makes it UNMISTAKABLY clear that he considers what is in the womb to be LIFE.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

 

[BukiRob]

With regards to the OP, wouldn't it have to come from the Supreme Court? And didn't we literally JUST have the newest Supreme Court Justice appointed? I personally suspect we will see the issue come up during Trump's Presidency.

Rumor's have been floating around for a while that another justice is set to step down sometime this summer.

 

[kiwimac]

One can NOT claim to be a believer and be okay with abortion. PERIOD. It is MURDER, the slaughter of babies. G-d makes it UNMISTAKABLY clear that he considers what is in the womb to be LIFE.

"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations." Jeremiah 1:5

The verse quoted applies ONLY to Jeremiah unless you are asserting we are all prophets to the nations and is a comment on God's fore-knowledge not Jeremiah. The Bible never addresses abortion but from the comments it does make, it is quite clear that human life became so at the first breath drawn outside the womb. Even then, children were not counterd for the purposes of census until they were a month or so old.

 

[SPF]

The verse quoted applies ONLY to Jeremiah unless you are asserting we are all prophets to the nations and is a comment on God's fore-knowledge not Jeremiah. The Bible never addresses abortion but from the comments it does make, it is quite clear that human life became so at the first breath drawn outside the womb. Even then, children were not counterd for the purposes of census until they were a month or so old.

You're ignoring John the Baptist leaping for joy in his mother's womb. How exactly could he have done that if he was not a person?