Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Steve, my quick and dirty response to you is...because the vast majority of people will not remain abstinent for their entire lives.

Are most abortions performed on married women in a stable relationship with a husband?

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Steve, my quick and dirty response to you is...because the vast majority of people will not remain abstinent for their entire lives.

Are most abortions performed on married women in a stable relationship with a husband?

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

If Roe were overturned tomorrow, would abortion suddenly be banned from coast to coast? Come on! Not on your life! State legislatures would resume doing what they had properly been doing before they were so rudely interrupted by Justice Blackmun and his Supreme Court majority. I believe even Brian Rush stated that Roe should be overturned if necessary to bring about a truce in the Culture Wars because its overturning would not change a damn thing. Some states would have more restrictive abortion laws and other states would have less restrictive abortion laws. But it is unlikely that any state would ban it altogether, despite the propaganda. Regardless, it is purely a matter for state legislatures anyway, certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States. We are intended to be a nation of laws, not of men.

I do think several states might make the leap to ban it - as they should have the right to do. But no woman will be forced into that tired old "back alley" excuse because NARAL and their ilk will sprout up "assistance centers" to shuttle anyone who wants one across the border to a more pro-abortion friendly state. Then some idiot will try to pass a law saying that's illegal, but it'll get tossed on the grounds that it violates freedom of movement (or whatever that concept is properly called). In the end, the Constitution will be repaired, pro-abortion will have to settle for abortions without a Holy Right, and the majority of us will be happy as a clam just to be able to have our opinion on the question itself measured at the polls again.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

If Roe were overturned tomorrow, would abortion suddenly be banned from coast to coast? Come on! Not on your life! State legislatures would resume doing what they had properly been doing before they were so rudely interrupted by Justice Blackmun and his Supreme Court majority. I believe even Brian Rush stated that Roe should be overturned if necessary to bring about a truce in the Culture Wars because its overturning would not change a damn thing. Some states would have more restrictive abortion laws and other states would have less restrictive abortion laws. But it is unlikely that any state would ban it altogether, despite the propaganda. Regardless, it is purely a matter for state legislatures anyway, certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States. We are intended to be a nation of laws, not of men.

I do think several states might make the leap to ban it - as they should have the right to do. But no woman will be forced into that tired old "back alley" excuse because NARAL and their ilk will sprout up "assistance centers" to shuttle anyone who wants one across the border to a more pro-abortion friendly state. Then some idiot will try to pass a law saying that's illegal, but it'll get tossed on the grounds that it violates freedom of movement (or whatever that concept is properly called). In the end, the Constitution will be repaired, pro-abortion will have to settle for abortions without a Holy Right, and the majority of us will be happy as a clam just to be able to have our opinion on the question itself measured at the polls again.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

If Roe were overturned tomorrow, would abortion suddenly be banned from coast to coast? Come on! Not on your life! State legislatures would resume doing what they had properly been doing before they were so rudely interrupted by Justice Blackmun and his Supreme Court majority. I believe even Brian Rush stated that Roe should be overturned if necessary to bring about a truce in the Culture Wars because its overturning would not change a damn thing. Some states would have more restrictive abortion laws and other states would have less restrictive abortion laws. But it is unlikely that any state would ban it altogether, despite the propaganda. Regardless, it is purely a matter for state legislatures anyway, certainly not the Supreme Court of the United States. We are intended to be a nation of laws, not of men.

I do think several states might make the leap to ban it - as they should have the right to do. But no woman will be forced into that tired old "back alley" excuse because NARAL and their ilk will sprout up "assistance centers" to shuttle anyone who wants one across the border to a more pro-abortion friendly state. Then some idiot will try to pass a law saying that's illegal, but it'll get tossed on the grounds that it violates freedom of movement (or whatever that concept is properly called). In the end, the Constitution will be repaired, pro-abortion will have to settle for abortions without a Holy Right, and the majority of us will be happy as a clam just to be able to have our opinion on the question itself measured at the polls again.

But pro-life demonstrators who practice civil disobedience are making a fundamental mistake that is more grievous even than their ignorance of constitutional law and Christian morality and that is their persistent belief that America is a Christian country with a mistaken but basically Christian government that only needs a little adjustment.

Yes, there are protestors who have declared that in permitting abortion, the United States is no lo longer a legal regime but a Nazi tyranny, but that is nonsense: Many legitimate, albeit non-Christian governments have tolerated both abortion and infanticide. The point to keep in mind, however, is that the hallmark of Christianity, from the beginning, has been a respect, bordering on reverence, for the life that our Father has given us and that Christ has redeemed. Any doubts a man may express about the sanctity of innocent life is a sure sign that he has no faith, and a great country in which the overwhelming majority of the population claim to be Christian but think that abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest, birth defects?or potential low IQ or halitosis or who knows what other irrelevant reason?is not a Christian nation, and there is nothing that Joe Scheidler or a million Joe Scheidlers can do about it.

This is an anti-Christian country, and the honorable Christian has limited options. The law is the law, and abortion is legal, as the harpies and ghouls of Planned Parenthood and NOW insist. If the law told us to slaughter the innocent, we should be compelled by conscience to refuse, but there is no practical way, legal or illegal, that we can employ stop the anti-Christians from killing their babies. What we can do, however, is to keep the commandments of our faith, obey the laws that are made by Nero or the Supreme Court as "a terror for . . . the evil." However, we can, by our life and example, attempt to move the conscience of the anti-Christians and, above all, to bring them to the Christ who promised His followers that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.


http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Ha...ght120502.html


5 December 2002 number of Hard Right
"ABORTION: TO PROTEST OR NOT TO PROTEST"
by Mr. Thomas Fleming

But pro-life demonstrators who practice civil disobedience are making a fundamental mistake that is more grievous even than their ignorance of constitutional law and Christian morality and that is their persistent belief that America is a Christian country with a mistaken but basically Christian government that only needs a little adjustment.

Yes, there are protestors who have declared that in permitting abortion, the United States is no lo longer a legal regime but a Nazi tyranny, but that is nonsense: Many legitimate, albeit non-Christian governments have tolerated both abortion and infanticide. The point to keep in mind, however, is that the hallmark of Christianity, from the beginning, has been a respect, bordering on reverence, for the life that our Father has given us and that Christ has redeemed. Any doubts a man may express about the sanctity of innocent life is a sure sign that he has no faith, and a great country in which the overwhelming majority of the population claim to be Christian but think that abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest, birth defects?or potential low IQ or halitosis or who knows what other irrelevant reason?is not a Christian nation, and there is nothing that Joe Scheidler or a million Joe Scheidlers can do about it.

This is an anti-Christian country, and the honorable Christian has limited options. The law is the law, and abortion is legal, as the harpies and ghouls of Planned Parenthood and NOW insist. If the law told us to slaughter the innocent, we should be compelled by conscience to refuse, but there is no practical way, legal or illegal, that we can employ stop the anti-Christians from killing their babies. What we can do, however, is to keep the commandments of our faith, obey the laws that are made by Nero or the Supreme Court as "a terror for . . . the evil." However, we can, by our life and example, attempt to move the conscience of the anti-Christians and, above all, to bring them to the Christ who promised His followers that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.


http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Ha...ght120502.html


5 December 2002 number of Hard Right
"ABORTION: TO PROTEST OR NOT TO PROTEST"
by Mr. Thomas Fleming

But pro-life demonstrators who practice civil disobedience are making a fundamental mistake that is more grievous even than their ignorance of constitutional law and Christian morality and that is their persistent belief that America is a Christian country with a mistaken but basically Christian government that only needs a little adjustment.

Yes, there are protestors who have declared that in permitting abortion, the United States is no lo longer a legal regime but a Nazi tyranny, but that is nonsense: Many legitimate, albeit non-Christian governments have tolerated both abortion and infanticide. The point to keep in mind, however, is that the hallmark of Christianity, from the beginning, has been a respect, bordering on reverence, for the life that our Father has given us and that Christ has redeemed. Any doubts a man may express about the sanctity of innocent life is a sure sign that he has no faith, and a great country in which the overwhelming majority of the population claim to be Christian but think that abortion is permissible in cases of rape, incest, birth defects?or potential low IQ or halitosis or who knows what other irrelevant reason?is not a Christian nation, and there is nothing that Joe Scheidler or a million Joe Scheidlers can do about it.

This is an anti-Christian country, and the honorable Christian has limited options. The law is the law, and abortion is legal, as the harpies and ghouls of Planned Parenthood and NOW insist. If the law told us to slaughter the innocent, we should be compelled by conscience to refuse, but there is no practical way, legal or illegal, that we can employ stop the anti-Christians from killing their babies. What we can do, however, is to keep the commandments of our faith, obey the laws that are made by Nero or the Supreme Court as "a terror for . . . the evil." However, we can, by our life and example, attempt to move the conscience of the anti-Christians and, above all, to bring them to the Christ who promised His followers that He was the Way, the Truth, and the Life.


http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/Ha...ght120502.html


5 December 2002 number of Hard Right
"ABORTION: TO PROTEST OR NOT TO PROTEST"
by Mr. Thomas Fleming

School is back in at USC. Don't worry, the school is still providing computers for its students to use so I can still reach you guys. We still have access to the rest of the world outside the cordon, unlike, say, Annapolis. I wonder if the government is reading and recording what all of us write.

The mood in the college is perpetually 3T. Barely a word went across about Election 2002 as it approached and passed. People visited and canvassed on campus trying to get students interested in voting but no one new was interested in signing up. Just as a Third Turning would have, the voter turnout among the Divided Generation on the college campus on very low. There was no big shock or chill overtaking campus after the Republican gains and the aftermath of the election either. Every day things seem to be looking more and more 3T.

Moreso in a place where even immediately after the attack the campus was not paralyzed into the completely changed mood people talked about.

School is back in at USC. Don't worry, the school is still providing computers for its students to use so I can still reach you guys. We still have access to the rest of the world outside the cordon, unlike, say, Annapolis. I wonder if the government is reading and recording what all of us write.

The mood in the college is perpetually 3T. Barely a word went across about Election 2002 as it approached and passed. People visited and canvassed on campus trying to get students interested in voting but no one new was interested in signing up. Just as a Third Turning would have, the voter turnout among the Divided Generation on the college campus on very low. There was no big shock or chill overtaking campus after the Republican gains and the aftermath of the election either. Every day things seem to be looking more and more 3T.

Moreso in a place where even immediately after the attack the campus was not paralyzed into the completely changed mood people talked about.

School is back in at USC. Don't worry, the school is still providing computers for its students to use so I can still reach you guys. We still have access to the rest of the world outside the cordon, unlike, say, Annapolis. I wonder if the government is reading and recording what all of us write.

The mood in the college is perpetually 3T. Barely a word went across about Election 2002 as it approached and passed. People visited and canvassed on campus trying to get students interested in voting but no one new was interested in signing up. Just as a Third Turning would have, the voter turnout among the Divided Generation on the college campus on very low. There was no big shock or chill overtaking campus after the Republican gains and the aftermath of the election either. Every day things seem to be looking more and more 3T.

Moreso in a place where even immediately after the attack the campus was not paralyzed into the completely changed mood people talked about.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I believe Stonewall is correct about the consequences of overturning Roe. He is incorrect in describing my opinion that it should be reversed.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you desired that it be reversed, merely that you recognize that its reversal would have no real effect on the legality of abortion in this country and further that it would bring about a truce in the Culture Wars if one is still needed.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I believe Stonewall is correct about the consequences of overturning Roe. He is incorrect in describing my opinion that it should be reversed.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you desired that it be reversed, merely that you recognize that its reversal would have no real effect on the legality of abortion in this country and further that it would bring about a truce in the Culture Wars if one is still needed.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I believe Stonewall is correct about the consequences of overturning Roe. He is incorrect in describing my opinion that it should be reversed.

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that you desired that it be reversed, merely that you recognize that its reversal would have no real effect on the legality of abortion in this country and further that it would bring about a truce in the Culture Wars if one is still needed.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Steve, my quick and dirty response to you is...because the vast majority of people will not remain abstinent for their entire lives.

Are most abortions performed on married women in a stable relationship with a husband?

I doubt it. But I had moved beyond the abortion issue in my earlier post and was thinking more about sex ed in general.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".

I didn't say "pass out condoms." I don't think schools should do that. If someone wants them, they should go to the pharmacy or wherever and buy them with their own money. If that's a deterrent to kids having sex, so be it.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Steve, my quick and dirty response to you is...because the vast majority of people will not remain abstinent for their entire lives.

Are most abortions performed on married women in a stable relationship with a husband?

I doubt it. But I had moved beyond the abortion issue in my earlier post and was thinking more about sex ed in general.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".

I didn't say "pass out condoms." I don't think schools should do that. If someone wants them, they should go to the pharmacy or wherever and buy them with their own money. If that's a deterrent to kids having sex, so be it.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

Steve, my quick and dirty response to you is...because the vast majority of people will not remain abstinent for their entire lives.

Are most abortions performed on married women in a stable relationship with a husband?

I doubt it. But I had moved beyond the abortion issue in my earlier post and was thinking more about sex ed in general.

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

I think it's important to talk about sexual behavior, while not assuming that the kids are going to go out and "do it" just because someone talked about condoms in class.

That's funny - that's exactly the reason most of my peers in high school gave whenever they'd discuss why it was permissible to have sex. "They're passing out condoms, so they must know we're going to do it, and they think it's okay as long as we use 'protection'".

I didn't say "pass out condoms." I don't think schools should do that. If someone wants them, they should go to the pharmacy or wherever and buy them with their own money. If that's a deterrent to kids having sex, so be it.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

I do think several states might make the leap to ban it - as they should have the right to do. But no woman will be forced into that tired old "back alley" excuse because NARAL and their ilk will sprout up "assistance centers" to shuttle anyone who wants one across the border to a more pro-abortion friendly state. Then some idiot will try to pass a law saying that's illegal, but it'll get tossed on the grounds that it violates freedom of movement (or whatever that concept is properly called). In the end, the Constitution will be repaired, pro-abortion will have to settle for abortions without a Holy Right, and the majority of us will be happy as a clam just to be able to have our opinion on the question itself measured at the polls again.

You know, Chris, I could actually see all of this happening. And I could probably live with it.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

I do think several states might make the leap to ban it - as they should have the right to do. But no woman will be forced into that tired old "back alley" excuse because NARAL and their ilk will sprout up "assistance centers" to shuttle anyone who wants one across the border to a more pro-abortion friendly state. Then some idiot will try to pass a law saying that's illegal, but it'll get tossed on the grounds that it violates freedom of movement (or whatever that concept is properly called). In the end, the Constitution will be repaired, pro-abortion will have to settle for abortions without a Holy Right, and the majority of us will be happy as a clam just to be able to have our opinion on the question itself measured at the polls again.

You know, Chris, I could actually see all of this happening. And I could probably live with it.

Originally Posted by Chris'68

I do think several states might make the leap to ban it - as they should have the right to do. But no woman will be forced into that tired old "back alley" excuse because NARAL and their ilk will sprout up "assistance centers" to shuttle anyone who wants one across the border to a more pro-abortion friendly state. Then some idiot will try to pass a law saying that's illegal, but it'll get tossed on the grounds that it violates freedom of movement (or whatever that concept is properly called). In the end, the Constitution will be repaired, pro-abortion will have to settle for abortions without a Holy Right, and the majority of us will be happy as a clam just to be able to have our opinion on the question itself measured at the polls again.

You know, Chris, I could actually see all of this happening. And I could probably live with it.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Privacy includes the right to abortion,

Only if it is held that life has not begun by the time of the abortion (meaning that it is a mere surgical procedure which is none of government's business). However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

Stonewall, if life precedes all other rights, what does the "pro-life constitutionalist" do with the issue of capital punishment?

I think this is related not only to the abortion issue but to the petering out of the culture wars in general. (I am trying to stay on the topic here ;-)) Several states (Illinois in particular, under a Republican governor) are taking a very hard look at the death penalty.

Now perhaps because of the fear surrounding 9/11, those of us who support abolishing capital punishment will not get very far. But I still think it's worthwhile to talk about whether or not the death penalty is moral or even constitutional.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Privacy includes the right to abortion,

Only if it is held that life has not begun by the time of the abortion (meaning that it is a mere surgical procedure which is none of government's business). However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

Stonewall, if life precedes all other rights, what does the "pro-life constitutionalist" do with the issue of capital punishment?

I think this is related not only to the abortion issue but to the petering out of the culture wars in general. (I am trying to stay on the topic here ;-)) Several states (Illinois in particular, under a Republican governor) are taking a very hard look at the death penalty.

Now perhaps because of the fear surrounding 9/11, those of us who support abolishing capital punishment will not get very far. But I still think it's worthwhile to talk about whether or not the death penalty is moral or even constitutional.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Privacy includes the right to abortion,

Only if it is held that life has not begun by the time of the abortion (meaning that it is a mere surgical procedure which is none of government's business). However if it is held that life has begun before the procedure is desired, then it is a life issue which trumps the privacy of the mother since life necessarily precedes all other rights.

Stonewall, if life precedes all other rights, what does the "pro-life constitutionalist" do with the issue of capital punishment?

I think this is related not only to the abortion issue but to the petering out of the culture wars in general. (I am trying to stay on the topic here ;-)) Several states (Illinois in particular, under a Republican governor) are taking a very hard look at the death penalty.

Now perhaps because of the fear surrounding 9/11, those of us who support abolishing capital punishment will not get very far. But I still think it's worthwhile to talk about whether or not the death penalty is moral or even constitutional.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Actually quoting Thomas Fleming here:

harpies and ghouls of Planned Parenthood and NOW

You know, this gentleman and others like him lose me with the namecalling. We all want fewer abortions in this country. Even Planned Parenthood and NOW do. We just disagree about how to get there. Quit it with the "harpy" talk already. It's not helpful.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Actually quoting Thomas Fleming here:

harpies and ghouls of Planned Parenthood and NOW

You know, this gentleman and others like him lose me with the namecalling. We all want fewer abortions in this country. Even Planned Parenthood and NOW do. We just disagree about how to get there. Quit it with the "harpy" talk already. It's not helpful.