More Than One Pro-life Issue?

[Adrestia]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1424129' date='Nov 23 2007, 11:35 PM']My point is that the pro-life movement quite often comes off as not caring about anyone but the babies. It may not be true, but reputations speak volumes.[/quote]This is what many pro-choice people believe. In fact, some believe that the pro-life movement only cares until the baby is born, then stops caring.

President Bush recently vetoed a bill that would provide health care for children. Can we stop laughing, step outside of our personal beliefs for a second and try to understand why people might think that way?

There is a huge lack of understanding on both sides.

Edited November 24, 2007 by tgoldson

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1424129' date='Nov 24 2007, 01:35 AM']Never said that.[/quote]
You did say that "for real people, with real problems, it doesn't matter if someone supports abortion or not."
That implies that people who care about ending abortion somehow aren't real people with real problems. Plenty of staunch pro-life people have had to go through serious ordeals (personal, financial, health, etc.), yet this doesn't make them cease to be pro-life.

[quote]Never said I didnt care about the babies. But they aren't my top priority. Sorry. If that makes you think Im callous, oh well.[/quote]
Well, perhaps you can enlighten us as to what you consider to be top priority over human life.

[quote]I wouldnt be insinuating something unless I saw basis. My point is that the pro-life movement quite often comes off as not caring about anyone but the babies. It may not be true, but reputations speak volumes.
It's okay, i think a lot of what you say is complete bull too. I'm glad the feeling is mutual.[/quote]
Maybe the pro-life movement "comes off" that way if your main source of knowledge about it is the liberal news media on tv, which distorts things so much it's not even funny.
If that is prolifers' "reputation," it speaks mainly about the persistence of the pro-abort propaganda machine, which wishes to smear the character of anyone who dare oppose abortion.

The idea that pro-lifers don't care about women/the poor/anybody once they're born is a total lie. In my area alone, prolifers run a crisis pregnancy center, supports programs that help mothers during pregnancy and after birth, including giving educational activity, sponsors healing retreats for women who have had abortions, and many pro-lifers are also active in other charities helping the needy.

Of course, you won't see much of that reported in the "mainstream" media, nor do you see "prochoicers" doing so much to actively help women with difficult pregnancies.

But, oh well, you see what you want to see.

[quote]I never said everything would be okay. Im upset that most of you will disregard a cantidate because they are pro-choice. I don't think everything is that black and white. Good thing I'm not catholic, but that means I'm allowed to disagree.[/quote]
Why disregard Hitler just because he supports genocide?

I'm sure most of those in 1930s Germany who voted for Hitler didn't do so because they harbored murderous hatred for Jewish people, nor because they thought concentration camps were a nifty idea.
No, most of them thought he would help them have a good job, a prosperous economy, and make the trains run on time. They were just real people for whom the murder of other people simply wasn't that high a priority.

You can disagree all you want, but you're still wrong.
Defending innocent human life should be the highest priority, and both pro-life voters and politicians should make it a higher priority, not lower. Once that happens, maybe we could make some real progress towards ending that abomination.

[Socrates]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1424250' date='Nov 24 2007, 02:16 PM']"ought to be yes" but isn't.

One problem is people take this issue so very personally that they can't get past their own emotions! My old roommate (pro-choice) and I talked about this ad nauseam. Person A thinks that abortion must be outlawed before even considering any other issue. Person B thinks that other issues outweigh the legality abortion. Both persons A and B would like to see the desire for abortion reduced, but they are so personally insulted by each other that they choose not to even consider working together. Anyone else see pride rearing it's ugly head? I'm not excluding myself here... I know I struggle with pride every day.[/quote]
If we truly believe abortion to be murder of the innocent, and not merely something vaguely unpleasant, we should indeed be emotional about this issue, and try to make it illegal.

If a "pro-choicer" wants to cooperate in helping with charitable works towards pregnant mothers and such, she's more than welcome! (So long as she's not using it as an opportunity to push abortion.)

Although pro-lifers do indeed do more to genuinely help women than "pro-choicers" (who almost invariably refuse to participate in any services which exclude counseling abortion as a legitimate "choice.")

Should prolifers do work outside politics to help reduce abortion? Heck Yes!

Should prolifers stop fimly speaking out against abortion and abandon the battle to legally protect unborn human life? Heck no!

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1424251' date='Nov 24 2007, 02:25 PM']This is what many pro-choice people believe. In fact, some believe that the pro-life movement only cares until the baby is born, then stops caring.

President Bush recently vetoed a bill that would provide health care for children. Can we stop laughing, step outside of our personal beliefs for a second and try to understand why people might think that way?

There is a huge lack of understanding on both sides.[/quote]
And some apparently "believe" that an unborn baby is just a clump of cells.

I'm not sure what President Bush really has to do with anything, but are you implying that pro-lifers must support every bill granting more federal money to health care or welfare?

Seems a very odd stance for a libertarian.

There's a difference between increasing federal funding of healthcare, etc. and caring for people.
Looks like the old liberal line that if you are against a federal tax-and-spend "solution" to something, you are heartless and don't care. (Ok, this is vearing off-topic.)

Edited November 25, 2007 by Socrates

[XIX]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1424251' date='Nov 24 2007, 02:25 PM']President Bush recently vetoed a bill that would provide health care for children. Can we stop laughing, step outside of our personal beliefs for a second and try to understand why people might think that way?[/quote]
Easy. President Bush doesn't think that using taxpayer money to provide for healthcare is the best way to help the children. Or maybe he thinks there are other things he can spend the money on. I'm not saying that I necesarily agree with the President's veto, but from a Catholic perspective, it's a legitimately debateable point. Abortion is not.

Maybe Bush really doesn't care about other peoples' health. I don't know his motives. I do know that a vote against health care does not necesarily equal a vote against the poor. These things cost money, and it's entirely possible that this kind of program would do more damage than good.

[Mercy me]

All this is fine and good but how about doing something to promote adoption and remove the stigma of giving a child up for adoption.

Often women have abortions because they are afraid and feel that they have no other choice. Like it or not there is a stigma with not keeping your baby. How about removing that.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1424251' date='Nov 24 2007, 02:25 PM']This is what many pro-choice people believe. In fact, some believe that the pro-life movement only cares until the baby is born, then stops caring.

President Bush recently vetoed a bill that would provide health care for children. Can we stop laughing, step outside of our personal beliefs for a second and try to understand why people might think that way?

There is a huge lack of understanding on both sides.[/quote]

That bill would have provided universal health care for children, even for children who were already covered by private insurance. That was not what the CHIP program was created for. That would effectively cut coverage for the poor kids who truly needed it and was simply pandering to the middle and upper class vote.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1424376' date='Nov 24 2007, 08:25 PM']If we truly believe abortion to be murder of the innocent, and not merely something vaguely unpleasant, we should indeed be emotional about this issue, and try to make it illegal.

If a "pro-choicer" wants to cooperate in helping with charitable works towards pregnant mothers and such, she's more than welcome! (So long as she's not using it as an opportunity to push abortion.)

Although pro-lifers do indeed do more to genuinely help women than "pro-choicers" (who almost invariably refuse to participate in any services which exclude counseling abortion as a legitimate "choice.")

Should prolifers do work outside politics to help reduce abortion? Heck Yes!

Should prolifers stop fimly speaking out against abortion and abandon the battle to legally protect unborn human life? Heck no![/quote]Okay - let's stay on topic - I was talking about providing services for [i]parents[/i] to promote the culture of life - the example I gave earlier was affordable health care on college campuses. I never suggested that a prolifer should work at a place that counsels on abortion or that a prochoicer should work at a place that refuses to.

FFL says "Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy."

MercyMe also gave some [b]great[/b] examples!

[quote name='Socrates' post='1424376' date='Nov 24 2007, 08:25 PM']And some apparently "believe" that an unborn baby is just a clump of cells.[/quote]Well they are. So are you. So am I. What they fail to realize is that we are all "clumps of cells" that have had life breathed into us by God. It is a failure in understanding that requires education.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1424376' date='Nov 24 2007, 08:25 PM']I'm not sure what President Bush really has to do with anything, but are you implying that pro-lifers must support every bill granting more federal money to health care or welfare?[/quote]This was covered by another response. Remember that I'm talking about perceptions here - if we understand why they feel the way they do we might stand a chance at reaching them.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1424376' date='Nov 24 2007, 08:25 PM']Seems a very odd stance for a libertarian.

There's a difference between increasing federal funding of healthcare, etc. and caring for people.
Looks like the old liberal line that if you are against a federal tax-and-spend "solution" to something, you are heartless and don't care. (Ok, this is vearing off-topic.)[/quote]This is not about personal beliefs, but rather trying to see things from someone else's point of view. Don't get this confused with charity or watering down our faith to avoid offending someone. It's all about changing hearts and changing minds.

There are a lot of people that are truly ignorant to the horrible impact that abortion has on all of society.

Their attitude reminds me of the one depicted in the movie Amazing Grace - about colonial England and the abolition of the slave trade. Most people back then wore blinders to the evils of the slave trade because (1) they were profiting from it and (2) they didn't have an understanding of what was really happening to the Africans. I know the situations are fundamentally very different, but I think many pro-choice people are (1) concerned about cost and (2) unaware that killing the unborn has a huge detrimental effect on all involved. Regarding the cost issue, it's not necessarily the cost on society but the individual cost of raising a child and whether people are "ready" to do so. Regarding the detrimental effects, many people are still unaware of [url="http://www.pregnancy-options.org/pas.shtml"]PAS[/url] as a real psychological issue. (It doesn't help that some pro-choicers act like we invented PAS to further our cause.) They also fail to realize the killing a child also kills a mother, a father, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, etc. I could go on... but this is becoming increasingly tangential.

[Socrates]

[quote name='tgoldson' post='1424522' date='Nov 25 2007, 09:59 AM']Okay - let's stay on topic - I was talking about providing services for [i]parents[/i] to promote the culture of life - the example I gave earlier was affordable health care on college campuses. I never suggested that a prolifer should work at a place that counsels on abortion or that a prochoicer should work at a place that refuses to.[/quote]
It wasn't really clear exactly what you were referring to in the post.

I'm sure this is not what you were talking about, but a lot of left-leaning people say that pro-lifers should should stop focusing on outlawing abortion, but instead work together on things they can find "common ground" with "choicers" on, like helping the poor.
Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I'm just noting that "controversial" positions should not be abandoned in the name of "common ground."

[quote]FFL says "Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy."

MercyMe also gave some [b]great[/b] examples!

Well they are. So are you. So am I. What they fail to realize is that we are all "clumps of cells" that have had life breathed into us by God. It is a failure in understanding that requires education.[/quote]
While I'm sure there is probably an amount of genuine ignorance out there, quite a few "pro-choicers" willfully blind themselves to the truth, dismissing straight out the idea that a fetus is a human person with a right to life as "ignorant" or even "idiotic," and act horrified that an educated person could possibly harbor such a backwards view.
They seem to have no interest in listening to facts that contradict their own "enlightened" "liberated" ideology.

I think that where there is an atheistic or godless mindset, it is hard to cultivate a culture of life. In such a mindset, human life has no intrinsic value.

[quote]This was covered by another response. Remember that I'm talking about perceptions here - if we understand why they feel the way they do we might stand a chance at reaching them.

This is not about personal beliefs, but rather trying to see things from someone else's point of view. Don't get this confused with charity or watering down our faith to avoid offending someone. It's all about changing hearts and changing minds.

There are a lot of people that are truly ignorant to the horrible impact that abortion has on all of society.

Their attitude reminds me of the one depicted in the movie Amazing Grace - about colonial England and the abolition of the slave trade. Most people back then wore blinders to the evils of the slave trade because (1) they were profiting from it and (2) they didn't have an understanding of what was really happening to the Africans. I know the situations are fundamentally very different, but I think many pro-choice people are (1) concerned about cost and (2) unaware that killing the unborn has a huge detrimental effect on all involved. Regarding the cost issue, it's not necessarily the cost on society but the individual cost of raising a child and whether people are "ready" to do so. Regarding the detrimental effects, many people are still unaware of [url="http://www.pregnancy-options.org/pas.shtml"]PAS[/url] as a real psychological issue. (It doesn't help that some pro-choicers act like we invented PAS to further our cause.) They also fail to realize the killing a child also kills a mother, a father, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, siblings, etc. I could go on... but this is becoming increasingly tangential.[/quote]
Those are good points. However, like I said, I think respect for the sacredness of human life must be cultivated before we can make genuine progress. Otherwise, the rightness or wrongness of abortion becomes ultimately subjective.
For instance, while it is good to point out the health and psychological risks of abortion, one can also find stories by pro-abortion women of how they were glad they had an abortion.
As long as the focus is "me-centered," it is hard to show how abortion is objectively wrong. It becomes a subjective thing.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Socrates

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote]You did say that "for real people, with real problems, it doesn't matter if someone supports abortion or not."
That implies that people who care about ending abortion somehow aren't real people with real problems.[/quote]
That's a poorly constructed argument, and you know it.

[quote]Maybe the pro-life movement "comes off" that way if your main source of knowledge about it is the liberal news media on tv, which distorts things so much it's not even funny.
If that is prolifers' "reputation," it speaks mainly about the persistence of the pro-abort propaganda machine, which wishes to smear the character of anyone who dare oppose abortion.[/quote]
That's all lovely, except the "liberal news media" isn't where I get this idea from. It's from my own observations here and elsewhere and my own experience.

[quote]Why disregard Hitler just because he supports genocide?[/quote]Can't escape the usual Hitler reference. That has nothing to do with the point I made. You only see it in black and white. Some people who are pro-choice aren't for abortion, they are for people being able to choose. Others don't care enough. The point is, people aren't automatically evil and useless because they are pro-choice.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1424376' date='Nov 24 2007, 08:25 PM']I'm not sure what President Bush really has to do with anything, but are you implying that pro-lifers must support every bill granting more federal money to health care or welfare?[/quote]
President Bush has everything to do with this. This is what I originally talking about. Bush was elected by the Christian right because he promised to help the pro-life movement. My point is that he hasnt, and it's a wasted vote to vote for a politician just because they are pro-life. You can't argue "well at least they aren't pushing for more abortions" because that logic is faulty. Why is it okay to elect a "pro-life" Republican who doesn't do anything for the cause, but it's not okay to elect another politician who is pro-choice, but doesn't believe that abortion is a major issue thus doesn't focus on it? The point is, it's not fair to say that because someone is pro-choice, they are bad. Pro-life politicians make all the promises they can think of in order to get elected, but that doesnt mean they can do anything. That's why it's stupid to make abortion the deciding factor. There isnt much anyone can do about it. [b]It has to be taken care of among the people, not by law makers[/b]. So why not consider other issues that can actually be taken care of by the government?

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1424837' date='Nov 25 2007, 10:35 PM']That's a poorly constructed argument, and you know it.[/quote]
It's not an argument - it's merely citing your own words and noting their obvious conotations. You can retract them if you wish, but take responsibility for your own careless speech, rather than putting the blame on me.

[quote]That's all lovely, except the "liberal news media" isn't where I get this idea from. It's from my own observations here and elsewhere and my own experience.[/quote]
That's not what I've observed (neither here nor elsewhere). I've listed some specific things I've seen prolifers do to help other people (besides the unborn). You've made an extremely vague accusation, with nothing specific to back it up. What have the "prochoice" people done for women that's so wonderful?

[quote]Can't escape the usual Hitler reference. That has nothing to do with the point I made. You only see it in black and white. Some people who are pro-choice aren't for abortion, they are for people being able to choose. Others don't care enough. The point is, people aren't automatically evil and useless because they are pro-choice.[/quote]
The point is quite clear. Many who supported Hitler weren't for the Holocaust; they merely thought Hitler would best help the German people. Why see it in black and white?
It was you who claimed that the lives of innocent babies are not a top priority for you, just as the lives of Jews were not a top priority for those "ordinary real-life" Germans who supported Hitler.
And "people being able to choose" does not mean they should be able to choose murder without facing legal consequence. Do you see murder being illegal as a threat to choice and human free will?
I'll let God decide whether such people are evil or not, but objectively they are wrong, and I will continue to correct their error, and counter it with truth.

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1424842' date='Nov 25 2007, 10:44 PM']President Bush has everything to do with this. This is what I originally talking about. Bush was elected by the Christian right because he promised to help the pro-life movement. My point is that he hasnt, and it's a wasted vote to vote for a politician just because they are pro-life. You can't argue "well at least they aren't pushing for more abortions" because that logic is faulty. Why is it okay to elect a "pro-life" Republican who doesn't do anything for the cause, but it's not okay to elect another politician who is pro-choice, but doesn't believe that abortion is a major issue thus doesn't focus on it? The point is, it's not fair to say that because someone is pro-choice, they are bad. Pro-life politicians make all the promises they can think of in order to get elected, but that doesnt mean they can do anything. That's why it's stupid to make abortion the deciding factor. There isnt much anyone can do about it. [b]It has to be taken care of among the people, not by law makers[/b]. So why not consider other issues that can actually be taken care of by the government?[/quote]
Okay, for the record President Bush stopped government funding of overseas abortions, put limits on funding of embryonic stem-cell research, supported the ban on partial-birth abortion, and appointed two pro-life judges to the Supreme Court.
I'm not saying Bush is perfect, but it makes no sense to criticize Bush for not being pro-life enough, then say that we should support politicians who actively support abortion, such as Kerry or Clinton.

Abortion will not be ended overnight. It can be a slow step-by-step proccess. The first step is to build a pro-life majority in the Supreme Court. This cannot be accomplished if we elect more pro-abortion candidates to the presidency.
Also, it is important to elect pro-life congressmen and senators. Pro-abort liberal Democrat congressmen work hard to block any pro-lifers from the SCOTUS, as they succesfully blocked Judge Bork in the '80s.

Secondly, Roe will need to be challenged by the states. This will only happen if we support strong pro-lifers at the state level.

If more people would really work to support the pro-life cause, we could indeed accomplish something.
If we say abortion doesn't matter and keep electing pro-abort people to office, we will not. Defeat becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Saying that there is nothing much anyone can do about abortion is a self-defeating lie.
If nothing is getting done about abortion, it is due to the apathy of people like yourself.

You haven't presented rational well-informed arguments, only a bitter emotional rant.
Turn off the emo, and get educated on how the legal/political process works.
Then get off your @$$ and do something to support the pro-life cause, rather than sitting there griping about it!

Edited November 27, 2007 by Socrates

[XIX]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1424842' date='Nov 25 2007, 10:44 PM']President Bush has everything to do with this. This is what I originally talking about. Bush was elected by the Christian right because he promised to help the pro-life movement. My point is that he hasnt, and it's a wasted vote to vote for a politician just because they are pro-life.[/quote]
He has taken the pro-life side of every single issue he has come across, as far as I know. I think there was one exception, where he hired someone who would make the Plan B pill available over the counter, I think.

Anyways, that last part was tough to see. But if you don't think that's Bush is helping the pro-life movement with everything else he has done in office, then I am tempted to conclude that you are only seeing what you want to see.

If politics didn't matter to the pro-life movement, then Planned Parenthood would not be so politically involved in trying to stop people like Bush from hurtig the abortion industry!

[Old_Joe]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1423744' date='Nov 22 2007, 05:18 PM']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.[/quote]

That's what I was getting at. one of the things that us prolifers sometimes forget about is that not only do we need to get rid of abortion, but we also need to address the issues surrounding it such as low-income families, a culture that treats sex as "the be all end all", poor healthcare options, etc.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote]The point is quite clear. Many who supported Hitler weren't for the Holocaust; they merely thought Hitler would best help the German people. Why see it in black and white?
It was you who claimed that the lives of innocent babies are not a top priority for you, just as the lives of Jews were not a top priority for those "ordinary real-life" Germans who supported Hitler.
And "people being able to choose" does not mean they should be able to choose murder without facing legal consequence. Do you see murder being illegal as a threat to choice and human free will?
I'll let God decide whether such people are evil or not, but objectively they are wrong, and I will continue to correct their error, and counter it with truth.[/quote]
You still aren't making any valid points by trying to compare supporting abortion with supporting Hitler. Quite frankly, you look silly. Just MHO.

[quote]You haven't presented rational well-informed arguments, only a bitter emotional rant.
Turn off the emo, and get educated on how the legal/political process works.
Then get off your @$$ and do something to support the pro-life cause, rather than sitting there griping about it![/quote]
It's odd, you accuse me of being emotional and presenting "emotional rants" yet it's okay for you to be emotional -about abortion. Double standard? You don't think comparing abortion to the holocaust and pro-choice politicians to Hitler is an emotional rant? The point was to provoke feelings of disgust. What you have presented thus far is much more emotional than what I have.

And getting off your "@$$" can apply to anyone here. Every minute you sit here and chat on phatmass, another baby dies. Great work.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1425919' date='Nov 27 2007, 09:01 PM']You still aren't making any valid points by trying to compare supporting abortion with supporting Hitler. Quite frankly, you look silly. Just MHO.[/quote]
You haven't answered any of my objections.
You have stated yourself that the murder of innocent babies is not a top priority for you.
You have failed to explain what you think is a higher priority than saving innocent human life.

[quote]It's odd, you accuse me of being emotional and presenting "emotional rants" yet it's okay for you to be emotional -about abortion. Double standard? You don't think comparing abortion to the holocaust and pro-choice politicians to Hitler is an emotional rant? The point was to provoke feelings of disgust. What you have presented thus far is much more emotional than what I have.[/quote]
I was drawing a legitimate comparison.
If it's indeed okay to put other things above innocent human life, what makes it wrong for Nazi-era Germans to do so?
Emotional or no, it's a question you've failed to answer.
And yes, butchering innocent human lives provokes disgust in me, as it should in you.

[quote]And getting off your "@$$" can apply to anyone here. Every minute you sit here and chat on phatmass, another baby dies. Great work.[/quote]
It is you who disapprove of prolifers on principle. Cut the carp and answer my objections, or go on "ignore." You're just wasting my time and yours.