More Than One Pro-life Issue?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1426030' date='Nov 27 2007, 09:36 PM']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.
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.
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.[/quote]
You're wasting your own time. You don't have to respond to me, just like I choose not to necessarily answer your objections.

Let me make this easy for you, so that you can just "win," since that's what's the most important thing.

I don't believe in your god anymore. I used to, but I don't now. My everyday life, my struggles, my family's struggles, hardships.. that's what matters to me. Statistics about how many unborn babies die... don't matter to me. They are numbers. It's never personally affected me, so I quite honestly don't care. I realize how bad that sounds, and I admit it. But it's how the human condition is. I've never been affected, I'm removed from it.. why should I care? I have many more pressing issues to deal with here and now, I dont really have time to worry about the unborn babies. Let God take care of them.

You win, congrats. I give in. Label me a heartless bastard.

P.S.
"Butcher" and "murder" have less emotional synonyms, but it just proves my point that you are using more emotional rants than I am. As long as you use emotionally charged words, no one is allowed to argue your logic. Surely no one wants to butcher a baby? No. But some people don't see a problem in stopping the growth of a developing fetus, because to them, it's just splitting cells, and they don't consider it actually living until it enters the world and begins to breathe. Oh well.

Edited November 28, 2007 by fidei defensor

[elizabeth_jane]

[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]

A few points:
1) President Bush has indeed helped the pro-life movement. The partial-birth abortion ban and the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito to SCOTUS have been major victories for the pro-life movement. As a corollary, his work on stem cell research has also been vital to promoting the Culture of Life. So to say that Pres. Bush hasn't helped the pro-life movement is simply not true.

2) Give me a "pro-life" Republican that doesn't "do anything" for the cause. Usually one can look at their voting record, and the way they vote does indeed "do something."

3) "Because some one is pro-choice, they are bad"--the Church has a list of "non-negotiable" issues when voting for a politician. Abortion is one of them. We cannot, as practicing Catholics, support a politician who is for the destruction of innocent human life (The Church does provide instances when the death penalty is acceptable, so you can't use that).

4) You're right--from a federalist standpoint, politicians can't do a whole lot to end abortion since SCOTUS has stepped in. But they can enact parental consent, waiting times, education requirements, etc. that can make it harder to get one, or to educate women before they get one as to what precisely they will be doing. In some states the legislatures have stepped up to try to ban abortion (i.e., SD) but it gets tangled up in legal battles. So really the only solution is to get SCOTUS that will return the issue to the states. Hence, the reason we need pro-life politicians to support these judges!

5) As a purely hypothetical point, what can the government really take care of? The founding fathers thought it was a pretty limited list. Health care, the environment, etc. are not listed as governmental powers in the Constitution.