More Than One Pro-life Issue?

[Old_Joe]

I recently went on a trip with my sister. She's a fairly devout Catholic (I don't know how devout, but she's more devout when compared to some of our other siblings) and so our conversations covered many topics concerning Catholicism. One of things we talked about was that the Pro-life issue covers more than just the abolition of abortion. Basically, her stance, and I agree with her on it, was while the aboliton of abortion is primary, we also need to eliminate the need for it by raising the quality of life. For example: if a woman has an abortion because she feels she can't support the child then we need to do something to help her out financially. Now I do realize that there are tax-breaks for parents and that financial problems aren't the only issue. I just wanted to run this by the Pham.

[Adrestia]

[url="http://www.feministsforlife.org/"]Feminists for Life[/url] covers this topic very well. It is important to provide love and support to women who feel alone and scared. Sometimes our passion about ending abortion comes across as condemnation of individuals.




When I first read the topic I thought you were talking about the death penalty and euthanasia... also pro-life issues.

[Spamity Calamity]

Well yeah, we need to outlaw abortion but more importantly we need to figure out how to end the atmosphere that makes women feel the need to get one. Hate the sin love the sinner you know? I do agree with tgoldson that if you are against abortion people brand you as intolerant but we all the know the church is far from that. I think this is because if you make any kind of moral stance in America today the moral relativists brand you as intolerant which is false. Sure we have to take the moral stand that abortion is wrong and must be stopped but I feel if these women could just talk to a priest for like ten minutes it would make a big difference.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1422799' date='Nov 20 2007, 09:37 AM']I think this is because if you make any kind of moral stance in America today the moral relativists brand you as intolerant which is false.[/quote]There is sometimes an unwillingness to listen on both sides.

One of my old roommates, who is steadfastly pro-choice, told me that many in the pro-life community which she has encountered believe that pro-choice individuals find nothing wrong with abortion. Let's be real. No one gets up in the morning with a bright smile and exclaims, "Today would be a great day for an abortion!" Many agree that it's a decision made in a state of despair - when a women feels she has no choice! ([i]personal rant[/i]: See the irony here? How can they call themselves "pro-choice" when they do nothing to help women realize that they are able to choose life?) I have brought this argument up with her and we agree that more should be done to support mothers and fathers - not necessarily on a national level, but community by community. For example, why not have affordable day care on college campuses? Why should college students feel like they have to choose between education and parenthood?

[Lena]

I agree that we do need a social context, or framework to support a nation that outlaws abortion. And I don't think we have that yet. I also like tgoldson's point! I'd write more, but I'm off to class.

[cmotherofpirl]

The other prolife issues listed by the bishops are racism, torture, euthanasia and embryonic stem-cell research.

[Socrates]

While it's true that more should be done to help women with difficult pregnancies, and to help foster a "culture of life" (mostly at the private/community level rather than by the federal government), we need to stay aware that abortion and euthanasia are the primary life issues politically, and trump all others.
Also, contrary to the pro-abortion myth I commonly see repeated, many of the people politically active in the pro-life movement, are working hard to help mothers - from sidewalk counseling, to running clinics to help mothers in difficult circumstances. I get of sick of hearing over and over how pro-lifers "don't care about women." What have the "pro-choicers" done for women other than push abortion?

Alot of political left-wingers have tried to confuse the issues, by trying to make a host of other issues, from welfare and minimum wage laws to environmental regulation, to be "life issues' on equal par morally with abortion and euthanasia. Don't be fooled. In addition to the dubious benefits of much of this lefty legislation, none of these issues can justify voting for a blatantly pro-abortion politician.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Socrates

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1423418' date='Nov 21 2007, 08:31 PM']In addition to the dubious benefits of much of this lefty legislation, none of these issues can justify voting for a blatantly pro-abortion politician.[/quote]
I disagree. If a politician is pro-choice simply as an opinion but not actively seeking "more abortions", I don't see why I wouldnt vote for them if the other candidate is obsessively pro-life to the point where they throw away every other issue as "non important." The simple fact is, abortion isnt the only issue. Life is important, maybe the most important, but many other issues affect life. There isnt much anyone can do about abortion at the federal level, so if they are going to insist on ignoring all the other issues in favor of abortion, I refuse to vote for them.

(Note, I don't use obsessively in a necessarily bad way. I mean it as an adjective to describe the strength of their views.)

[Adrestia]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1423610' date='Nov 22 2007, 09:22 AM']I disagree. If a politician is pro-choice simply as an opinion but not actively seeking "more abortions", I don't see why I wouldnt vote for them if the other candidate is obsessively pro-life to the point where they throw away every other issue as "non important." The simple fact is, abortion isnt the only issue. Life is important, maybe the most important, but many other issues affect life. There isnt much anyone can do about abortion at the federal level, so if they are going to insist on ignoring all the other issues in favor of abortion, I refuse to vote for them.

(Note, I don't use obsessively in a necessarily bad way. I mean it as an adjective to describe the strength of their views.)[/quote]Are you saying that it would be morally acceptable for a Catholic to vote for a person that is not in favor of abolishing abortion [i]if[/i] that same person is in favor of ending euthanasia, of supporting motherhood and fatherhood in ways to diminish the desire for abortion, and of other miscellaneous life issues?

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1423610' date='Nov 22 2007, 09:22 AM']There isnt much anyone can do about abortion at the federal level,[/quote]

really? partial-birth abortion legislation, federal laws surrounding minors, the use of federal funds for abortions, health care legislation, the Constitutional Amendment process... don't these take place at the federal/national level? please educate me - i would be much obliged.

Edited November 22, 2007 by fides quarens intellectum

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1423672' date='Nov 22 2007, 12:17 PM']really? partial-birth abortion legislation, federal laws surrounding minors, the use of federal funds for abortions, health care legislation, the Constitutional Amendment process... don't these take place at the federal/national level? please educate me - i would be much obliged.[/quote]
Is George Bush your figurehead and symbol of these methods? Yes, they have worked so well thus far...

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1423615' date='Nov 22 2007, 09:34 AM']Are you saying that it would be morally acceptable for a Catholic to vote for a person that is not in favor of abolishing abortion [i]if[/i] that same person is in favor of ending euthanasia, of supporting motherhood and fatherhood in ways to diminish the desire for abortion, and of other miscellaneous life issues?[/quote]
I'm saying I would. I can't speak for Catholic morals. But it kind of puts you in a bind. You end up screwing the country if you insist that abortion is the most important issue. So if you dislike the way the country is running, only blame yourself if you voted only on abortion.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1423610' date='Nov 22 2007, 11:22 AM']I disagree. If a politician is pro-choice simply as an opinion but not actively seeking "more abortions", I don't see why I wouldnt vote for them if the other candidate is obsessively pro-life to the point where they throw away every other issue as "non important." The simple fact is, abortion isnt the only issue. Life is important, maybe the most important, but many other issues affect life. There isnt much anyone can do about abortion at the federal level, so if they are going to insist on ignoring all the other issues in favor of abortion, I refuse to vote for them.

(Note, I don't use obsessively in a necessarily bad way. I mean it as an adjective to describe the strength of their views.)[/quote]
No politician is "pro-choice" simply as an opinion. "Pro-choice" (political codeword for pro-abortion) is a political position which affects how he votes and decides on various issues (for instance, whether he votes for or against laws either restricting or promoting abortion if a congressman, or whether he supports or vetoes legislation, or who he appoints to SCOTUS and other positions if president).
Most "pro-choice" politicians are in fact hardly passive on the issue of abortion, but support actively funding abortion with tax dollars, and agressively seek to strike down any and all restrictions on abortion.

And I am not aware of ANY "obsessively pro-life" politicians out there who ignore all other issues, at least none who have been elected to office, or are major candidates. You're creating an unrealistic strawman. Most politicians (even many of those who label themselves "pro-life") are not doing [i]enough[/i] actively to fight abortion.
Whatever our problems are in this country, a glut of "obsessively pro-life" politicians is not one of them!

Roe v. Wade was decided at the Federal Level (Supreme Court), and will have to be overturned by the SCOTUS. The only way to get a majority to overturn it is to vote for pro-life presidential candidates, as well as vote pro-abort liberals out of Congress (who will attempt to "bork" any solidly pro-life candidate to the SCOTUS. This term comes from their successful blocking of pro-life Reagan-appointed SCOTUS candidate Judge Robert Bork.)
And Roe v. Wade will probably first have to be challenged by the states, so electing solidly pro-life people at the state level is also vitally important.

Edited November 22, 2007 by Socrates

[XIX]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1423676' date='Nov 22 2007, 02:24 PM']Is George Bush your figurehead and symbol of these methods? Yes, they have worked so well thus far...[/quote]
"Gee abortion still exists, so all of this pro-life legislation must not be working..."

Very weak argument logically. You could say the same thing about every other issue under the sun. I challenge you to find a solution to one problem that can "work so well" as to solve the problem. The fact is--and this is based on the teachings of JP2--abortion is the most important issue today, with the exception of salvation itself.

I agree that not a lot can be done at the federal level to solve abortion. But the same can be said for Iraq, the border, the economy, domestic poverty, global poverty, Darfur, health care, etc. etc. etc. The fact is that a politician will either promote abortion or oppose it. Even people who don't care about abortion will help their party's adgenda on the issue, so that their party would support them in issues they care about. For example, Al Gore might not care about abortion, but he may try to pass pro-abortion laws so that the Dems will support him on some environmental legislation.

And no matter what good he does for the environment, that will all be dwarfed by extra abortions that he has helped bring into existence. And that's assuming he's correct on global warming, which is a dubious assumption to make. This is why I am a single issue voter.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='XIX' post='1423701' date='Nov 22 2007, 02:23 PM']"Gee abortion still exists, so all of this pro-life legislation must not be working..."

Very weak argument logically. You could say the same thing about every other issue under the sun. I challenge you to find a solution to one problem that can "work so well" as to solve the problem. The fact is--and this is based on the teachings of JP2--abortion is the most important issue today, with the exception of salvation itself.

I agree that not a lot can be done at the federal level to solve abortion. But the same can be said for Iraq, the border, the economy, domestic poverty, global poverty, Darfur, health care, etc. etc. etc. The fact is that a politician will either promote abortion or oppose it. Even people who don't care about abortion will help their party's adgenda on the issue, so that their party would support them in issues they care about. For example, Al Gore might not care about abortion, but he may try to pass pro-abortion laws so that the Dems will support him on some environmental legislation.

And no matter what good he does for the environment, that will all be dwarfed by extra abortions that he has helped bring into existence. And that's assuming he's correct on global warming, which is a dubious assumption to make. This is why I am a single issue voter.[/quote]
That's all fine and dandy. But for real people, with real problems, it doesn't matter if someone supports abortion or not. For people who have hard lives, who live from paycheck to paycheck, one more life saved from abortion doesnt matter. Im not trying to be insensitive, I'm being realistic. People care about how politicians will help them, not if they're "pro-life" or "pro-choice." Sometimes, you need to be more realistic. Life matters, but remember that life isn't just those who are waiting to be born.