The overturning of RvW sent abortion to the states. Not all states will vote for life. Yesterday Michigan legalized abortion right up till the the moment of birth. I can't imagine living in a state like that. But if I did, I would take heart through the message delivered by this one bishop.

Quote:

---

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Let us beg the Lord to bring light and life to the darkness that has befallen the State of Michigan.

Darkness and grave evil have descended upon us with the passage of Proposal 3 amending the state constitution to allow abortion up to the moment of birth, nullification of parental notification rights, allowing children to choose sterilization and many more evils.

At the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus brought hope when he said,
"The people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death, light has arisen." (Matthew 4:16)

Therefore, we turn to the Lord and his cross through which he has defeated evil. Let us not lose hope but let us remember that he is the light that came into the darkness of our world. Let us remember that he came to bring us life and the peace of his presence.

Let us ask the Lord to use us as his instruments to bring light and life to the State of Michigan.

Let us join together in prayer and fasting in reparation for this grave evil.

Let us by the grace of God foster a civilization of life and love where the grave evil of abortion is unthinkable. Let us work together with the many crisis pregnancy centers in the Upper Peninsula and charitable organizations such as Catholic Social Services, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Knights of Columbus, Walking with Moms in Need activities at our parishes and more.

This Advent, please join me in focusing on prayer, self-sacrifice and reflection on how we personally, and as a Church by the grace of God can foster a civilization of love.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Most Rev. John F. Doerfler, STD, JCL
Bishop of Marquette

---

RAB91 said:

---

The overturning of RvW sent abortion to the states. Not all states will vote for life. Yesterday Michigan legalized abortion right up till the the moment of birth. I can't imagine living in a state like that. But if I did, I would take heart through the message delivered by this one bishop.

Quote:

---

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Let us beg the Lord to bring light and life to the darkness that has befallen the State of Michigan.

Darkness and grave evil have descended upon us with the passage of Proposal 3 amending the state constitution to allow abortion up to the moment of birth, nullification of parental notification rights, allowing children to choose sterilization and many more evils.

At the beginning of his public ministry, Jesus brought hope when he said,
"The people who sit in darkness have seen a great light, on those dwelling in a land overshadowed by death, light has arisen." (Matthew 4:16)

Therefore, we turn to the Lord and his cross through which he has defeated evil. Let us not lose hope but let us remember that he is the light that came into the darkness of our world. Let us remember that he came to bring us life and the peace of his presence.

Let us ask the Lord to use us as his instruments to bring light and life to the State of Michigan.

Let us join together in prayer and fasting in reparation for this grave evil.

Let us by the grace of God foster a civilization of life and love where the grave evil of abortion is unthinkable. Let us work together with the many crisis pregnancy centers in the Upper Peninsula and charitable organizations such as Catholic Social Services, the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Knights of Columbus, Walking with Moms in Need activities at our parishes and more.

This Advent, please join me in focusing on prayer, self-sacrifice and reflection on how we personally, and as a Church by the grace of God can foster a civilization of love.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us.

Most Rev. John F. Doerfler, STD, JCL
Bishop of Marquette

---

---

Libs hate Christians and babies.

It would help if you guys would actually support programs/initiatives that actually reduce abortions...

Macarthur said:

---

It would help if you guys would actually support programs/initiatives that actually reduce abortions...

---

Are you intending to start a debate? Or is this one of the progressive drive-bys that we've been told don't happen in this forum?

Macarthur said:

---

It would help if you guys would actually support programs/initiatives that actually reduce abortions...

---

We do it's called the 6th and 9th commandments

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

It would help if you guys would actually support programs/initiatives that actually reduce abortions...

---

Are you intending to start a debate? Or is this one of the progressive drive-bys that we've been told don't happen in this forum?

---

Right above his post is one that says, and I quote, "libs hate Christians and babies." Is that intended to start a debate, or does that qualify as a "drive-by" in your world?

AGC said:

---

OP is a letter by a bishop starting with "Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ"

---

What about newbie's comment?

It seems you should be equally critical of newbie's comment if you are going to get on AGC about his?

Quote:

---

The overturning of RvW sent abortion to the states. Not all states will vote for life. Yesterday Michigan legalized abortion right up till the the moment of birth. I can't imagine living in a state like that. But if I did, I would take heart through the message delivered by this one bishop.

---

Yeah pretty sure you're wrong about that. Michigan (like most states where it's legal) allows it up until viability.

I'm pretty tired of this emotionally charged language about abortion being allowed up until birth. It's not something that happens in real life. It's just emotional language used to demonize pro-choice people.

larry culpepper said:

---

Quote:

---

The overturning of RvW sent abortion to the states. Not all states will vote for life. Yesterday Michigan legalized abortion right up till the the moment of birth. I can't imagine living in a state like that. But if I did, I would take heart through the message delivered by this one bishop.

---

Yeah pretty sure you're wrong about that. Michigan (like most states where it's legal) allows it up until viability.

I'm pretty tired of this emotionally charged language about abortion being allowed up until birth. It's not something that happens in real life. It's just emotional language used to demonize pro-choice people.

---

The part you bolded is accurate. This amendment overrides any existing laws that limit abortion: "invalidate state laws conflicting with this amendment."

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

It would help if you guys would actually support programs/initiatives that actually reduce abortions...

---

Are you intending to start a debate? Or is this one of the progressive drive-bys that we've been told don't happen in this forum?

---

Lol. Yeah, as the others have pointed out, this is pretty rich give the opening posts of this thread.

But to your point, sure, we can open a debate. Keep in mind however, there will be nothing new that hasn't been discussed on this forum numerous times.

There are proven documented things that can be done that have measurable impacts to lower unwanted pregnancies but the right consistently either votes against it or slashes those items from government budgets.

Macarthur said:

---

AGC said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

It would help if you guys would actually support programs/initiatives that actually reduce abortions...

---

Are you intending to start a debate? Or is this one of the progressive drive-bys that we've been told don't happen in this forum?

---

Lol. Yeah, as the others have pointed out, this is pretty rich give the opening posts of this thread.

But to your point, sure, we can open a debate. Keep in mind however, there will be nothing new that hasn't been discussed on this forum numerous times.

There are proven documented things that can be done that have measurable impacts to lower unwanted pregnancies but the right consistently either votes against it or slashes those items from government budgets.

---

You're right, it's gonna be the same old arguments. Heaven forbid you get your house in order instead of relying on the government to protect you.

An interesting effect of the Roe reversal was a dramatic rise in vasectomies. So that points to a large group of people who did not want children but also weren't taking reasonable precautions to prevent it. Since the only thing that changed with the ruling was abortion access, it seems clear these people had an expectation that abortion could solve any issues with unwanted pregnancies. Without that option, multitudes of men are now taking it upon themselves to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Just a fact that I found interesting. For all that abortion and reproductive rights are hyped exclusively as women's rights issue, men are essential to the "getting pregnant" part and often to the "getting an abortion" part. Irresponsible male behavior is clearly a driving force as well.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

So that points to a large group of people who did not want children but also weren't taking reasonable precautions to prevent it. Since the only thing that changed with the ruling was abortion access, it seems clear these people had an expectation that abortion could solve any issues with unwanted pregnancies. Without that option, multitudes of men are now taking it upon themselves to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

---

Abortion existed as an option of last resort if something went wrong or a child was not viable. With that off the table, I think a lot of stable families decided they couldn't risk any possible pregnancies. It has nothing to do with "reasonable precautions" in many cases. Even with those in place, the risk won't be acceptable to many. People are risk adverse. Anti-abortion states have made any chance of getting pregnant much riskier.

---

Stable families don't regard children as a risk.

AGC said:

---

Who gives a crap? Which regulars are going around high fiving or amening it? Who's engaging with it? None of us that read and take seriously the OP, that's for sure. That's why we didn't respond. It's going to fade away and disappear. But we've got the outrage machine going and now Larry's waded into the fray.

If it upsets you flag it and move on.

---

Ha! Just trying to understand the rules here. Macarthur's and newbie's comments could both be argued to be inappropriate and antagonistic in this thread based on the OP. If we are going to call out 'drive-by's, then lets be consistent. . . that's all I'm saying, boss.

Quote:

---

Abortion existed as an option of last resort if something went wrong or a child was not viable. With that off the table, I think a lot of stable families decided they couldn't risk any possible pregnancies. It has nothing to do with "reasonable precautions" in many cases. Even with those in place, the risk won't be acceptable to many. People are risk adverse. Anti-abortion states have made any chance of getting pregnant much riskier.

---

I don't know if you're right or wrong, but you're saying this with a lot of confidence and zero evidence.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

So that points to a large group of people who did not want children but also weren't taking reasonable precautions to prevent it. Since the only thing that changed with the ruling was abortion access, it seems clear these people had an expectation that abortion could solve any issues with unwanted pregnancies. Without that option, multitudes of men are now taking it upon themselves to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

---

Abortion existed as an option of last resort if something went wrong or a child was not viable. With that off the table, I think a lot of stable families decided they couldn't risk any possible pregnancies. It has nothing to do with "reasonable precautions" in many cases. Even with those in place, the risk won't be acceptable to many. People are risk adverse. Anti-abortion states have made any chance of getting pregnant much riskier.

---

Stable families don't regard children as a risk.

---

Tone deaf comment. Sounds like you don't know any families middle class and below. They can be as stable as ever and another child would put them in financial dire straits.

larry culpepper said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

So that points to a large group of people who did not want children but also weren't taking reasonable precautions to prevent it. Since the only thing that changed with the ruling was abortion access, it seems clear these people had an expectation that abortion could solve any issues with unwanted pregnancies. Without that option, multitudes of men are now taking it upon themselves to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

---

Abortion existed as an option of last resort if something went wrong or a child was not viable. With that off the table, I think a lot of stable families decided they couldn't risk any possible pregnancies. It has nothing to do with "reasonable precautions" in many cases. Even with those in place, the risk won't be acceptable to many. People are risk adverse. Anti-abortion states have made any chance of getting pregnant much riskier.

---

Stable families don't regard children as a risk.

---

Tone deaf comment. Sounds like you don't know any families middle class and below. They can be as stable as ever and another child would put them in financial dire straits.

---

I know plenty. I'm surrounded by them. Some grow their own veggies, some make their own clothes, most drive 10+ year old cars, fix their own houses, live in two bed houses with four or more people (I know a family of 10 in a three bed house), etc. The families where another kid would cause issues get a vasectomy. It's not the stable families that are threatened.

AGC said:

---

Why? Who cares? If it's a problem flag it and move on. No need to be a concerned citizen. Posts like his and yours are why derm started his thread about lefties coming here.

---

Can I point out the obvious? If Macarthur's post is a problem, flag it and move on. No need to be a concerned citizen.

Macarthur said:

---

It would help if you guys would actually support programs/initiatives that actually reduce abortions...

---

If "you guys" mean the RCC, they actually have a solid response to your very astute observation.

+++

I know many on here wouldn't bother reading the 1968 Encyclical Letter by then Pope Paul VI to the Bishops regarding so-called "birth control". It would take you maybe 15 mins or so to read, very short and to the point in which he writes about man's advancement in all things - (note: man=mankind)

"the most remarkable development of all is to be seen in man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature to the point that he is endeavoring to extend this control over every aspect of his own lifeover his body, over his mind and emotions, over his social life, and even over the laws that regulate the transmission of life."

From there he lays the theological groundwork for why, using any method (i.e., pill, condoms, vasectomy, etc.) - is precisely the basis for more abortions and not fewer. This is because mankind is seeking to separate what cannot be separated - procreation and the conjugal act (unitive).

"(12) This particular doctrine, often expounded by the magisterium of the Church, is based on the inseparable connection, established by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative significance which are both inherent to the marriage act."

The RCC see marriage as part of God's plan for mankind and cooperative with the will of God.

"(8) Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives."

Lastly, the RCC understands marital love as total self-giving. Properly understood, I, as a husband, should not withhold any part of myself to my wife whom God has given to me as a partner for life here on earth.

"(9) It is a love which is totalthat very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself."

+++

So what has the RCC done? Gotten very serious about marriage and Natural Family Planning as a way to understand God's will for us through the sacrament of marriage.

This all makes absolutely no sense -if the idea is to have sex without any responsibility. If that is one's take - then they are not interested in God or love. I would guess that person to be rather selfish and at that point nothing could stop them from killing a baby as a result of an unplanned pregnancy.

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

So that points to a large group of people who did not want children but also weren't taking reasonable precautions to prevent it. Since the only thing that changed with the ruling was abortion access, it seems clear these people had an expectation that abortion could solve any issues with unwanted pregnancies. Without that option, multitudes of men are now taking it upon themselves to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

---

Abortion existed as an option of last resort if something went wrong or a child was not viable. With that off the table, I think a lot of stable families decided they couldn't risk any possible pregnancies. It has nothing to do with "reasonable precautions" in many cases. Even with those in place, the risk won't be acceptable to many. People are risk adverse. Anti-abortion states have made any chance of getting pregnant much riskier.

---

Stable families don't regard children as a risk.

---

What a naive, and smug statement.

schmendeler said:

---

AGC said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

So that points to a large group of people who did not want children but also weren't taking reasonable precautions to prevent it. Since the only thing that changed with the ruling was abortion access, it seems clear these people had an expectation that abortion could solve any issues with unwanted pregnancies. Without that option, multitudes of men are now taking it upon themselves to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

---

Abortion existed as an option of last resort if something went wrong or a child was not viable. With that off the table, I think a lot of stable families decided they couldn't risk any possible pregnancies. It has nothing to do with "reasonable precautions" in many cases. Even with those in place, the risk won't be acceptable to many. People are risk adverse. Anti-abortion states have made any chance of getting pregnant much riskier.

---

Stable families don't regard children as a risk.

---

What a naive, and smug statement.

---

Outrage is not a substantive argument. Define stable because we must have vastly different definitions.

Macarthur said:

---

It would help if you guys would actually support programs/initiatives that actually reduce abortions...

---

So I financially support this clinic which provides food, shelter, clothes, job placement - pretty much anything an expectant mother can need to help her avoid aborting her child.

https://www.fox4news.com/news/denton-pro-life-pregnancy-center-vandalized-week-after-roe-v-wade-leak



But go ahead and pretend these kinds of things don't exist.

The Banned said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

I'm not sure where you got that I would approve of something like this.

If someone CHOOSES, I have no issue with this and would support any services that help them. But that should be the woman's choice.

My point is that there are things that can help well before we ever got to that point and historically, the right refuses to support and fund those initiatives.

---

You said the right should help fund women in crisis pregnancies. This is a good example. We personally support Let Them Live. Help women for years after the birth, if necessary. There are options for women, but it is the harder path. Abortion may be a hard decision for the women that do it, but they ultimately make it because they think it will make their life easier in the long run.

Out of curiosity, what programs do you think would make this happen less often that the right refuses to fund?

---

Ok, fair point. I should have been more clear in that I was addressing the right's lack of support of programs that help reduce the amount of unintended pregnancies. Easy access to contraception and quality sex education are two very easy ways to help with this and have strong evidence to support reductions in unwanted pregnancies. Those two things are under constant attack from the right.