Abortion

==If it is returned to the states alone, then it is local politicians alone who have to deal with the issue. Get it out of the hands of the people in Washington. And, for your information, the level of difficulty is different. There is a big difference between passing a state law and getting the federal constitution amended. In fact there are people who would support state laws banning abortion who would not support a federal constitutional amendment. You seem determined to stick with a failed method, and I have no idea why.

==It is if you are fighting the wrong battle. I believe people who take the position you do are wasting valuable time and energy.

No, I did not watch the video you posted. I have seen plenty videos of abortions and I don't need to see another one. I do believe that everyone in this country needs to "Silent Scream" and other such videos. That is part of the education process I have been talking about. If more people are educated on the reality of abortion, it will be easier to get them to be pro-life. More than that, the more people who are born again through faith in Christ the more people who will be pro-life.

 

No, it is not. A person vote is for whomever he votes for. Voting for one candidate does not mean that he/she is voting for a different candidate than the one he/she voted for.

Voters really need to get out of this two-party only paradigm that they have foolishly locked themselves into.

 

Are you secretly on the Dem Party payroll?

Foolishly? Calling practical logic foolishness, is foolish.

 

In this particular election, there is no doubt that a 3rd party conservative vote will help the Democrats. However, there are instances in history where a 3rd party helped the Republicans, such as 1968, 1980, and 2000.

 

1) No, I have not been a member of the Democratic Party since 1977.

2) Sorry, but I am not going to vote for Rudy Giuliani just so Hillary Clinton will not be president. If I was going to limit myself to the two party paradigm I would come close to voting for Hillary Clinton just so Rudy Giuliani would not be president than the other way around.

 

Agreed. I would rather have an alternative to bigger govt and purge the pubs of their would-be libs. I would vote Hillary before I would vote Giuliani. But then again, I'm voting libertarian regardless.

 

That figures.

 

Lets pray this is not the final choice. 300,000,000 Americans, and this is the final two we come up with.

 

Unfortunately, the laws of supply and demand ultimately decide most everything. Consequently, unpopular laws simply aren't enforced. Case in point: immigration. Other examples include drugs, teens looking at porn, etc. Now, an argument can be made that perhaps these laws should be enforced but for the most part that simply will not happen. Abortion likely falls into the same category. My theory (operative word being theory) is that Roe could be unanimously overturned by the Supreme Court tomorrow and abortion would largely carry on as is. Think about it, roughly half the nation is pro-choice and that's a very conservative estimate. If we do not have the man power or willpower to crack down on 15 million illegals we aren't going to have either to strong arm ten times that amount, 150 million. If abortion were banned there would probably be a few high profile examples made of a select few who would be "slapped on the wrist" and then perpetually worshipped by pop culture for their "martyrdom." The major problem with strict enforcement of an abortion ban is that it can't be enforced retroactively, in other words it isn't plausible to think that someone violating a new found regulation would be charged with murder or the equivalent when hundreds of thousands who've committed the same action would still be considered law abiding citizens simply because they underwent abortions prior to the ban. Accordingly, any deviation from a federal abortion ban would be treated as simply a breach of protocol and inevitably not be worth the time for prosecution. Face it, cultural problems necessitate cultural solutions. Until an overwhelming majority become ideologically pro-life abortion is safe. As with all cultural/ideological fights it will never be completely won by either side.

But in the interest of the sanctity of life, I certainly hope my theory is wrong.

 

Even iIf there were nine thoroughly pro-life justices on the U.S. Supreme Court I really don't think that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. At least not for the forseeable future. The country would have to be somewhat united that it is what should be done before the justices would do something so drastic, IMO.

 

I don't either but the potential social upheaval caused by overturning Roe v. Wade may be more than even a majority of pro-life justices would be willing to risk.

 

I disagree: Roe v. Wade was enacted under false pretenses, and the resulting law is not constitutionally sound, and simply needs honest SCOTUS appointees, whatever party, to toss it. It really is bad law constitutionally.

 

I know that this is a thread in the political debate forum, but I believe you are exactly right in this assessment of this being a 'cultural problem necessitating a cultural solution'. I agree with the other posters that the "federal route" for stopping abortion has not worked, and probably WILL not work...UNTIL THE CULTURAL SHIFT OCCURS. Just as it took YEARS of efforts by many, many people on the cultural/social front to make smoking something less than glamorous and now we finally have laws against public smoking, it will take this same kind of concerted effort to have the same impact on abortion-on-demand.

And before someone gets upset at me comparing smoking and abortion (there is obviously NO comparison between the two as far as the activity itself)-->DISCLAIMER: sorry--don't mean to offend/condemn any smokers here. I am allergic to the stuff, so I'm happy for the public bans on smoking. I do not wish to impose my animosity toward tobacco as a standard that you should have to adhere to. This is just an example that points out how a cultural shift occurred.

OKAY, so my point is this--EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION. THAT is the way I see God bringing a change on this issue. Just as the public was educated (over a long period of time) about smoking (whether you agree with the "education" or not, it is a fact that the anti-smoking campaign finally did cause a shift in how the public IN GENERAL views smoking), I see the same kind of concentrated effort ALREADY making a cultural shift in the abortion issue (even if it is a small shift so far).

I came of age when abortions were legalized. I was bombarded as a teen/young adult by the "wonders" of the "freedoms" women now had over "their own bodies". I --and an entire generation--was "educated" as to how grand and glorious abortion was. NO, I didn't fall for the hype--but too, too many people DID. To undo this, NOW entire generations need to be RE-educated. I think one of the greatest tools to do this is one mentioned in a Prayer/Praise thread by another poster. He was taking his wife for an ultrasound. That reminded me of how tremendously moved (beyond words, really) by the VIDEO of my first grandson when my step-daughter had her first ultrasound. That child --already precious to me--was as real at that moment as if I held him in my arms.

I believe that, if there was a way to do it, letting every girl from the age of 10 years old (and boys of some age--I'm not sure what is best there) experience an ultrasound video--letting them hear that heartbeat, letting them look to see if they can tell if it's a girl or boy--letting them see, and hear, and KNOW that that IS LIFE in there...I think that would have the greatest impact we could offer as Christians (other than the Gospel, of course). The basic problem surrounding the abortion issue as I see it is this--the nation as a whole has lost the basic notion of the sanctity and precious nature of ANY life. So anything we do to teach that concept to a populace devoid of love and desperately searching for meaning can definitely make the difference, where political solutions have failed to even begin to scratch the surface of the problem.

 

This debate will likely never end. Banning abortion would just be the first step. Somehow forcing sympathetic, liberal police officers in LA and NY to crack down on offenders would be the short term challenge. Keeping abortion illegal would be the never ending long term challenge. Since pro-lifers didn't roll over and play dead when SCOTUS turned on them it doesn't seem likely pro-choicers would either.