Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes

[princessgianna]

well u are right! but then should we continue allowing a mother to kill her child legally?
or should we just make it legal to kill someone else and it is every man\woman for his\her self?

i see your point but then people can be prosecuted(as they should be) for killing another human person!

[jkaands]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1660198' date='Sep 20 2008, 04:53 PM']Fallacious analogy, unless abortion is addictive now. People circumvented alcohol and illicit drug prohibitions because they had addictions. If abortions weren't a viable option, then women would either be taking a ridiculous risk with their own lives, or would have the baby.[/quote]

Fallacious fallacious analogy.

People drank not because they had addictions, but because they liked drinking and saw no reason why it should be forbidden. People also sold bootlegged liquor because it was very lucrative, as are illegal drugs. Most drug users in this country are recreational users anyway, not addicts. There is no way to prohibit marijuana, meth or cocaine from being sold, no matter how hard the government tries; this is why the feds try to dry up the source.

If Roe v. Wade is overthrown, abortion clinics will spring up across the border in Canada and Mexico, plus the Caribbean, and probably in 'cruise ships', in addition to all the illegal abortions being performed in the states. If the decision is turned over to the states, many states will retain legal abortion and abortion clinics will start up along their borders with the non-abortion states, like states selling non-taxed alcohol, cigarettes, and firecrackers along their borders. Just as casinos are in rivers which abut states which forbid them, abortion clinics could do the same thing, or be started up on Indian reservations, which are sovereign land, where casinos are allowed, which are otherwise illegal in the surrounding state. Sound crazy? It's not. Women will always find a way to have an abortion and people will find a way to make money providing it. Because the business is unregulated, because it is illegal, it wouldn't require a licensed practitioner to perform it; any nurse, doctor, med-school dropout, MD's who lost their licenses could make a very good living being an abortionist in the settings I have described. As for illegal abortions, the states won't even try to shut down illegal abortions, as they have to divert so much of their money and personnel now to closing meth labs, illegal drugs and immigration.

If an attempt is made to amend the constitution with a constitutional amendment, this would require ratification by 3/4 of the US states, or 38 states, a virtual impossibility, as the population which wants to outlaw abortion is neither widespread nor numerous.

[jkaands]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1658560' date='Sep 18 2008, 05:33 PM']I rarely vote for anyone. I typically vote against the other guy.[/quote]

Good show, Win.

I love that movie.

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='jkaands' post='1660234' date='Sep 20 2008, 07:16 PM']Fallacious fallacious analogy.

People drank not because they had addictions, but because they liked drinking and saw no reason why it should be forbidden. People also sold bootlegged liquor because it was very lucrative, as are illegal drugs.[/quote]
I disagree on this point, but debating will not be fruitful, so I'll agree to disagree.

[quote]Most drug users in this country are recreational users anyway, not addicts. There is no way to prohibit marijuana, meth or cocaine from being sold, no matter how hard the government tries; this is why the feds try to dry up the source.[/quote]
Marijuana, perhaps not, but cocaine and methamphetamine are quite addictive. I'd think that there were very few cases in which repeat users weren't addicted.
[quote]If Roe v. Wade is overthrown, abortion clinics will spring up across the border in Canada and Mexico, plus the Caribbean, and probably in 'cruise ships', in addition to all the illegal abortions being performed in the states. If the decision is turned over to the states, many states will retain legal abortion and abortion clinics will start up along their borders with the non-abortion states, like states selling non-taxed alcohol, cigarettes, and firecrackers along their borders. Just as casinos are in rivers which abut states which forbid them, abortion clinics could do the same thing, or be started up on Indian reservations, which are sovereign land, where casinos are allowed, which are otherwise illegal in the surrounding state. Sound crazy? It's not. Women will always find a way to have an abortion and people will find a way to make money providing it. Because the business is unregulated, because it is illegal, it wouldn't require a licensed practitioner to perform it; any nurse, doctor, med-school dropout, MD's who lost their licenses could make a very good living being an abortionist in the settings I have described. As for illegal abortions, the states won't even try to shut down illegal abortions, as they have to divert so much of their money and personnel now to closing meth labs, illegal drugs and immigration.[/quote]
So be it, then. Certainly you've heard the old adage that "Just because everyone else is doing it, that doesn't make it ok." If every other country on the planet wants to allow the murder of the unborn, so be it. This does not mean that the US has to allow this evil to occur within her borders.
[quote]If an attempt is made to amend the constitution with a constitutional amendment, this would require ratification by 3/4 of the US states, or 38 states, a virtual impossibility, as the population which wants to outlaw abortion is neither widespread nor numerous.[/quote]
I guess we'll allow the results of this election to show whether the population which supports abortion is widespread and numerous or not.

[dairygirl4u2c]

they didn't take the booze bc they were addictive.

i remember hearing that legalizing abortion caused it to increase ten fold.

he makes good points though about how it'd be legal in canada, etc etc, and might not reduce it. i really don't know. if my stat i heard is correct, i'd think it'd help.

if it's just outlawing someitng that's nto gonna change, i agree though, it'd be pointless to change it, or especially spending time trying to.

[Terra Pax]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1660249' date='Sep 20 2008, 07:48 PM']I guess we'll allow the results of this election to show whether the population which supports abortion is widespread and numerous or not.[/quote]
The results of this election won't show anything about abortion. Most people don't vote based on abortion views, so it's a fallacy in logic to assume that the distribution of votes accurately predicts views on abortion.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Terra Pax' post='1660573' date='Sep 21 2008, 02:50 PM']The results of this election won't show anything about abortion. Most people don't vote based on abortion views, so it's a fallacy in logic to assume that the distribution of votes accurately predicts views on abortion.[/quote]

You must be out of touch with [url="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2008/09/19/joe_biden_loses_barack_obama_the_catholic_vote"]the real Catholic vote[/url] then...

Edited September 21, 2008 by KnightofChrist

[Vincent Vega]

[quote name='Terra Pax' post='1660573' date='Sep 21 2008, 02:50 PM']The results of this election won't show anything about abortion. Most people don't vote based on abortion views, so it's a fallacy in logic to assume that the distribution of votes accurately predicts views on abortion.[/quote]
Well, most Catholics do (and [i]all[/i] should).

[Socrates]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1659243' date='Sep 19 2008, 01:34 PM']Of course I know better.. But I'm getting pretty sick and tired of folks unecessarily stressing a document instead of the abortions at hand..

We set ourselves up to buy into the campaigns of anyone who merely says they believe life begins at conception but never do anything for the women who walk into the abortion clinic everyday once we vote them into office.

If this truly is the ONE ISSUE at hand, then why the devil aren't we demanding more from our worthless elected "pro-life" officials then allowing ourselves to be duped by their rhetoric, all the while they do next to squat for us..[/quote]
Like it or not, the ruling Roe v. Wade is what has made abortion-on-demand the law of the land in America, and this will have to be overturned by the Supreme Court.

It is the job of the president to appoint Supreme Court justices. And oftentimes the efforts of "worthless" pro-life officials are blocked by liberal Democrats, and "moderate" Republicans.
And you tell me, why aren't [i]you[/i] demanding more from them (rather than just complaining how worthless all pro-lifers are)?

And why aren't [i]we[/i] doing more for women who walk to the abortion clinic? Helping pregnant women is primarily job of all of us in the pro-life movement, not of the government.
To quote that revered liberal president JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Edited September 22, 2008 by Socrates

[SpareTime]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1660801' date='Sep 21 2008, 10:10 PM'](rather than just complaining how worthless all pro-lifers are)?[color="#FF0000"]My comment: I don't think she said that. That would be called "putting words in someone's mouth".[/color]

And why aren't [i]we[/i] doing more for women who walk to the abortion clinic? Helping pregnant women is primarily job of all of us in the pro-life movement, not of the government.
To quote that revered liberal president JFK, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."[/quote]

I agree with this statement! We as prolifers need to do more. I do abortion clinic outreach when I can, but many prolifers I know have never been to an abortion clinic in their lives.

[SpareTime]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' post='1660249' date='Sep 20 2008, 07:48 PM']Marijuana, perhaps not, but cocaine and methamphetamine are quite addictive. I'd think that there were very few cases in which repeat users weren't addicted.[/quote]

In my experience your hypothesis is wrong. I know many people who were recreational drug users in their high school and college days who were not addicts. I would say that for every 30 people I knew that had done coke more than once, and even every weekend or every other weekend, only 1 person did it daily. The number would change to 1 in 15 for meth or other amphetamines.

[jckinsman]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1658163' date='Sep 18 2008, 07:44 AM']With respect, I don't think it's as simple as that. Clearly, Obama is not tenable due to his support for abortion. However, what should a "true Catholic" think about McCain's support for the war in Iraq, about which the Church is dubious at best; what should a "true Catholic" think about McCain's support for "enhanced interrogation techniques," i.e. torture; what should a "true Catholic" think about McCain's support for the erosion of civil liberties in the US; what should a "true Catholic" think about the Republican party's preference for and catering to monied interests, in direct opposition to Catholic social teaching? These issues are all debatable, of course, but the point is it's not a "slam dunk."

Just to be clear, I don't think there's any possible way to justify a vote for Obama. I'm simply saying that McCain is a deeply flawed candidate based on his policy positions, including "life," on which he also has a questionable record.

What if we all wrote in, "none of the above," or "Dr. Ron Paul?"[/quote]
................then you would take away votes for McCain and Obama could win. This makes no sense to do so. McCain was not my first choice but I will vote for him,NO QUESTION,on my ballot. So if you want Obama to win,be that foolish.

[FSM Sister]

For all those who do not support the war in Iraq (and I'm not in favor of war, by any means) ask yourself this:

When was the last time we saw an airplane fly into the side of a building? (Zero)
How many times has a potential threat to our safety been caught and taken care of at an airport? (More times than I can remember.)
How many of our foreign embassies have been bombed since 9/11?

Hmmm. I don't condone terrorism, weather it is abroad or on American soil. But what does Almighty God think of a nation that tolerates terrorism in the womb? And thanks to Roe V. Wade, we now have less objection to legalized euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and the cloning of animal/human hybrids. We can all argue that this is, after all, for the greater good. It's medical research. It's a mass of cells... it's not a human life.

Voting for a pro-choice ticket is a vote for murder. It's that simple. Stop making it into a convaluted argument. If we didn't have such an immoral society to begin with, we wouldn't have to keep resolving the results of this wanton behavior (pregnancy) because we would be dealing with the primary causes (immorality and greed) that led up to it. Americans (including American Catholics) are just plain lazy. Too lazy to do penance, too lazy to raise their own children, too lazy to study, too lazy to practice virtue, etc. This has been eroding our society for decades, and like Rome, we are on a path to distruction. We can either repent, like the ancient city of Nineveh, or perish. America will not be destroyed by our enemies; we will simply rot from within. We needn't hasten our inevitable end, though, by withdrawing our military troops and waiting for the enemy to drop a bomb on us.

[Didymus]

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1660927' date='Sep 22 2008, 02:53 AM']................then you would take away votes for McCain and Obama could win. This makes no sense to do so. McCain was not my first choice but I will vote for him,NO QUESTION,on my ballot. So if you want Obama to win,be that foolish.[/quote]

that depends where you live. Since I live in Illinois, it doesn't matter who I vote for for president, if I don't vote for Obama. And since I will not, my vote is, in a way, a wasted vote. McCain has as much of a chance in Illinois as Barr...

[FSM Sister]

It's not exactly a wasted vote - every percentage point sends a message to the politicians, media, pollsters, and general public. It gives encouragement to the pro-life side when the polls are close... and to the pro-murder side (I refuse to call it choice) when the numbers are so one-sided.

I was reading some reaction to an article in a California newspaper yesterday. The pro-life voters out there are on fire! They know they aren't going to win the state - this year - but they want their votes reflected in the percentage points. Refusing to vote is senseless. It is our duty as citizens.