Originally posted by Psychoblues
You imply, gop_jeff, that PP doesn't provide education as it relates to abstinence. Actually, they provide and advocate more of that but sadly they are the tool that many seek after the abstinence thing is only a memory. Given their purpose in existence, an education in choice after the fact, their message of abstinence falls on an empty audience. Abstinence should be taught at home primarilly and in every other avenue that is available. PP does that as well as anyone. Maybe the other avenues are failing.
My stance is that we need to increase abstinence-focused education, and that as a result, there will be fewer teen pregnancies (and fewer teen abortions).
You, gop_jeff, are obviously not a voluntary contributor to PP and it's already been stated in here that your involuntary contributions (ie your tax dollars) are not used for the procedure that you express such disagreement with, abortion. The part that you involuntarilly contribute with your tax dollars is spent on exactly what you advocate, abstinence and prevention of std's which are also described elsewhere in this thread.[/quote]
I understand that the monies are kept "separate." I still take the stance that an organization that performs abortions should not be given any federal money for anything.
But even the baby Jesus was considered a bastard and the product of nonadherence to abstinence. Abstinence is not a NEW subject at all, is it? The Immaculate Conception is not a new subject for you, is it?
NOW we're treading on some thin ice. Any doubts in Joseph's mind about Jesus's conception were put away when an angel appeared to him and told him what was going on. I think it is a bit of a stretch to consider Jesus a "bastard" child.
And no, the Immaculate Conception is not a new concept to me - except that, in Catholicism, the IC is the theory that Mary was conceived as a sinless person, which allowed her to carry Jesus, the sinless child.
I realize that much of what I say here is wasted on you, gop_jeff, but somewhere we have to find compromise. I don't want to return to the days of "coat-hanger" abortions and botched procedures in filthy environments that we had in the '50's and '60's. As Americans, we expect better from each other, don't we?
One final note here, why is it that the Party that preaches too many laws and increased freedom seeks to create more laws and limit freedom? The passage of the abortion legislation was actually a reduction in laws and an increase in freedom. I guess other factors tend to cloud the ideology, don't you think?
Coat-hanger abortions... the scare tactics of the Left never change, do they?
The freedom that the Republican Party preaches includes the freedom of babies to have life. The justification of the pro-life stance is that babies have the right to life, and that, once conceived, that right supercedes the woman's right to "choose," barring a threat to the mother's life. So the pro-life plank is a continuation of freedom, not a limitation on it.
And, by the way, there was never any abortion "legislation," as you state. Abortion was legalized by Roe v. Wade, a decision based on the previously unknown "right to privacy" that was read into the 4th Amendment.
I, personally, would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned in a SCOTUS decision that stated that the federal government has no jurisdiction over the subject of abortion, and let the fight go to the state legislatures.