Just Labradors banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,206 Posts
I skimmed

I'm glad they included something about protecting the mother's health.

I am still a little confused on the details so I don't have a strong opinion on the rest. I'm afraid though this will give momentum to the pro-life movement and more is to come... more that I would definitely not agree with. (Banning all abortions)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,085 Posts
I think even the Catholic Church recognizes that when a pregnant mother's life is in danger, it's time to make the moral decision and allow her to live at the expense of her baby. So even Rome's not looking for a TOTAL ban on ALL abortions.

I'd be happy seeing Roe overturned, both from a moral standpoint and the position of its shaky constitutionality. And then let the States decide for themselves. It's still not a perfect solution, but it's better than where we are now.

FWIW, I'm not exactly lockstep with the Church on its pro-life stance anyway. I, for one, believe that the death penalty, with all the caveats in place about the judicial and appeals processes and their being fully exhausted before a decision is rendered, is an effective deterrant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,085 Posts
sawyersammy said:
Does everything have to go through the almighty Catholic Church? ::)
Not sure I get your point......

For a Catholic, the answer is Yes. But doesn't that hold true for every guiding principle for our lives? For a Democrat, aren't most issues framed from a Democratic point of view? Same for a Baptist, a European, a Senior Citizen, a plumber? ? ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,206 Posts
Can we have one law for catholics and one law for the rest of us? (so ridiculous)

Why apply the catholic church's standards to our laws? I mean why do our laws have to enforce the catholic's rules?

If a catholic isn't supposed to get an abortion, then isn't it up to their faith in their church to prevent them from having one?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
dweck said:
I think even the Catholic Church recognizes that when a pregnant mother's life is in danger, it's time to make the moral decision and allow her to live at the expense of her baby. So even Rome's not looking for a TOTAL ban on ALL abortions.

I'd be happy seeing Roe overturned, both from a moral standpoint and the position of its shaky constitutionality. And then let the States decide for themselves. It's still not a perfect solution, but it's better than where we are now.

FWIW, I'm not exactly lockstep with the Church on its pro-life stance anyway. I, for one, believe that the death penalty, with all the caveats in place about the judicial and appeals processes and their being fully exhausted before a decision is rendered, is an effective deterrant.

This would be great, in a perfect world. The reality, however, is that if abortion is not legal, girls and woman will find a way to do it anyway. That is just too dangerous to even imagine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,085 Posts
I'm not following this at all. Who said Rome is making laws in the U.S.?

Catholics may pray for and demonstrate for its pro-life stance. It may express delight or disappointment with individual candidates and their stances and platforms. But to my knowledge, they're not entering the voting booths with their members and telling them how to vote.

Nor are they lobbying Congress for changes. The Catholic Church is worth billions; if it were a matter of bribery, Roe v. Wade would have been purchased and overturned decades ago. In fact, it probably wouldn't have passed in the first place.

I don't see why my saying the Catholic Church will be pleased at this development is so objectionable. It's no different, IMHO, than posts that celebrated the Democratic overthrow in Washington last fall, based on the Administration's War stance. Those listers have framed the issue with an ideology that they embrace. I was merely doing the same thing.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,114 Posts
All issues are seen through a particular person's frame of reference. To say a person shouldn't bring that frame of reference to a discussion doesn't make any sense.

Personally I think that people who are pro-choice are going to have to accept that there are going to be changes in abortion law. On just a purely medical basis, with pre-term babies being saved earlier and earlier, it only makes sense that the idea of when life begins might have to shift a little.

People who are pro-life are going to have to deal with the fact that abortion is not going away.

Not everything is a slippery slope. Sometimes we just make adjustments based on newer facts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,085 Posts
Golfgirlrobin said:
Not everything is a slippery slope. Sometimes we just make adjustments based on newer facts.
Wow. That is excellent. What a great point. I may adopt "Not everything is a slippery slope" as my new mantra. I never thought of it that way, but it's great. Calms nerves. Moves beyond the opinions on either fringe. Centers discussion on the issue.

Love it!! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
504 Posts
Maybe it's time that the political branches of our government took a look at the entire thing. It seems like there's this endless waiting game between the opponents and proponents of the procedure in which they wait and see which president will get the best chance to stack the courts with the friendliest judges to their particular side of the issue. If people in State X want abortions and people in State Y do not, that should be their decision. I usually oppose putting someone else's personal life and their rights in front of the mob for a vote (see my support for gay rights) but I think the abortion thing is too important to continue to be decided by the unelected. Unlike gay marriage, abortion is an issue with something actually at stake. I must say the raw act of an abortion is horrible and that's coming from a godless heathen to boot. I'm not, however, ballsy enough to say I can make the determination of right and wrong for every woman's situation out there. Another reason why this should be taken away from the courts....there are perspectives other than the legal to be considered.

Judging by the longish term polling since Roe was decided, there would probably be a checkerboard-like picture of legal and illegal states. That could present problems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
Golfgirlrobin said:
All issues are seen through a particular person's frame of reference. To say a person shouldn't bring that frame of reference to a discussion doesn't make any sense.

Personally I think that people who are pro-choice are going to have to accept that there are going to be changes in abortion law. On just a purely medical basis, with pre-term babies being saved earlier and earlier, it only makes sense that the idea of when life begins might have to shift a little.

People who are pro-life are going to have to deal with the fact that abortion is not going away.

Not everything is a slippery slope. Sometimes we just make adjustments based on newer facts.

That is such a great point. However, I still think the bigger picture is those who will seek an abortion whether it's legal or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,085 Posts
Haven't we, as a society, moved on from the atmosphere in which Roe was decided? I mean, in the early 1970s, unwed mothers were still outcast and held up for public shame, much as their forebears in the 1950s were. And so rather than subject themselves to that criticism, women sought to end their pregnancies by whatever means necessary.

But in this present age of tolerance for all, haven't we left that guilt and finger-wagging behind?

As for economic pressures, aren't there better safety nets in place -- governmentally and communally -- to ensure that women who decide to become single mothers aren't left in the dirt? Not perfect by any stretch -- and these single parents will still struggle -- but better?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
dweck said:
Haven't we, as a society, moved on from the atmosphere in which Roe was decided? I mean, in the early 1970s, unwed mothers were still outcast and held up for public shame, much as their forebears in the 1950s were. And so rather than subject themselves to that criticism, women sought to end their pregnancies by whatever means necessary.

But in this present age of tolerance for all, haven't we left that guilt and finger-wagging behind?

As for economic pressures, aren't there better safety nets in place -- governmentally and communally -- to ensure that women who decide to become single mothers aren't left in the dirt? Not perfect by any stretch -- and these single parents will still struggle -- but better?

This is not the age of tolerance for all, it would be nice if it was but it isn't. I wasn't necessarily talking about women, but young women and girls.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,653 Posts
Robin said:
I must say the raw act of an abortion is horrible and that's coming from a godless heathen to boot. I'm not, however, ballsy enough to say I can make the determination of right and wrong for every woman's situation out there.
While I agree with this sentiment entirely, there are many people out there- judges, clergy members, abusive fathers, what have you, that do believe they have that right.

dweck said:
Haven't we, as a society, moved on from the atmosphere in which Roe was decided? I mean, in the early 1970s, unwed mothers were still outcast and held up for public shame, much as their forebears in the 1950s were. And so rather than subject themselves to that criticism, women sought to end their pregnancies by whatever means necessary.

But in this present age of tolerance for all, haven't we left that guilt and finger-wagging behind?
Absolutely not. As someone who helped a friend "face the choice" less than two years ago, no, we have not.

Listen to what people say to my girlfriend that has a kid with a different last name than her and you'll know we have not.

Suburban people with kids are often insulated from the realities that prompt people to seek out abortions.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top