Politics

[pkt77242]

1.Are you arguing that these policies reduce abortion (or the "need for" abortion)? If this was true, we would expect that red states have the highest abortion rates. But they don't.



2.I do plead ignorance, but as I understand it most PPs don't have the technology to do mammograms. And, again, PP is not the only place to get these "screenings." Many other government-funded community health centers offer them, too, and there is no reason to think that the money cannot be better spent there.


3.If you look at PP's 2013-14 report, you see the following figures:
327,653 abortions
18,684 "prenatal services"
1,880 adoption referrals

So when a pregnant woman goes to PP for a service uniquely of interest to a pregnant woman 94% of the time she gets an abortion. I guess that 97% figure was a bit high (although from a different year, too).

And the fact that almost none of their clinics provide prenatal care does not vindicate them, as you suggest. PP's main provision of "care" is killing the baby and then selling its remains.

1. Nope, I just pointed out that "pro-life" people who are anti-abortion but against government spending on poor people aren't truly pro-life, just pro-birth. At the end of my first post though, I linked to a study that showed free birth control lowered pregnancy and abortions amongst teens. I take it you didn't read it.

2. Many cases of breast cancer get caught when a lump is felt. During a women's yearly exam the OB/GYN does a breast exam feeling for lumps. Planned Parenthood does about 550,000 a year. After a lump is felt the women goes and gets a mamogram (which I agree with you, I don't think that PP has the equipment so they refer it out). Again many of those women would not be getting the yearly exams without PP.

3. Really? What you are forgetting is that most of Planned Parenthood's clinics do not do pre-natal care and thus get referred somewhere else. I believe it is something like 60 out of 800 clinics offer that service. The rest of the clinics (well over 700 of them) refer pregnant mothers out for pre-natal services. The amount of women that get referred out for pre-natal care isn't reported but if you take the numbers you provided and use the percentage of clinics that offer the service and extrapolate it out, it would mean about 250,000 prenatal services/referrals (including the 18,500 from the report). Hardly the number that you talk about. I take it you didn't read Irishjayhawk's link that he provided.


ETA: It really seems like you don't read other people's posts or links that they provide.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Where "social justice" economics takes us.

LiveLeak.com - Customers fight for milk in Venezuela

Makes about as much sense to say that driving Volkswagens will turn us into Nazi Germany.

No one is looking at Venezuela (or Greece for that matter) as saying "look at their successes in public policy! Let's do that!" Why is it so hard to see that the other dozen developed economies have policies with more "social justice" in mind and aren't imploding because of it? What's with the rush to assume that looking at the Germanys or Canadas of the world, and see what might work for us, will turn us into Venezuela? That just doesn't make any sense.

Refusing to look at the rest of the world is how we end up being one of the only countries without maternity leave, universal health care, etc.

 

[Canton_Irish]

The NYT op-ed linked a little ways back was on point in my opinion. It's one thing to argue for legalized abortion but another to see and feel it. It's such a sterilized topic for the pro-choice advocates. It's all about reproductive health and women's rights with no regard given for the life that must end for the convenience of the more developed person. Even calling the baby a "fetus" is an attempt to distance the unborn offspring (which is what "fetus" is Latin for) from the child that s/he is. Planned Parenthood providing SOME benefit to society isn't in question by pro-lifers. We understand they provide referrals that save lives. The fact that they carry out state sanctioned murder overrides any good they provide. They should be completely defunded with the tax money going to clinics that provide the same referrals and exams without the in-house infanticide.


I've had many discussions regarding the topic of abortion and the right to live that should be enshrined in our Constitution. One point I've never heard a convincing argument from a pro-choice position is when does the fetus scientifically change from something other than human to an actual human? What developmental milestone must be crossed where killing the other being moves from being morally acceptable to morally intolerable? Obviously it isn't a heartbeat and pain doesn't seem to be an obstacle. If the act of breathing is all it takes to cross that boundary, it's only a matter of time until the boundary is pushed back further and further. After-birth abortion will be put forward as something to be considered and embraced by the Left. I would contend that my now 3 year old daughter was no less dependent on her parents the day after she was born than she was the day before.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The NYT op-ed linked a little ways back was on point in my opinion. It's one thing to argue for legalized abortion but another to see and feel it. It's such a sterilized topic for the pro-choice advocates. It's all about reproductive health and women's rights with no regard given for the life that must end for the convenience of the more developed person. Even calling the baby a "fetus" is an attempt to distance the unborn offspring (which is what "fetus" is Latin for) from the child that s/he is. Planned Parenthood providing SOME benefit to society isn't in question by pro-lifers. We understand they provide referrals that save lives. The fact that they carry out state sanctioned murder overrides any good they provide. They should be completely defunded with the tax money going to clinics that provide the same referrals and exams without the in-house infanticide.


I've had many discussions regarding the topic of abortion and the right to live that should be enshrined in our Constitution. One point I've never heard a convincing argument from a pro-choice position is when does the fetus scientifically change from something other than human to an actual human? What developmental milestone must be crossed where killing the other being moves from being morally acceptable to morally intolerable? Obviously it isn't a heartbeat and pain doesn't seem to be an obstacle. If the act of breathing is all it takes to cross that boundary, it's only a matter of time until the boundary is pushed back further and further. After-birth abortion will be put forward as something to be considered and embraced by the Left. I would contend that my now 3 year old daughter was no less dependent on her parents the day after she was born than she was the day before.

Bolded is a question that is impossible to answer objectively, it's not like there's a magic moment that life objectively starts. Arguments can be and have been made for everything from pre-conception to birth and beyond. No point is objectively wrong, no point is objectively right. It's an ontological question that goes far beyond the scope of our government.

Personally, I think the question should be a) what state interests are served by the prohibition on murder and b) what are the practical consequences of any law regarding abortion. I think the prohibition on murder exists to preserve (create?) the state's monopoly on legitomate violence. Society would break down if the state did not hold that power. That same logic does not extend to abortions. Roe v. Wade did not lead to a collapse of productive society. Pregnant mothers didn't have to leave their house with a concern that their baby would get aborted. Without a compelling state interest, the only question left is what are the consequences of any law. I think the evidence is pretty clear that legalized abortion improves public health. It's a service people will seek legal or not, and allowing it to be done in the open makes it much safer.

Notice, not once do I say that abortion is moral. I don't even know what that means, to be honest. IF people want to call it murder, that's ok with me. That's a personal moral judgment. I don't agree with it, but recognize that there's no reason my subjective beliefs should be given anymore weight than anyone else's. What is far from clear to me is what, exactly, the state's compelling interest is in making that judgment. I have never seen a "pro"-lifer explain how our society would be improved by a ban on abortions.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Bolded is a question that is impossible to answer objectively, it's not like there's a magic moment that life objectively starts. Arguments can be and have been made for everything from pre-conception to birth and beyond. No point is objectively wrong, no point is objectively right. It's an ontological question that goes far beyond the scope of our government.

Personally, I think the question should be a) what state interests are served by the prohibition on murder and b) what are the practical consequences of any law regarding abortion. I think the prohibition on murder exists to preserve (create?) the state's monopoly on legitomate violence. Society would break down if the state did not hold that power. That same logic does not extend to abortions. Roe v. Wade did not lead to a collapse of productive society. Pregnant mothers didn't have to leave their house with a concern that their baby would get aborted. Without a compelling state interest, the only question left is what are the consequences of any law. I think the evidence is pretty clear that legalized abortion improves public health. It's a service people will seek legal or not, and allowing it to be done in the open makes it much safer.

Notice, not once do I say that abortion is moral. I don't even know what that means, to be honest. IF people want to call it murder, that's ok with me. That's a personal moral judgment. I don't agree with it, but recognize that there's no reason my subjective beliefs should be given anymore weight than anyone else's. What is far from clear to me is what, exactly, the state's compelling interest is in making that judgment. I have never seen a "pro"-lifer explain how our society would be improved by a ban on abortions.

I will exert that your last question is also nearly impossible to prove. When trying to say how X would be different with the absence of Y, there is no guarantee that Z would occur. I simply look at it this way.......When someone is born, they are given an opportunity. That opportunity could lead to scientific breakthrough's. could lead to a life of crime, to a life full of serving others, and so on. By taking away that life, opportunity is diminished. It's impossible to say what that opportunity would yield. But given my experience on this Earth, where there are clearly more people acting with good faith than bad, I choose to believe that those people eliminated before birth would have produced much more goodness in life than trouble. Society would certainly not be hurt by that.

 

[RDU Irish]

So if they are able to refer out for prenatal care and mammograms..... why aren't they referring abortions out as well? Basic exams and contraceptives, sure. I would be curious what, if any, other procedures are even offered.

Abortion is a necessary evil in this world, you cannot stop it from happening so better to provide a framework for safe process. Say you make it illegal, what are you really going to do to enforce that? To me, this falls in the grey area in which morality and legality don't (or shouldn't) overlap. Provide incentives for life and make it more socially acceptable to put a kid up for adoption.

My only request is to put a reasonable time frame on the legality of it. If you can't decide within 4 months then you provide support and services to facilitate adoption. Exceptions for your standard health of the mother and serious problems with the baby that cannot be detected earlier.

 

[RDU Irish]

The fact this becomes a polarizing issue in presidential elections baffles me. Are any of them really going to have an opportunity to impact this issue? With all the other issues on the table, this stupid litmus test driving so much debate numbs my mind.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Bolded is a question that is impossible to answer objectively, it's not like there's a magic moment that life objectively starts. Arguments can be and have been made for everything from pre-conception to birth and beyond. No point is objectively wrong, no point is objectively right. It's an ontological question that goes far beyond the scope of our government.

Personally, I think the question should be a) what state interests are served by the prohibition on murder and b) what are the practical consequences of any law regarding abortion. I think the prohibition on murder exists to preserve (create?) the state's monopoly on legitomate violence. Society would break down if the state did not hold that power. That same logic does not extend to abortions. Roe v. Wade did not lead to a collapse of productive society. Pregnant mothers didn't have to leave their house with a concern that their baby would get aborted. Without a compelling state interest, the only question left is what are the consequences of any law. I think the evidence is pretty clear that legalized abortion improves public health. It's a service people will seek legal or not, and allowing it to be done in the open makes it much safer.

Notice, not once do I say that abortion is moral. I don't even know what that means, to be honest. IF people want to call it murder, that's ok with me. That's a personal moral judgment. I don't agree with it, but recognize that there's no reason my subjective beliefs should be given anymore weight than anyone else's. What is far from clear to me is what, exactly, the state's compelling interest is in making that judgment. I have never seen a "pro"-lifer explain how our society would be improved by a ban on abortions.

All of this can be said about infanticide, too. Why is infanticide illegal?

 

[NDgradstudent]

The fact this becomes a polarizing issue in presidential elections baffles me. Are any of them really going to have an opportunity to impact this issue? With all the other issues on the table, this stupid litmus test driving so much debate numbs my mind.

When the Supreme Court decides that it is going to control the public policy on some issue, as it has done with abortion, then the President takes on a role in controlling that policy, too, because he/Hillary makes Supreme Court appointments.

I agree that it should not be an issue in a Presidential election. Rather, it should be an issue mainly in state and local elections, as with the death penalty. But the Supreme Court backed off the idea that the death penalty was unconstitutional in 1976, after flirting with it for a couple years. It has not completely backed off of Roe, which is why abortion remains a national political issue, including in Presidential elections.

 

[Canton_Irish]

Bolded is a question that is impossible to answer objectively, it's not like there's a magic moment that life objectively starts. Arguments can be and have been made for everything from pre-conception to birth and beyond. No point is objectively wrong, no point is objectively right. It's an ontological question that goes far beyond the scope of our government.

Personally, I think the question should be a) what state interests are served by the prohibition on murder and b) what are the practical consequences of any law regarding abortion. I think the prohibition on murder exists to preserve (create?) the state's monopoly on legitomate violence. Society would break down if the state did not hold that power. That same logic does not extend to abortions. Roe v. Wade did not lead to a collapse of productive society. Pregnant mothers didn't have to leave their house with a concern that their baby would get aborted. Without a compelling state interest, the only question left is what are the consequences of any law. I think the evidence is pretty clear that legalized abortion improves public health. It's a service people will seek legal or not, and allowing it to be done in the open makes it much safer.

Notice, not once do I say that abortion is moral. I don't even know what that means, to be honest. IF people want to call it murder, that's ok with me. That's a personal moral judgment. I don't agree with it, but recognize that there's no reason my subjective beliefs should be given anymore weight than anyone else's. What is far from clear to me is what, exactly, the state's compelling interest is in making that judgment. I have never seen a "pro"-lifer explain how our society would be improved by a ban on abortions.

I don't agree that there isn't some "magic moment" when life is created. Strictly (and scientifically) it's fertilization. At that moment, there exists a person at the earliest developmental stage. Rejecting it doesn't make it any less true. The unborn are the "poorest" among us, those with no voice or vote and are truly defenseless.

The argument that society would break down without a prohibition on murder isn't really accurate either. Laws against murder don't exist for that reason, MOST people don't rely on the government for their moral compass. Or at least they shouldn't as it's morally bankrupt and lazy. The laws exist to reflect society's values and serve as the foundation for the least of what is tolerable. Something tells me the gangs in Chicago and the awful shootings the past few years weren't mitigated by a prohibition on murder. We need the law to provide a framework for justice and how society deals with people who violate our values. We are taught at a young age that it's wrong to physically harm other people but the depth of understanding needs to go much further than the idea that it's bad because the government has legislated it as such. That's one slippery slope that I'd think the 20th century would have taught us.

Society would be improved by the simple fact that more people willed by God to be born have their right to life protected. I understand that women would seek out illegal abortions in some undetermined number. The choice that it should be safe and legal in order to protect women's health is a false one because the "hands off, I won't make any judgments about this particular behavior" is tacit approval of what's occurring. It's safer for the woman in a Planned Parenthood facility but there's far more of them occurring which makes it less safe for children being murdered. I'll take my chances that society rejecting abortion will lead to fewer of them being performed than what we have now with the Left's embrace of it.

 

[RDU Irish]

OK, 51% now agree with you and make it illegal. Again, how exactly do you enforce this complete prohibition on abortion you support?

 

[pkt77242]

1.I don't agree that there isn't some "magic moment" when life is created. Strictly (and scientifically) it's fertilization. At that moment, there exists a person at the earliest developmental stage. Rejecting it doesn't make it any less true. The unborn are the "poorest" among us, those with no voice or vote and are truly defenseless.

2. The argument that society would break down without a prohibition on murder isn't really accurate either. Laws against murder don't exist for that reason, MOST people don't rely on the government for their moral compass. Or at least they shouldn't as it's morally bankrupt and lazy. The laws exist to reflect society's values and serve as the foundation for the least of what is tolerable. Something tells me the gangs in Chicago and the awful shootings the past few years weren't mitigated by a prohibition on murder. We need the law to provide a framework for justice and how society deals with people who violate our values. We are taught at a young age that it's wrong to physically harm other people but the depth of understanding needs to go much further than the idea that it's bad because the government has legislated it as such. That's one slippery slope that I'd think the 20th century would have taught us.

3. Society would be improved by the simple fact that more people willed by God to be born have their right to life protected. I understand that women would seek out illegal abortions in some undetermined number. The choice that it should be safe and legal in order to protect women's health is a false one because the "hands off, I won't make any judgments about this particular behavior" is tacit approval of what's occurring. It's safer for the woman in a Planned Parenthood facility but there's far more of them occurring which makes it less safe for children being murdered. I'll take my chances that society rejecting abortion will lead to fewer of them being performed than what we have now with the Left's embrace of it.

1. I think there is a disagreement but I have a feeling you don't care what the other side says.

2. If there were no laws against murder in this country we would definitely see an increase in it. The fact that people will be punished for doing it definitely stops many people from doing it though not everyone.

3. Actually abortions really haven't increased as much as you think they have since Roe vs. Wade. Many of the statistics that I have seen show about 800,000 per year before it was legal and we are at about 1,200,000 or 1,300,000 now and that doesn't take into account the increase in population which would have led to some of that increase. Roe vs. Wade just made legal something that was happening anyways.

Lastly the bold I think shows why we disagree. You are making this a religious argument. You are allowed to have those feelings but what about people who don't believe as you do?

 

[pkt77242]

So if they are able to refer out for prenatal care and mammograms..... why aren't they referring abortions out as well? Basic exams and contraceptives, sure. I would be curious what, if any, other procedures are even offered.

Abortion is a necessary evil in this world, you cannot stop it from happening so better to provide a framework for safe process. Say you make it illegal, what are you really going to do to enforce that? To me, this falls in the grey area in which morality and legality don't (or shouldn't) overlap. Provide incentives for life and make it more socially acceptable to put a kid up for adoption.

My only request is to put a reasonable time frame on the legality of it. If you can't decide within 4 months then you provide support and services to facilitate adoption. Exceptions for your standard health of the mother and serious problems with the baby that cannot be detected earlier.

This is generally how I feel, though I feel that viability should be the cut-off, so maybe 22-24 weeks.

 

[Cackalacky]

OK, 51% now agree with you and make it illegal. Again, how exactly do you enforce this complete prohibition on abortion you support?

I read where Huckabee thinks the use of Federal troops to enforce it is justifiable or at least he won't rule it out should he become president. Which is just a bit crazy IMO.

 

[GoIrish41]

I read where Huckabee thinks the use of Federal troops to enforce it is justifiable or at least he won't rule it out should he become president. Which is just a bit crazy IMO.

Won't the military be busy with the Crusades if he is elected?

 

[RDU Irish]

I read where Huckabee thinks the use of Federal troops to enforce it is justifiable or at least he won't rule it out should he become president. Which is just a bit crazy IMO.

Armed bodyguard for all women of childbearing age at all times. Sounds practical to me.

 

[connor_in]

In Liberal Europe, Abortion Laws Come With Their Own Restrictions - The Atlantic

Abortion Legislation in Europe

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Bolded is a question that is impossible to answer objectively, it's not like there's a magic moment that life objectively starts.

The only logically coherent answer is conception, because that's the moment at which a unique human genome is created. If you want to argue that a right to life attaches only to personhood instead of humanity, you'll have a very hard time defining in that such a way that precludes infanticide and geronticide. But that's a feature of Liberalism, not a bug! There are so many inconvenient people out there, and if we could just get over this pernicious Christian idea that every human life is sacred, we could purify the volk and boldly stride into our utopian future! The founder of Planned Parenthood was an outspoken racist and eugenicist, as you can read for yourself. Though I preferred it in the original German.

Arguments can be and have been made for everything from pre-conception to birth and beyond. No point is objectively wrong, no point is objectively right.

Hi, Nietzche!

It's an ontological question that goes far beyond the scope of our government.

You can't prescind from metaphysics. Every government has to answer this question, at least implicitly.

Personally, I think the question should be a) what state interests are served by the prohibition on murder and b) what are the practical consequences of any law regarding abortion. I think the prohibition on murder exists to preserve (create?) the state's monopoly on legitomate violence. Society would break down if the state did not hold that power. That same logic does not extend to abortions. Roe v. Wade did not lead to a collapse of productive society. Pregnant mothers didn't have to leave their house with a concern that their baby would get aborted. Without a compelling state interest, the only question left is what are the consequences of any law. I think the evidence is pretty clear that legalized abortion improves public health. It's a service people will seek legal or not, and allowing it to be done in the open makes it much safer.

I doubt you really believe this consequentialist nonsense. If I could produce empirical evidence that social outcomes for African-Americans would have been better had America remained an apartheid regime, would that cause you to reconsider your support for the CRA of 1964? Of course not. Because the rights of African Americans are rooted in their dignity as humans, and not in some utilitarian social calculus.

Notice, not once do I say that abortion is moral. I don't even know what that means, to be honest. IF people want to call it murder, that's ok with me. That's a personal moral judgment. I don't agree with it, but recognize that there's no reason my subjective beliefs should be given anymore weight than anyone else's.

If rights derive from our common humanity, then the ~56 million babies killed since Roe v. Wade is the greatest moral tragedy of our age. Conversely, if rights derive from some vague concept of "personhood" (which only hardcore utilitarians like Peter Singer are willing to define, because the logical consequences thereof are horrifying), then we're free to destroy such non-persons for our convenience and/or the advancement of "women's liberation". Regardless, those two propositions are radically incompatible, and should not be able to coexist within the same polity.

But don't pretend that your position is any less dogmatic than mine. Liberalism isn't "neutral" on this question.

What is far from clear to me is what, exactly, the state's compelling interest is in making that judgment. I have never seen a "pro"-lifer explain how our society would be improved by a ban on abortions.

Again with this consequentialism. I suspect you wouldn't allow sociological evidence to sway your support for the CRA or Obergefell v. Hodges, but pro-lifers must make a utilitarian case that killing babies is a net negative for society before they'll get a fair hearing?

OK, 51% now agree with you and make it illegal. Again, how exactly do you enforce this complete prohibition on abortion you support?

You're not seriously offering up logistical difficulties as a moral counter-argument, are you? You know what was really difficult to implement? Desegregation. It was still the right thing to do.

Lastly the bold I think shows why we disagree. You are making this a religious argument. You are allowed to have those feelings but what about people who don't believe as you do?

Your position is no less dogmatic than Canton's, as it includes assumptions about what a human being is (and is not). One of you must be wrong, and there's no "neutral" framework in which both of your philosophies can peacefully coexist within the same society.

 

[pkt77242]

Your position is no less dogmatic than Canton's, as it includes assumptions about what a human being is (and is not). One of you must be wrong, and there's no "neutral" framework in which both of your philosophies can peacefully coexist within the same society.

This is where you and I disagree. He is saying this is my personal belief so no one can do it. I am saying that people should be able to choose based on their personal beliefs. My beliefs nor his should force them to make a certain decision. That is a distinct difference.

As to why can't these co-exist, I find you making that argument interesting. You don't like the idea of the homosexual agenda being forced upon religious people but you seem to be ok with religious people forcing their morality/agenda about abortion on non-religious people.

The only logically coherent answer is conception, because that's the moment at which a unique human genome is created. If you want to argue that a right to life attaches only to personhood instead of humanity, you'll have a very hard time defining in that such a way that precludes infanticide and geronticide. But that's a feature of Liberalism, not a bug! There are so many inconvenient people out there, and if we could just get over this pernicious Christian idea that every human life is sacred, we could purify the volk and boldly stride into our utopian future! The founder of Planned Parenthood was an outspoken racist and eugenicist, as you can read for yourself. Though I preferred it in the original German.

Why couldn't it be considered viability. That precludes infanticide and geronticide. When a baby is old enough to survive outside the womb (with help) is when it begins.


ETA:

If rights derive from our common humanity, then the ~56 million babies killed since Roe v. Wade is the greatest moral tragedy of our age

I dislike this argument. The truth is that abortions haven't really increased due to Roe vs. Wade. Before RvW it was about 800,000 and now it is about 1.2-1.3 million. Once you factor in population growth the rate of abortion really hasn't changed significantly. You can't blame Roe vs Wade for the amount of abortions.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This is where you and I disagree. He is saying this is my personal belief so no one can do it. I am saying that people should be able to choose based on their personal beliefs. My beliefs nor his should force them to make a certain decision. That is a distinct difference.

It's not about "personal beliefs". This entire paragraph is loaded with the philosophical assumption of Liberalism-- that humans are autonomous individuals, that it's odious for someone else to impose his own (subjective, arbitrary) moral code on another, etc. None of that is neutral, at all, and it's utterly incompatible with Christianity.

A society's laws are a reflection of its collective understanding of the Good. You can't handwave away the incompatibility of Christian and Liberal anthropology with a "You do you and I'll do me." It is odious to force Christians to publicly subsidize abortions, or even to tolerate such barbarism in their communities. Just as I'd imagine you think it's odious for Christians to prohibit Liberals from ridding themselves of such inconvenient clumps of tissue based on little more than superstition. Either way, we can't all just get along on this issue.

As to why can't these co-exist, I find you making that argument interesting. You don't like the idea of the homosexual agenda being forced upon religious people but you seem to be ok with religious people forcing their morality/agenda about abortion on non-religious people.

As I mentioned above, societies codify their moral codes (which are essentially religious things) in law, and heretics from the local orthodoxy are disadvantaged (if not outright persecuted). Since the Enlightenment, the West has been deChristianizing in favor of Liberalism, which is evident in the legalization of contraception, no-fault divorce, same-sex marriage, and soon polygamy. As the American moral code continues to slide away from Christianity, orthodox Christians will face increasing legal persecution and social marginalization. As a Catholic, I would prefer to live in a Christian society where exercising my faith doesn't have to be such a never-ending act of cultural resistance, but I'm resigned to the coming dark age. In arguing here, my only goal is to get my liberal interlocutors to realize that: (1) your beliefs are no less dogmatic than mine; (2) that your beliefs are radically incompatible with Christianity; and (3) that many things you take for granted as inherently liberal (human rights, etc.) are actually artifacts of Christianity, which will not persist if Christianity continues to lose its moral authority.

Why couldn't it be considered viability. That precludes infanticide and geronticide. When a baby is old enough to survive outside the womb (with help) is when it begins.

For lots of reasons:

• It's a moving target, as medical advances have pushed the date of viability significantly earlier than when that ridiculous standard was invented in Roe v. Wade. The morality involved with dissecting a tiny human being in utero obviously shouldn't depend on the state of the medical arts.
• Even once a baby develops to the point that she is medically viable, she is not remotely self-sufficient. She will require significant resources and care in order to survive to full term.
• Even at full term, babies are utterly dependent on adults for care, and remain that way for many many years.

So trying to hang a baby's right to life on self-sufficiency (which is what viability amounts to) is absurd on its face. Either babies gain that right at conception due to their humanity, or that right doesn't attach until some later point based on something other than our shared humanity. Either children have legitimate moral claims on their parents for support from conception, or they don't, and parents are free to kill/ abandon them at will. Ironically, that's how things worked in the Roman Empire prior to the Edict of Milan. Unwanted children were routinely aborted or abandoned (a practice known as expositio), and early Christians were mocked as soft-headed fools for rescuing such babies off refuse piles.

I dislike this argument. The truth is that abortions haven't really increased due to Roe vs. Wade. Before RvW it was about 800,000 and now it is about 1.2-1.3 million. Once you factor in population growth the rate of abortion really hasn't changed significantly. You can't blame Roe vs Wade for the amount of abortions.

I have never read a reliable study showing how many abortions occurred pre-Roe v. Wade. Was one linked above? Every time something like this gets mentioned, the methodology involves a ridiculous projection from specious data. Post hoc justification for something that Liberalism is already committed to-- the interests of the strong over the weak.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The truth is that abortions haven't really increased due to Roe vs. Wade. Before RvW it was about 800,000 and now it is about 1.2-1.3 million. Once you factor in population growth the rate of abortion really hasn't changed significantly. You can't blame Roe vs Wade for the amount of abortions.

This is misleading/problematic for the following reasons:

(1) Many estimates, such as in this article, place the figure for the number of abortions prior to Roe closer to 200,000. Some states liberalized their laws prior to Roe, although only four did so to the extent that Roe later required: there was less of a "revolution" in these states than in states with considerable restrictions on abortion.

(2) In the 1972 election, a few months before Roe, Michigan and North Dakota decisively rejected attempts to liberalize their abortion laws. It was not obvious that public opinion was moving one way or the other, even at the time.

(3) Finally, as Canton_Irish has pointed out, most European countries have far less permissive abortion laws than we do. The 2013 Texas law over which there was so much controversy banned abortion after 20 weeks. And yet the limits in most European countries are even greater than this (usually 12 weeks), even though these countries are far more secular than the U.S., and religiosity is strongly correlated with opposition to abortion. The Supreme Court's clumsy intervention has created a massive incongruity between public opinion and public policy, at least in most states, and this is why the issue has regularly convulsed the country and its elections since 1973.

In practice, if Roe was overturned, each state would set its own policy. Some would simply keep their current law; others would generally outlaw abortion. If somebody wanted an abortion they would have to travel to another state, just as somebody living in NY has to travel to PA to buy an 'assault weapon.' No federal policy would exist until there was some widespread consensus one way or another, which is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Artificial wombs would probably be developed sooner, which would end the debate.

 

[pkt77242]

1. It's not about "personal beliefs". This entire paragraph is loaded with the philosophical assumption of Liberalism-- that humans are autonomous individuals, that it's odious for someone else to impose his own (subjective, arbitrary) moral code on another, etc. None of that is neutral, at all, and it's utterly incompatible with Christianity.

A society's laws are a reflection of its collective understanding of the Good. You can't handwave away the incompatibility of Christian and Liberal anthropology with a "You do you and I'll do me." It is odious to force Christians to publicly subsidize abortions, or even to tolerate such barbarism in their communities. Just as I'd imagine you think it's odious for Christians to prohibit Liberals from ridding themselves of such inconvenient clumps of tissue based on little more than superstition. Either way, we can't all just get along on this issue.



As I mentioned above, societies codify their moral codes (which are essentially religious things) in law, and heretics from the local orthodoxy are disadvantaged (if not outright persecuted). Since the Enlightenment, the West has been deChristianizing in favor of Liberalism, which is evident in the legalization of contraception, no-fault divorce, same-sex marriage, and soon polygamy. As the American moral code continues to slide away from Christianity, orthodox Christians will face increasing legal persecution and social marginalization. As a Catholic, I would prefer to live in a Christian society where exercising my faith doesn't have to be such a never-ending act of cultural resistance, but I'm resigned to the coming dark age. In arguing here, my only goal is to get my liberal interlocutors to realize that: (1) your beliefs are no less dogmatic than mine; (2) that your beliefs are radically incompatible with Christianity; and (3) that many things you take for granted as inherently liberal (human rights, etc.) are actually artifacts of Christianity, which will not persist if Christianity continues to lose its moral authority.


2.
For lots of reasons:

• It's a moving target, as medical advances have pushed the date of viability significantly earlier than when that ridiculous standard was invented in Roe v. Wade. The morality involved with dissecting a tiny human being in utero obviously shouldn't depend on the state of the medical arts.
• Even once a baby develops to the point that she is medically viable, she is not remotely self-sufficient. She will require significant resources and care in order to survive to full term.
• Even at full term, babies are utterly dependent on adults for care, and remain that way for many many years.

So trying to hang a baby's right to life on viability is absurd on its face. Either babies gain that right at conception due to their humanity, or that right doesn't attach until some later point based on something other than our shared humanity. Either children have legitimate moral claims on their parents for support from conception, or they don't, and parents are free to kill/ abandon them at will. Ironically, that's how things worked in the Roman Empire prior to the Edict of Milan. Unwanted children were routinely aborted or abandoned (a practice known as expositio), and early Christians were mocked as soft-headed fools for rescuing such babies off refuse piles.



3. I have never read a reliable study showing how many abortions occurred pre-Roe v. Wade. Was one linked above? Every time something like this gets mentioned, the methodology involves a ridiculous projection from specious data. Post hoc justification for something that Liberalism is already committed to-- the interests of the strong over the weak.

1. Isn't your paragraph loaded with the philosophical beliefs of Christianity? Again, only one side is telling the other how to live. You seem to argue around that point but don't deal with it stating that it is utterly incompatible with Christianity. If Christians can't live that way doesn't that become their problem? Why should the rest of the country be forced to live under Christian rules? Are you arguing that Christians can only live in a Christian nation with Christian laws that don't go against their religious beliefs? I don't think that you are but your strong wording left me wondering.

2. I am well aware that they aren't self-sufficient that is why I stated "with help". Again once the baby is viable to live, it gains it rights, I am not saying that the women should immediately have the baby but at that point, abortion should be off the table and the mother should be forced to carry to term at which time if she doesn't want it (and if the father doesn't want it) then it should be put up for adoption. Also I am not making an argument based on morality, I am making an argument based on reality. There are proven things that we can do to lower the rate of abortions (especially amongst younger women) it involved free birth control and good sexual education. Shockingly most of the people against abortion are also against this. MMS: Error.

3. There was a study done in 1970 that looked at North Carolina and then extrapolated out to the rest of the country (Abernathy JR, Greenberg BG and Horvitz DG, Estimates of induced abortion in urban North Carolina, Demography, 1970, 7(1):19-29.) and came up with the 800,000 and there were previous studies that ranged from from the low 6 digits to the low 7 digits but averaged about 700K. There is no great and perfect study on it (partly because it was illegal and taboo to talk about) but it does seem that 700-800K is about right especially since it is more likely that people would under report abortions. Even if it was lower lets say 500K our population has increased drastically since the mid to late 60's.

It is odious to force Christians to publicly subsidize abortions, or even to tolerate such barbarism in their communities. Just as I'd imagine you think it's odious for Christians to prohibit Liberals from ridding themselves of such inconvenient clumps of tissue based on little more than superstition.

I copied this down because I wanted to respond to this separately. See the thing is that we "Liberals" already in some way have to subsidize religious beliefs because donations to Churches are tax exempt (and that isn't even going into what Bush did while in office). We as a society have to co-exist and that means compromise. You keep arguing that Christians are being forced to do things but yet you are also arguing that non-Christians should be forced to live by Christian values.

I don't think that Churches' should have to subsidize abortion or marry gay people. I don't think that Christian non-profits should have to either, yes when it comes to a for profit corporation (not a sole-prop) yes they give up some freedom of religion for the benefits they get for being a corporation.

As far as my beliefs on abortion. I am generally against it and I couldn't imagine my wife getting one unless she was raped or her life was in danger due to the pregnancy. I think that we should do everything we can as a society to limit abortions through education and providing free birth control. As a Catholic would you be willing to have schools provide good sexual education and society provide free birth control to them if it would lead to young women have only a quarter of the amount of abortions that they currently do?



ETA: While this doesn't apply to you personally Whiskeyjack, I admit that I am tired of the Conservative Religious people that I know wanting to ban abortion, hating on birth control and how it is horrible and yet bitching about spending money on poor people (SNAP, WIC, School lunches, housing, unemployment, etc). I know far too many anti-abortion people who could give a shit about the child once it is born (again not you) and it makes me wonder how we as a nation would handle the extra million plus children being born a year. Would Conservative Christians be willing to pay a higher tax rate (not just them but all of society) to help feed, clothe, provide housing and schooling for these children? I know that I wouldn't mind but I see too many Christian Conservatives railing against government programs to believe that it would ever happen.


EETA: Sorry about it being long winded and repeating myself a few times, I left work early to take care of my daughter and I think I started and stopped typing this 5+ times.

 

[pkt77242]

This is misleading/problematic for the following reasons:

(1) Many estimates, such as in this article, place the figure for the number of abortions prior to Roe closer to 200,000. Some states liberalized their laws prior to Roe, although only four did so to the extent that Roe later required: there was less of a "revolution" in these states than in states with considerable restrictions on abortion.

(2) In the 1972 election, a few months before Roe, Michigan and North Dakota decisively rejected attempts to liberalize their abortion laws. It was not obvious that public opinion was moving one way or the other, even at the time.

(3) Finally, as Canton_Irish has pointed out, most European countries have far less permissive abortion laws than we do. The 2013 Texas law over which there was so much controversy banned abortion after 20 weeks. And yet the limits in most European countries are even greater than this (usually 12 weeks), even though these countries are far more secular than the U.S., and religiosity is strongly correlated with opposition to abortion. The Supreme Court's clumsy intervention has created a massive incongruity between public opinion and public policy, at least in most states, and this is why the issue has regularly convulsed the country and its elections since 1973.

In practice, if Roe was overturned, each state would set its own policy. Some would simply keep their current law; others would generally outlaw abortion. If somebody wanted an abortion they would have to travel to another state, just as somebody living in NY has to travel to PA to buy an 'assault weapon.' No federal policy would exist until there was some widespread consensus one way or another, which is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Artificial wombs would probably be developed sooner, which would end the debate.

Back then studies ranged from 200K-1.2 million. So yeah 200K is the low number, but notice I didn't use the high number either.

The problem with having it state by state is that it makes it very difficult on the poor to get abortions. It wouldn't be a barrier for the upper class but the poor would disproportionately be harmed by that change.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

1. Isn't your paragraph loaded with the philosophical beliefs of Christianity?

Yes, but I'm up front about the dogmatic nature of some of my beliefs, where my concept of human anthropology comes from, my vision of the Good, etc. You (and virtually every liberal) pretend to a sort of "neutrality" that makes your beliefs more objective, and therefore rationally superior to mine. Which isn't the case at all. Liberalism carries its own assumptions regarding metaphysics, ontology, epistemiology, human anthropology, etc. and virtually all of those positions are no less dogmatic than Christian beliefs.

Again, only one side is telling the other how to live.

That is absolutely not true. Christianity and Liberalism offer competing moral visions. The latter has been steadily gaining ground over the former for centuries. It is, in fact, our national religion, which is professed relentlessly from our media, our elite universities, our court rooms, etc. It's Liberals who are increasingly unwilling to allow Christian communities to govern themselves according to their own beliefs.

Why should the rest of the country be forced to live under Christian rules?

Where have I argued in favor of forcing Liberals to live under a Christian moral regime?

Are you arguing that Christians can only live in a Christian nation with Christian laws that don't go against their religious beliefs?

I'm arguing that Christianity and Liberalism are incompatible philosophies. Christians are not threatening to impose theocracy in New York City or Los Angeles; it's Liberals who are utilizing the levers of power to marginalize and persecute Christians. I'm hoping that if more Liberals come to understand their beliefs not as "reality" but as a competing moral vision, they will rediscover the importance of Religious Freedom and grant Christians the political space necessary to govern themselves in peace. But most Liberals seem loath to give up the conceit of neutrality, so I don't hold out much hope for tolerance.

2. I am well aware that they aren't self-sufficient that is why I stated "with help". Again once the baby is viable to live, it gains it rights, I am not saying that the women should immediately have the baby but at that point, abortion should be off the table and the mother should be forced to carry to term at which time if she doesn't want it (and if the father doesn't want it) then it should be put up for adoption.

Why is self-sufficiency a good standard here? It makes no sense at all, from a moral standpoint. Physiologically speaking, there is no difference between a baby immediately after delivery and one moments beforehand; but many abortion advocates feel like a "woman's right to choose" should extend right up until that point. And the incoherence doesn't go away as you move incrementally toward conception. There's no point in that process where one can say, "Clearly, this is a human on Day X, but it was simply a cluster of cells on Day Y." It's about Liberals being committed to the practice of abortion because its important to the sexual autonomy of adults, and trying to invent a post hoc justification for it that doesn't make people squeemish.

Also I am not making an argument based on morality, I am making an argument based on reality.

Do you understand how condescending that is? That my assertion regarding human life beginning at conception is dogmatic/ subjective/ irrational, whereas your assertion that human life begins with viability is somehow objection/ rational? We're both arguing from first principles here, and your assumptions are no more empirically valid than mine.

I copied this down because I wanted to respond to this separately. See the thing is that we "Liberals" already in some way have to subsidize religious beliefs because donations to Churches are tax exempt (and that isn't even going into what Bush did while in office).

Churches having tax exempt status is only a "government subsidy" if the IRS owns every penny earned by the American public, with Congress deciding how much we get to keep. Needless to say, that's a loaded assertion on your part which few conservatives would agree with.

We as a society have to co-exist and that means compromise.

Why does any of this have to be decided at the Federal level? How can a Catholic school teacher in South Dakota be said to meaningfully exist in the same "society" as a Progressive Wall Street banker?

You keep arguing that Christians are being forced to do things but yet you are also arguing that non-Christians should be forced to live by Christian values.

I think our only hope as a nation going forward is to recognize that our differences are religious in nature, which means that political solutions will not be feasible. As I stated above, I have no desire to force a Christian moral regime on Liberals; but I do want the freedom to raise my family under such a regime, and that is becoming more difficult to do with each passing day.

As far as my beliefs on abortion. I am generally against it and I couldn't imagine my wife getting one unless she was raped or her life was in danger due to the pregnancy. I think that we should do everything we can as a society to limit abortions through education and providing free birth control. As a Catholic would you be willing to have schools provide good sexual education and society provide free birth control to them if it would lead to young women have only a quarter of the amount of abortions that they currently do?

No, I wouldn't, because "good sexual education and... free birth control" reinforces all sorts of harmful Liberal beliefs about human sexuality, which in turn smuggles in Liberal anthropology, etc. This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is no escaping this bullsh!t, which is incredibly frustrating as a Catholic parent trying to raise my kids in the Church.

ETA: While this doesn't apply to you personally Whiskeyjack, I admit that I am tired of the Conservative Religious people that I know wanting to ban abortion, hating on birth control and how it is horrible and yet bitching about spending money on poor people (SNAP, WIC, School lunches, housing, unemployment, etc). I know far too many anti-abortion people who could give a shit about the child once it is born (again not you) and it makes me wonder how we as a nation would handle the extra million plus children being born a year. Would Conservative Christians be willing to pay a higher tax rate (not just them but all of society) to help feed, clothe, provide housing and schooling for these children? I know that I wouldn't mind but I see too many Christian Conservatives railing against government programs to believe that it would ever happen.

I agree whole-heartedly with your earlier quote about the difference between being "pro-life" and "pro-birth". Most of my writing on this subject here has been directed toward other Christians who see no conflict between their faith and their free-market ideology. They are also in thrall to Liberalism; the libertarian co-opting of American Christianity has done at least as much damage to the Church in this country as the Progressives have. It's all fruit from the same poisonous tree, though.

EETA: Sorry about it being long winded and repeating myself a few times, I left work early to take care of my daughter and I think I started and stopped typing this 5+ times.

Glad you took the time to write it. This has been a productive exchange.

 

[pkt77242]

Yes, but I'm up front about the dogmatic nature of some of my beliefs, where my concept of human anthropology comes from, my vision of the Good, etc. You (and virtually every liberal) pretend to a sort of "neutrality" that makes your beliefs more objective, and therefore rationally superior to mine. Which isn't the case at all. Liberalism carries its own assumptions regarding metaphysics, ontology, epistemiology, human anthropology, etc. and virtually all of those positions are no less dogmatic than Christian beliefs.



That is absolutely not true. Christianity and Liberalism offer competing moral visions. The latter has been steadily gaining ground over the former for centuries. It is, in fact, our national religion, which is professed relentlessly from our media, our elite universities, our court rooms, etc. It's Liberals who are increasingly unwilling to allow Christian communities to govern themselves according to their own beliefs.



Where have I argued in favor of forcing Liberals to live under a Christian moral regime?



I'm arguing that Christianity and Liberalism are incompatible philosophies. Christians are not threatening to impose theocracy in New York City or Los Angeles; it's Liberals who are utilizing the levers of power to marginalize and persecute Christians. I'm hoping that if more Liberals come to understand their beliefs not as "reality" but as a competing moral vision, they will rediscover the importance of Religious Freedom and grant Christians the political space necessary to govern themselves in peace. But most Liberals seem loath to give up the conceit of neutrality, so I don't hold out much hope for tolerance.



Why is self-sufficiency a good standard here? It makes no sense at all, from a moral standpoint. Physiologically speaking, there is no difference between a baby immediately after delivery and one moments beforehand; but many abortion advocates feel like a "woman's right to choose" should extend right up until that point. And the incoherence doesn't go away as you move incrementally toward conception. There's no point in that process where one can say, "Clearly, this is a human on Day X, but it was simply a cluster of cells on Day Y." It's about Liberals being committed to the practice of abortion because its important to the sexual autonomy of adults, and trying to invent a post hoc justification for it that doesn't make people squeemish.



Do you understand how condescending that is? That my assertion regarding human life beginning at conception is dogmatic/ subjective/ irrational, whereas your assertion that human life begins with viability is somehow objection/ rational? We're both arguing from first principles here, and your assumptions are no more empirically valid than mine.



Churches having tax exempt status is only a "government subsidy" if the IRS owns every penny earned by the American public, with Congress deciding how much we get to keep. Needless to say, that's a loaded assertion on your part which few conservatives would agree with.



Why does any of this have to be decided at the Federal level? How can a Catholic school teacher in South Dakota be said to meaningfully exist in the same "society" as a Progressive Wall Street banker?



I think our only hope as a nation going forward is to recognize that our differences are religious in nature, which means that political solutions will not be feasible. As I stated above, I have no desire to force a Christian moral regime on Liberals; but I do want the freedom to raise my family under such a regime, and that is becoming more difficult to do with each passing day.



No, I wouldn't, because "good sexual education and... free birth control" reinforces all sorts of harmful Liberal beliefs about human sexuality, which in turn smuggles in Liberal anthropology, etc. This is exactly what I'm talking about. There is no escaping this bullsh!t, which is incredibly frustrating as a Catholic parent trying to raise my kids in the Church.



I agree whole-heartedly with your earlier quote about the difference between being "pro-life" and "pro-birth". Most of my writing on this subject here has been directed toward other Christians who see no conflict between their faith and their free-market ideology. They are also in thrall to Liberalism; the libertarian co-opting of American Christianity has done at least as much damage to the Church in this country as the Progressives have. It's all fruit from the same poisonous tree, though.



Glad you took the time to write it. This has been a productive exchange.

I guess my one central question is then how do you want to handle abortion? You state that you don't want to force Christian moral regime on Liberals but yet you want abortion to be illegal (at least I assume so by your post). How is that not forcing Christian morals on Liberals? While having abortion legal allows for the Christian to not have an abortion as well as allows someone else to make the decision to have it, making it illegal allows no such individual choice. While I could type a lot more, I don't think that my daughter my will allow me to right now.


ETA: Many Religious Congressmen have tried to pass amendments banning abortion and gay marriage. To add to that here is a great article out of Oklahoma from earlier this year. Oklahoma Bill Requiring Clergy Approval to Be Married Passes House; Opponents Claim Law Would Prevent Gays, Atheists From Being Wed

 

[pkt77242]

What are people's opinions on Obama's Clean Power Plan?

Personally I find it interesting because it sets a goal at the Federal level but lets the states determine the best way of hitting the goal.

 

[NDgradstudent]

I guess my one central question is then how do you want to handle abortion? You state that you don't want to force Christian moral regime on Liberals but yet you want abortion to be illegal (at least I assume so by your post). How is that not forcing Christian morals on Liberals? While having abortion legal allows for the Christian to not have an abortion as well as allows someone else to make the decision to have it, making it illegal allows no such individual choice. While I could type a lot more, I don't think that my daughter my will allow me to right now.

In the case of abortion, it is true that Christians, among others, would seek to coerce people through the use of law. In other cases, such as with non-discrimination laws, liberals (whether Christian or not) would use the law to coerce others. I think WhiskeyJack's point is that everybody wants to 'impose their beliefs' in some way or another, including through the law, but liberals often claim that they never do this because they have no substantive metaphysical commitments to impose. But everybody agrees that some acts should be illegal, and others legal. So the law is always going to coercing somebody, and 'imposing' the majority's beliefs on others.

My view is roughly that of Aquinas:

Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like.

ST I-II 96-2

This is not so different from Mill's harm principle (although of course not identical). I do not think birth control, sodomy, fornication, 'hate speech,' etc., should be illegal, because they do not cause the same amount of harm that abortion causes, however immoral they are. The reason abortion should be at least generally illegal is that it constitutes intentionally killing an innocent person, which is always wrong.

It is of course true that leaving abortion legal lets each person decide whether or not to get an abortion, but this sort of argument is just question-begging. Infanticide is not legal, even though if it was legal, each person (or parents) could decide whether or not to engage in it.

One final point about the use of "religion" in justifying different laws: we could imagine a "Christian" argument for many different laws. Even just using quotations from the Catechism, we could come with arguments for or against a whole bunch of different laws. We could also imagine "non-religious" arguments for these same laws. Liberals will often claim that some laws can only be supported by "religious" arguments, and that these laws are therefore illiberal. But arguments about any law contain moral premises. For example, if I argue in favor of legal abortion like this:

(1) Law should seek to maximize utility.
(2) Laws permitting abortion maximize utility.
(3) Therefore, abortion should be legal.

Premise (2) is an empirical claim that a social scientist might be able to help us sort out, but of course we would need to agree about what constitutes utility first of all. And Premise (1) is not obvious, and any argument for it or against it is not likely to be decisive in the sense that it would convince a bunch of people already disposed to think otherwise. But a liberal would probably say that this is an acceptable non-religious argument.

Two points in conclusion: first, I could come up with a similar argument for literally any law anybody could imagine. Liberals often simply use this "the only justification for that law is religion" argument as a way of saying that they dislike the law in question. And second, a "religious" argument against legal abortion is not different from the argument above in the sense that both rely on a controversial metaphysical/moral premise that is not going to be convincing to lots of people.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I guess my one central question is then how do you want to handle abortion?

Each state should be free to determine the legality of abortion. For the reasons I've described above, abortion is an essentially religious issue, regardless of which side you're on, because it touches on so many fundamental aspects of a society's worldview.

You state that you don't want to force Christian moral regime on Liberals but yet you want abortion to be illegal (at least I assume so by your post). How is that not forcing Christian morals on Liberals?

Because I'm not advocating for a Federal ban on abortion. States with Liberal majorities should be free to have their moral vision codified in law, which means legalized abortion. States with Christian majorities should be free to prohibit it. When one side seeks to enforce its vision on the other at the Federal level, it only serves to deepen the divisions in our national polity.

While having abortion legal allows for the Christian to not have an abortion as well as allows someone else to make the decision to have it, making it illegal allows no such individual choice.

And how it that not forcing Liberalism on states with a Christian majority?

ETA: Many Religious Congressmen have tried to pass amendments banning abortion and gay marriage. To add to that here is a great article out of Oklahoma from earlier this year. Oklahoma Bill Requiring Clergy Approval to Be Married Passes House; Opponents Claim Law Would Prevent Gays, Atheists From Being Wed

I haven't been shy in expressing my opinion of the average Republican Congressman here on IE.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

The latest Planned Parenthood expose video was released today:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/egGUEvY7CEg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Be warned, as there are some very disturbing images at the end. Most importantly here, Melissa Farrell, Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, explicitly states multiple times: (1) that PP contracts for the sale of baby organs in order to "diversify its revenue streams"; (2) that PP makes significant profit from such contracts; and (3) that PP alters its abortion techniques in order to better preserve organs for which it has contracted.

Our tax dollars at work.

 

[RDU Irish]

Their federal funds are as good as revoked. This is too graphic and disgusting for any politician to back up.

In my view, IF you are going to do these things it only makes sense to sell the byproduct and maximize the "value". Definitely strikes me as a conflict of interest though, if you are making MORE money off of abortion than alternatives you are incentivized to run people down that path. Few people would argue that the incentives should skew the opposite way if anything.