Pro-life policies likely Obama targets

[Palatka51]

Pro-life policies likely Obama targets. Story Here.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Any chance of Roe v. Wade being overturned is over, at least for our lifetimes.

 

[Palatka51]

If abortion is to remain legal, as it appears it will, my blood boils just to know that my hard earned money is going to fund it. :tear:

The effect of a reversal of the Mexico City Policy "will be to open the floodgates of taxpayer funding of groups that promote abortion in foreign countries" as a method of family planning, Johnson told BP. The result of repealing that rule "will be to take [money] away from groups that are promoting contraception and give it to groups that are promoting abortion," he said.

Only two organizations -- the International Planned Parenthood Federation and Marie Stopes International -- refuse to abide by the Mexico City Policy and consequently are refused the funds, Day said. There are 650 organizations that accept federal money under the restrictions, she told BP.

 

[donnA]

Pro-life policies likely Obama targets. Story Here.

I'm sure they will be, them and many more babies are his target for death.

 

[windcatcher]

Any chance of Roe v. Wade being overturned is over, at least for our lifetimes.

As extreme to our thinking as this is, there are some who believe that all it would take for the overturn of Roe vs. Wade is for the Congress to pass a law proclaiming that life begins at conception and makeing all abortions unlawful except those necessary to preserve the life of the mother such as ectopic pregnancy or other unstable medical condition. Of course the law could be made more liberal to include rape and incest.... but Congress could write the law, could include that any review by courts upon this law would be subject to the strictest interpretation of the Constitution of the United States in which Congress has by this act of legislation, determined that under the law, life is established at conception, that a baby in the womb is a person and is under the full Constitutional protections.

Roe vs Wade won based upon the so-called 'privacy' issues involving a woman and her doctors. Had a law then existed which stated that conception was the beginning of life and subject to the full protection of the law.... then the case would have been lost. The fact that the case was won does not prevent the Congress from passing this law and preventing future abortions for causes other than those which the law establishes as appropriate consideration. It would be most difficult for such a similar case to return and be won at the Bench of the Supreme Court.

I subscribe to this belief.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Any chance of Roe v. Wade being overturned is over, at least for our lifetimes.

Overturning Roe v Wade has never been in the cards. Just was not going to happen. Campaigning on thie issue may win some votes, but politicians have no control over what happens, not in a real sense.

 

[windcatcher]

Overturning Roe v Wade has never been in the cards. Just was not going to happen. Campaigning on thie issue may win some votes, but politicians have no control over what happens, not in a real sense.

Sadly, this may be true:
For over 30 years we've lived with this insufferable curse upon our generation. We've live in the ignorance of our law and our power to change things. With lived in the limited teachings of our educational institutions and the focus of public awareness to areas which distract us from the simplicity which was established by our forefathers to help the people intervene in the processes of law. Even the best of our leaders have slumbered to the simplicity and direction in which we should have been moving during this time.:tear:

We've been led to believe it was Roe vs Wade which we needed to overturn and have kept our focus there.
We've been led to believe it is within the power of the President to nominate SC Justices, and that has controlled and distracted us from other issues which have greater importance to the direction of our country. Because of our myopic focus, we have neglected addressing the larger picture which has been painted as though by a common artist regardless of who we've elected. This single issue has even blinded us to the power of making decisions to vote for anyone but the mainstream candidates when neither party, Republican nor Democrat, is taking us in the direction we wish to go.

It doesn't take an ammendment to the Constitution: All it takes is Congress to establish by law when life begins and is subject to the protections of the Constitution of the United States: such a law doesn't even have to go so far as to define when abortion may be appropriate... but such a law could return this regulation to the states for the people therein to determine what is lawful and unlawful in regulating abortions.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Sadly, this may be true:
For over 30 years we've lived with this insufferable curse upon our generation. We've live in the ignorance of our law and our power to change things. With lived in the limited teachings of our educational institutions and the focus of public awareness to areas which distract us from the simplicity which was established by our forefathers to help the people intervene in the processes of law. Even the best of our leaders have slumbered to the simplicity and direction in which we should have been moving during this time.:tear:

We've been led to believe it was Roe vs Wade which we needed to overturn and have kept our focus there.
We've been led to believe it is within the power of the President to nominate SC Justices, and that has controlled and distracted us from other issues which have greater importance to the direction of our country. Because of our myopic focus, we have neglected addressing the larger picture which has been painted as though by a common artist regardless of who we've elected. This single issue has even blinded us to the power of making decisions to vote for anyone but the mainstream candidates when neither party, Republican nor Democrat, is taking us in the direction we wish to go.

It doesn't take an ammendment to the Constitution: All it takes is Congress to establish by law when life begins and is subject to the protections of the Constitution of the United States: such a law doesn't even have to go so far as to define when abortion may be appropriate... but such a law could return this regulation to the states for the people therein to determine what is lawful and unlawful in regulating abortions.

I believe at this point it wold take an amendment to the Constitution, or a judgment by the Supreme Court. At this point in time I believe the Supreme Court would strike down a law such as you proposed. Just my opinion.

I believe a more productive approach would be to very strongly, widely publicized, all our effort to encourage women to give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. It is obvious, from the number of Chinese girls we see adopted by people that there is a strong demand in adoption. This would not eliminiate abortions completely, but it may well cut down on the number of fetus' aborted.

 

[targus]

I believe a more productive approach would be to very strongly, widely publicized, all our effort to encourage women to give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. It is obvious, from the number of Chinese girls we see adopted by people that there is a strong demand in adoption. This would not eliminiate abortions completely, but it may well cut down on the number of fetus' aborted.

The number of abortions could be reduced also by following Obama's idea of giving birth and then disposing of the baby into the dirty laundry.

Getting to read about the new found concern over abortion by Obama supporters on this board would be laughable if it were not so serious of a moral issue.

 

[windcatcher]

I believe at this point it wold take an amendment to the Constitution, or a judgment by the Supreme Court. At this point in time I believe the Supreme Court would strike down a law such as you proposed. Just my opinion.

I believe a more productive approach would be to very strongly, widely publicized, all our effort to encourage women to give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. It is obvious, from the number of Chinese girls we see adopted by people that there is a strong demand in adoption. This would not eliminiate abortions completely, but it may well cut down on the number of fetus' aborted.

Sadly this is the perception of most people which stop them from legislative action...... as well as the common attitude of our legislatures who are not familiar with the powers given them by our constitution. It may sound strange but few people who go into office and swear to uphold and defend our Constitution have never even read it through. Many do not realize the power it gives to the people and to their representatives.

I'm hoping to purchase a course of study of our constitution. There are several law sponsored courses for citizens to take, either as individuals or as groups, or for individuals to purchase and then provide to groups as a community service.

It is only by people knowing their rights and the law that they are empowered both to exercise their rights and to properly complain and defend when their rights are being infringed upon.

One thing is for certain, fear of being shot down by the SCOTUS is no excuse for not attempting to pass law. When laws are passed, such as the questionable 'Patriot Act' by which some are concerned that their rights might be infringed upon....... it isn't until government initiates an action under that law which draws a complaint before the SCOTUS can pass upon it on Constitutional grounds. This is part of the separation of powers. There fore, the POTUS may decide on his own executive order to allow certain groups to perform certain deplorable acts with our tax dollars.... such as abortion..... but it is the congress which controls the funding without which those programs and services can be cut off. The President may then complain that congress is not funding all the other wonderful services which he feels those agencies perform but he can do nothing to change the power of the public purse as long as congress maintains its control and power...... which are reserved to its branch of power.

For that matter, the SCOTUS can make a ruling, but if the congress refuses to supply the funding or the POTUS refuses to enforce the ruling, the only power of the SCOTUS is to render an opinion. It cannot enforce. Thats the power of the executive branch. It cannot force funding. That's the power of the Legislative Branch.

If, instead of becoming issue oriented/political activist, we as a community of Christians had been more informed about the power we are blessed with under oour form of government to effect change or take back control to representative government...... we could have been taking action on more than one or two perceptions or fronts of action. Babies/ people do perish for lack of knowledge!

 

[Magnetic Poles]

No law proclaiming life begins at conception will pass either. We had such an amendment on our ballot here in Colorado last month and it was soundly defeated by about three-to-one. Too many unintended consequences, (e.g. ectopic pregnancy would result in the death of the woman).

 

[Andy T.]

I believe a more productive approach would be to very strongly, widely publicized, all our effort to encourage women to give birth and then give the baby up for adoption. It is obvious, from the number of Chinese girls we see adopted by people that there is a strong demand in adoption. This would not eliminiate abortions completely, but it may well cut down on the number of fetus' aborted.

I don't think we should have ever freed the slaves by law here in the U.S. We should've only encouraged slaveowners to free their slaves without coercion from the law.

Come to think of it, I don't think there should be any laws against any type of murder - we should only encourage would-be murderers not to murder.

Then we can soothe our seared consciences when we vote for politicians who advocate these same ridiculous sentiments.

 

[Crabtownboy]

I don't think we should have ever freed the slaves by law here in the U.S. We should've only encouraged slaveowners to free their slaves without coercion from the law.

Come to think of it, I don't think there should be any laws against any type of murder - we should only encourage would-be murderers not to murder.

Then we can soothe our seared consciences when we vote for politicians who advocate these same ridiculous sentiments.

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. But if you are not, then your logic is quite faulty. I say take a new approach because abortion is going to stay the law of the land regardless of whether you or I or anyone else dislikes the fact. That being the case, try something new and positive. I believe adoption is a better option than continuing to spend time and resources on a totally ineffective effort.

 

[Andy T.]

I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. But if you are not, then your logic is quite faulty. I say take a new approach because abortion is going to stay the law of the land regardless of whether you or I or anyone else dislikes the fact. That being the case, try something new and positive. I believe adoption is a better option than continuing to spend time and resources on a totally ineffective effort.

So I guess if you lived in the 1820's you would've only encouraged slaveowners to free their slaves and not supported any laws that mandated such. I'm sure many at that time thought slavery would stay the "law of the land" for years on end. I'm glad that they were wrong. And I hope you are wrong about abortion.

You are the one using faulty logic by continuing this "either/or" approach. It's quite silly to think that if someone supports making abortion illegal then they are not also doing other things like promoting adoption or pregnancy distress centers. It's very easy to do both, you know. In fact, the pro-life movement has been the leader in these non-political movements against abortion.

 

[Crabtownboy]

So I guess if you lived in the 1820's you would've only encouraged slaveowners to free their slaves and not supported any laws that mandated such. I'm sure many at that time thought slavery would stay the "law of the land" for years on end. I'm glad that they were wrong. And I hope you are wrong about abortion.

I have no idea what I would have believed in the 1820's. I suppose it would have depended on where I was born, what my family believed, and the decision I came to as I grew up. It would be pure speculation to say what I would have believed or not believed back then.

You are the one using faulty logic by continuing this "either/or" approach. It's quite silly to think that if someone supports making abortion illegal then they are not also doing other things like promoting adoption or pregnancy distress centers. It's very easy to do both, you know. In fact, the pro-life movement has been the leader in these non-political movements against abortion.

It may be true that people have been working on several sides of this issue and I commend them for that. However, I see no or very few really constructive suggestions here, it is simply I am against it and it should be made illegal. That is of little help, it is not going to be made illegal, so we should work on reducing the problem through more viable means.

 

[windcatcher]

No law proclaiming life begins at conception will pass either. We had such an amendment on our ballot here in Colorado last month and it was soundly defeated by about three-to-one. Too many unintended consequences, (e.g. ectopic pregnancy would result in the death of the woman).

Yes! People..... The public..... will believe any type of propaganda which is sold to them as an excuse for keeping the politics of death continuing. Before abortions were made a right of choice between a woman and her doctor, abortions were allowed for ectopic pregnancies. It has always been an illogical argument to scare people into thinking it was illegal for a doctor to save a mother's life by aborting a dangerous pregnancy, when the progression of that pregnancy would kill her without any medical intervention.

We sometimes don't realize the power of words on others. It isn't that we aren't telling the truth: But when we repeat a false statement (and I do it myself to show contrast between points of view (pov)) we have no power over what another hears or retains..... and it may be they remember the part which was more fearsome to them even though we presented it as a false concept, than the truth which we were trying to get accross.

Before Roe vs Wade, it was a legally allowable procedure to interrupt a life threatening pregnancy to preserve the mother's life. There were a few doctors (RC mostly) who would refer rather than perform such surgeries, and some women who might refuse the procedure as a matter of their personal conscience, but medically necessary procedures to preserve a mother's life have always been legal.

Once again: It has always been a legal procedure to interrupt a pregnancy to preserve a mother's life: To say otherwise is to promote the false propaganda of the choice crowd.

 

[Spinach]

This issue is upseting to me. It should not even be an issue.

However, we've got what we've got and have to find ways, such as listed above, to help educate. Herein lies another problem, though. I personally do not want the public schools teaching my 9 year old children how to roll a condom on a banana. I think it's the parents' rights and responsibilties to educate their own children in whatever means they see fit. Unfortunately, though, some will never be told anything, if that were the case. It's sad, truly.

Another thing I take issue with is that none of us can agree on when life begins anyway. Right here on this board you might find that some believe it begins at conception and will use no chemical birth control to harm that. Others will say that it begins at implantation, so all birth control methods are an option. Others may even say that life begins at viablility, which is changing everyday with the advances in medical science. Others may say it begins at birth. Some say life begins at 21 (j/k). None of us, even among Christians (among Baptists, even), agree on when life begins, so how could we even begin to unite and find an alternative to abortion, outside abstinence?

This is a matter that requires fervent prayer!

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It has always been a legal procedure to interrupt a pregnancy to preserve a mother's life: To say otherwise is to promote the false propaganda of the choice crowd.

Ah, historically you may be correct. However, this was NOT an exception under the proposed amendment to the state constitution here in Colorado. It would without a doubt have been overturned as unconstitutional by the federal courts, but how many women would have died in the interim period.

 

[Spinach]

There are too many people on birth control pills, shots, and such to vote in favor of the proposed ammendment you mentioned, MP.

 

[donnA]

I have no idea what I would have believed in the 1820's. I suppose it would have depended on where I was born, what my family believed, and the decision I came to as I grew up. It would be pure speculation to say what I would have believed or not believed back then.

Quote:

in other words culture should tell us what to beleive, and scripture plays no part in it.

That is of little help, it is not going to be made illegal, so we should work on reducing the problem through more viable means.

Shouldn't we then be voting for someone who is not planning to increase abortion, by allowing partial birth abortion, and making tax payers (even christians) pay for it. I do not see voting for someone who will allow partial birth abortion as doing anything to reduce the problem of abortion.