DeoOmnisGloria.com

i think that Hilary Clinton is going to win the 2008 election i hope so

Jay,

All of this focus and energy on the abortion issue.... To me, this doesn't seem like a productive use of our time. Should you expect so much from your elected politicians? Are we becoming a society that begs to be lied to? Most pro-lifers in DC are such because they can win elections with that position, not necessarily because they are moral men/women.

Is the goal to have the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade? Or, is this like the drug war or the war in Iraq - struggles we love to lose because they make us feel moral and strong.

For many Christians, the USA is the second Old Testament Israel. They fight "against abortion" to prevent God's judgement on us, the chosen American people. This mindset is destructive. A nation-state's laws must be made to govern day-to-day existance, not act as a score card for God's judgement. We are judged on an individual level before the Lord, not according to the citizenship we happen to hold.

What specifically are do you want to see happen in the legal realm, or, are you just fighting the good fight?

Michael O.

Michael,
I want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned and I believe only a pro-life President putting pro-life (read: strict constructionalists) on the Supreme Court can achieve this.

Short of overturning Roe vs. Wade I want more restictions placed on abortion - I think our current President has done a decent job on life issues and I firmly believe that eventually Truth prevails and the tide will turn.

Note also that the other life issues are very important - all speak to the character of the politician. A man who protects the defenseless, especially the defenseless that can't vote, can be trusted more than one that can't. The virtues are learned together.

God bless,
Jay

This not only a disaster for fetal life, it may well be a disaster for life on earth. Mr. Gulianni is a disaster waiting to happen. I have believed for the last six years that the president in 2009 will be Gulianni. If a person appreciates that we live in a metaphysical world the events of 9/11 are leading us towards armagedden. I do not say this lightly. The final piece of the puzzle is Gulianni's assumption of the presidentcy. He has no moral compass and his psychological profile is that of bully and tyrant.

I would like to inform you that all three presidential republican candidates will give the U.S. a fifth conservative justice. Gulianni has no moral compass and neither does Romney, both are lying hippocrites who will sell their souls to be president. Live babies or dead babies, it is trivial to their persuite of power, either will due if it gets them what they want. Mr. McCain is was an honorable man who is quite disgusted with himself for selling out to Mr. Bush, who he despises, to get the nomination (he forgot the admonition, what good does it do a man to gain a kingdom but lose his soul!). He will not get it and regret his sell out. The vast born again minions have cut a deal with the devil and will accept Rudi. Does it not bother the persons who vote one issue only, that by putting Bush in power, a man responsible for untold deaths and misery; who is uncaring towards the poor and sick; who is destabilizing the world and leading it towards untold devestation, is their guy? The new testament warns us about false messias and we are not paying attention. Where is the true Christian belivers who want to lead?

Abortion rights are not the only thing that one should look at when voting for president. So saying that the presidential election is heading toward disaster based on that is pushing it a little bit. Plus, everyone is titled to their own opinion, some people empathize better/a little differently than others. I'm really nor, for or against abortions, but I do beleive that restrictions should be put on the procedure. And because I understand what you, Jay, are saying in so many words; considering that most people that run out and get an abortion are the people that made the child out of sin. So instead of getting of sinning by killing your unborn child, make your judgement day a little easier by repenting and raising your child by the Bible and in Church, because if you teach a child the way to go even if he strays he'll always get back, and you can help prevent some of the mistakes that you made in your life.

It looks as though there is still a candidate that is truly pro-life--Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). Although at this point he doesn't have the funding or popularity of some of the other candidates he looks to be factor come primary time. Some quotes from a recent AP article say:

"He has the kind of unquestioned credentials as a family values crusader that conservatives have long sought in a presidential candidate."

"For years, Brownback has had a loyal national following among cultural and religious conservatives. They gravitate toward his fierce opposition to abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem-cell research, and his embrace of the Bible's teachings."

"An evangelical Protestant who converted to Catholicism, Brownback is so conservative on social issues that he held up the nomination of a Michigan judge to the federal bench over her attendance at a lesbian commitment ceremony in Massachusetts in 2002."

"Some conservatives don't like his support of a temporary guest-worker program for a chunk of the some 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States even though he contends his view is consistent with the teachings of his faith."

"...he talks of the need for a "moral reformation" in the country: outlaw abortion, marriage defined as a union of man and a woman, and faith permitted in the public square."

"Brownback's main advantage, analysts say, is his consistency on conservative issues. Said Peverill Squire, a University of Iowa political science professor: "He doesn't have some of the questions about his credentials that others do."

So here we have a candidate who has an impeccable record which is borne out by his faith. In addition, his voting record and stance is right in line with the [Catholic]Church's teachings. Brownback is the type of candidate who amazingly lives out his faith through his political life and should be commended even if he doesn't win the primary. It takes courage to truly live out your faith and in the political arena it is even more difficult. Mr. Brownback needs our prayers and our support in the form of votes (should it get to that point).
In Truth,
Matthew

"Abortion rights are not the only thing that one should look at when voting for president."

Sorry Quintelle, I have to disagree with this. Abortion kills hundreds of thousands each year compared to a thousand in Iraq, ect. There is no issue that is even close to the importance of a candidates position on abortion.

Wrong Tom! The environment is as important an issue as abortion. Your “Pro-Life” candidates would prefer a status quo that will continue to destroy God’s earth and heavens, as if humans – born or un-born – could live without it.

The Deuteronomistic writers were all too aware of the intricacies of the connection between humans and the planet, even imagining the earth and the heavens as bearing witness against us for breaking covenant with our God…and, ironically, in a text so often appropriated by “Pro-Life” candidates:

If you obey the commandments of the LORD, your God, which I enjoin on you today, loving him, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and decrees, you will live and grow numerous, and the LORD, your God, will bless you in the land you are entering to occupy. If, however, you turn away your hearts and will not listen, but are led astray and adore and serve other gods, I tell you now that you will certainly perish; you will not have a long life on the land which you are crossing the Jordan to enter and occupy. I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live, by loving the LORD, your God, heeding his voice, and holding fast to him. For that will mean life for you, a long life for you to live on the land which the LORD swore he would give to your fathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Deuteronomy 30:16-20).

A Blessed Easter to everyone!

The difference Jack is that a the differences in two candidates views on the environment are not going to drastically change the environment in the way that two candidates differences on the abortion issue would.

Secondly, as much as I realize the need to take care of the Earth taking care of fellow man is a little important. After loving God, Jesus tells us the next most important commandment is to love you neighbor, and we should care about the millions of our fellow human beings that are being killed.

Tom,
I'd have to agree with you. Jack is missing the point. Yes, we have an obligation to take care of the environment and the political candidates can have an effect in the long term. However, by banning abortions in the U.S. alone will immediately save thousands of lives EVERY YEAR!
In Christ,
Matthew

Matthew, thousands of lives a YEAR?!?

You are off by two orders of magnitude my friend. Try thousands of lives a DAY.

According to Burnt's statistics there are two alarming trends that jumped out at me. First, the fact that 31% of the abortions each year are by women who say they are Catholic. Second, what is even more disturbing is that if you take into account the women who label themselves as Protestant and/or "born again/Evangelical" you have over half (55.4%) of all abortions in the U.S. by non-Catholic Christian women. In all, we have over 80% of the abortions by women who claim to be Christian! The Catholic young women in my estimation have less of an excuse. At least the Church specifically teaches that contraception and abortion are inherently wrong. The alarming numbers among non-Catholic Christian women illustrates that more must be done by the leaders in the mainline and independent denominations to educate these young women on the evil of such practices. In my parish the priests do a wonderful job of preaching/teaching about the sanctity of life. Thank God for that. However, it is obvious that this topic must be brought up and discussed by Christians of all stripes...and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
In Christ,
Matthew

Who's having abortions (religion)?
"Women identifying themselves as Protestants obtain 37.4% of all abortions in the U.S.; Catholic women account for 31.3%, Jewish women account for 1.3%, and women with no religious affiliation obtain 23.7% of all abortions. 18% of all abortions are performed on women who identify themselves as "Born-again/Evangelical".

Matthew,

Don't be too hard on the Catholic young women - they may not be fully culpable given the possibility that:

1. her Catholic parents often pressure her to abort - even threatening to kick the girl out of home for her "selfish" desire to keep the baby.
2. her boyfriend threatens desertion and violence if she keeps the baby
3. her boyfriends parents abducted the girl, brought her to an abortuary and had the abortion done on her while she cried and screamed (I'm not making this up, it was in the news about a year ago)
4. abortion gets mentioned about once a year in from the pulpit
5. contraception never gets mentioned from the pulpit
6. hell never gets mentioned from the pulpit
7. purgatory never gets mentioned from the pulpit
8. the holy grandparents from the oh-so-perfect pre-vatican II era say that it is better to kill an unborn child than to bring it into the world when you are unable to take care of it
9. reducing greenhouse gas emissions are "just as important" as the abortion issue (oh look, by killing the baby I have saved the world from the carbon the baby would release through excessive consumption of goods - I guess I'm just about even then because they are just as important)
10. The clergy still give communion to outspoken pro-abort Catholic politicians.

How can we expect our young ones to display moral courage when our generation and the one before has yet to repent of their own immoral conduct? (my own silence offline speaks volumes against me)

Matthew and Tom,

You both miss the point. You appeal to categories of "long term" and "short term." You thus fail to realize that the "long term" - when it comes to the environment - is effected by what we do, or do not do, right now! In fact, it may already be too late. But it is better that we do not know if it is too late, or if we've a long road ahead because in either case, we would do nothing.

You will go on fighting to make abortion illegal, and then have to keep abortion illegal, and will keep electing big money and industry into political positions to maintain the status quo and in order to keep abortion illegal. It is an interesting cycle if not deathly.

In the mean time...

Jack,
How about the difference between "theoretical" and "actual"? There are actually millions of babies being killed every year - and your party tends to not only support this, but push for less restrictions and more "freedom" in this area.

The environment is a theoretical problem. Not all scientists even agree that global warming is caused by man. I saw a statistic the other day that recent tests on Mars show that global temperatures have risen more there than they have on earth. And Al Gore's documentary is a joke: he talks about 20 feet of increased ocean in the next 100 years, but scientific reports suggest 18 inches is a maximum number.

Abortion isn't a theoretical problem with possible death. It's a real problem with real deaths that happen every day. Don't justify supporting the Democrats because the environment might be a problem. This is not a valid reason to support those who attack your faith on every level.

God bless,
Jay

Jay,

Your naiveté is either deliberate, or honestly misinformed. Apart from the fact that the number of scientists now recognizing the reality (not theoretical, but real) of global warming, affected by human beings, has now grown to outnumber those who do not, your ignoring the adverse affects of the developed world’s economic hegemony over the undeveloped world – marked as it is by the exploitation of resources, among many other things – is what is so troubling to me and other Catholics who recognize that the Pro-Life platform cannot stand because, simply put, it is not a sustainable position. When it takes the form of single-issue politics “at all cost”, and especially when it targets only the US, it is particularly troubling.

Human beings are inextricably connected to the planet – it is our biosphere – where the life that God promises humans and the rest of God’s creatures, is to be lived out. The connection between the persistence of abject poverty and the degradation of the earth and its resources, with the developed world’s economic and expansionist policies (but only expansionist where we have an economic interest) is not new news. Political and Church leaders have recognized it for years, as have many theologians. The politicians that “your party” (a play on your words) elects are those backed by the special interests behind such degrading economic and expansionist policies. The majority of abortions happen in developing countries, and not because they like American freedom and/or abortion on demand. It is their experience of deprivation and abject poverty (starvation, war, conflict, etc.) that leads to lack of hope for a better life that in turn leads to their disrespect for any life – their own, their unborn child’s, the earth’s – any life. This is what generates the majority of abortions throughout the world. And it is this reality of world-wide distributive injustice that is the very foundation of our wealthy American lifestyles. Systemic sinful structures. It is this structure, this system that Pro-Life should turn its attention toward.

Unless Pro-life takes on a truly holistic perspective, and so holistic approach to spreading the culture of life, then it dooms itself, and the planet to an unsustainable and vicious cycle that will eventually leave the unborn child no place, no space to live a life in hope.

Of course, conservative – big-business politicians are not stupid. They recognize the myopia of Pro-Life as it is articulated by yourself and others here at Deo Omnis, and exploit it to their own advantage every election season. Big business loves Pro-Life!

Imagine if someone had suggested the following in the early 1940's....

A modest proposal for dealing with the problem of Jewish peoples being slaughtered in gas chambers at the hands of the Nazi regime.

The Allied forces fighting against the Nazi threat have failed to account for the carbon emissions coming from artillery shells. These greenhouse gases, if unchecked, threaten our ecosphere and thus not only the lives of the Jewish people but everyone on this earth.

This has begun a deadly cycle by which big business has embraced the myopic Allied leaders who seek to end the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

The ecosphere is just as important as the Jewish peoples being escorted to the gas chambers - and so a more holistic approach is necessary. Something the Allied leaders fail to comprehend.

To break this deadly cycle, we must elect Nazi sympathizers into all levels of government and all countries so as to restore balance. The holistic answer to the problem of millions of Jews being sent to the gas chambers without regard for carbon emissions is to elect people who wish to spend send more millions people of more races and creeds to the gas chambers.

With such a holistic solution in place, we will save lives because the carbon emissions of gas chambers are miniscule compared to the carbon emissions of the Allied forces which we also propose to send to the gas chambers. The need for more Nazis is pressing - even though I remain personally opposed to the killing of innocents.

The German Army has taken over Europe and stands poised to eliminate British soldiers at Dunkirk! Do the holistic thing, and let the Nazis get them. Better yet, join the Nazis and help exterminate them. This attitude of rescue the soldiers at Dunkirk at all costs underlies a deadly cycle by which carbon emissions get ignored.

Let no man speak of non-negotiable issues. The simplistic errors of one issue politics and hot-button issues must not rule the day. On this point I refuse to negotiate.

Burnt,

I only had to read the first line of your post to know it was time by reading the rest of it (which I eventually did anyway).

It is absolutely wrong to compare abortion with the Nazi holocaust. There is undeniable evidence that Hitler & Co., knew that their "final solution" was wrong, and so that they were not just innocently deluded into thinking that it was really OK to kill Jews. I can recall many conversations with my Hebrew professor from grad school - a German Jew who had to flee Germany when Hitler came to power. The stories he told me bear witness to the witting brutality of the holocaust. These conversations corroborate the fact that the Nazi's knew what they were doing was wrong, but they did it anyway. But more than that, in writing? I suggest you read Lucy Dawidowicz's book The War Against the Jews.

Now, I will begin to reconsider this when "Pro-Choice" politicians (or "my" evil party) pass legislation forcing pregnant women to wear bright yellow patches indicating they are pregnant, and then gather them up into ghetto communities, only to ultimately ship them to abortion clinics to receive abortions at gun point - or just start murdering pregnant mothers outright with the goal of killing every unborn child in America, and then the world next!

The Nazi holocaust was a singular evil, consciously, knowingly, and wittingly perpetrated against the Jews and many others; Hatred fulfilled by genocide and made into public policy!

Get a grip Burnt! Abortion is NOT THAT!

Peace!

A singular evil, consciously, knowingly, and wittingly perpetrated against many. Hatred fulfilled by genocide and made into public policy.

Sounds like abortion to me.

Burnt

Please be reasonable.

Abortion and holocaust are not the same. If a person gets an abortion because they do not want the child to live a life doomed to pain and suffering, I cannot see how that is "hatred". The people having abortions do not have them with the intent or the mindset of performing masacres, as was done by the Nazis. For most, the primary focus and reasoning is not spite toward the child.

I will never advise a person to get an abortion, but Pro-choice was given by God. We were born with Pro-choice, it is a gift that we can use for good or for evil. Either way, no human has the right to take away this institution of love. It is our decision, and it has been God's intent for it to remain our decision, otherwise he would have intervened before Adam first sinned.

NewKid

I will never advise a person to exterminate the Jews. But the holocaust was given by God. We were born with genocide, it is a gift we can use for good or for evil. Either way, no human has the right to take away the lovely institution of the gas chamber. It is our decision, and it has been God's intent for it to remain our decision, otherwise he would have intervened before Adam first sinned.

Do I sense hostility?

You substituting words to make mine seem negative does not prove anything, but it was a nice try.

The fact that God gave us free will shows how much he loves us, but we must emulate that love in the choices we make regarding abortion, or any other matter. I can tell a person not to get one, but it isn't my choice, it's theirs.

I'm awaiting another message from you Burnt. I want to see how you twist my words this time. :)

you mean like this?

The fact that God gave us free will shows how much he loves us, but we must emulate that love in the choices we make regarding lynching and and enslaving blacks and sending Jews to the gas chamber. I can tell a person not to do that, but it isn't my choice it's theirs.

Please explain how I have "twisted your words". You yourself have said that your approach of "choice" applies to "any other matter".

By what criteria can you justify leaving abortion as a "matter of personal choice" and yet not also justify slavery, genocide, and lynch mobs as a "matter of personal choice"?

I keep hearing people tell me that what the Nazis did to the Jews was worse than what we do to the unborn (citing feely-bad reasons like the Germans sent Jews to the gas chambers out of spite). But when they give me reasons why abortion is not all that bad, their reasons justify historical crimes against humanity just as much as they justify this one.

You want to be pro-choice, go ahead. But stop pretending that your moral principles are any better or significantly different from the Nazis.

The Nazi holocaust and the abortion holocaust is wrong for exactly the same reason: people intentionally and legally murder innocent human beings. Show me any point in history in which people were intentionally and legally murdered and it will be recognized as a crime as humanity. The only difference is those crimes and this one is that we are the perpetrators of this genocide.

Burnt,

I for one have not suggested that "what the Nazis did to the Jews was worse than what we do to the unborn." Murder is murder, you're right! The difference that I - and many other Pro-life people like myself - are trying to point out is the difference in the willful character of the evil involved.

In other words, I have never met someone who was planning to have an abortion who thought, let alone said that they knew or thought they were about to murder their child - and they were therefore, quite happy to commit such murder before the eyes of God and country. Have you? This is not to say that there may actually be someone out there who believes abortion to be murder, and does it anyway. Maybe so!

On the other hand, the "war against the Jews" via the holocaust was a wilfull and knowledgeable act of murder on the part of the Nazi regime. They knew it was wrong - and they did it anyway. They were moral agents acting immorally.

Most, if not all people who get abortions are not intentionally committing murder. They do not think - they do not know! - that they are killing a child of God. They do not think that even a baby 3 weeks from birth, is a human being - a child of God. This is not to say that what they are doing by having an abortion is OK. It is only to draw the difference between the character of the willfuly evil intent, or not, behind the evil action.

It is our job as Catholics to educate people so they will know that abortion is murder - so they will know that the unborn fetus is a child of God. This is the tough work ahead of us if we are going to stop abortion. if we don't educate people about this, we will instead be forever locked down into back-and-forth politics, trying to make abortion illegal (which I hope does happen) but without getting to the root of the problem. (Actually, this is the biggest problem I have with how Deo Omnis and other Pro-Life folk go about it - we're more interested in the symptoms of the disease than we are in curing it).

I am Pro-Life through-and-through. But I have a hard time with my Pro-life sisters and brothers who too easily borrow the nomenclature of "holocaust." I know too many victims of the holocaust, too much about what was at the foundation of the holocaust to be tolerant of that.

There are better ways to educate people about the evil of abortion.

NewKid,

Germans turned their heads from the realities of the way in which many Jews were exterminated, just as many Jews turn their heads away from the way some Palestinians are being dehumanized, humiliated and killed; just as many Communists turned away from the realities of the millions of Russians killed during WWII; just as many Hutus turned their heads away from the slaughter of Tutsis; just as a man and a woman turn their heads away from the reality of an abortion – the ending of life inside the woman’s body - an ugly, inhuman act that isn't watchable. With the 3D ultrasound technology that is available for pregnant mothers today, I think millions of people are realizing that a fetus is more than just a pre-human thing – it’s a human being that already has a personality.

The same switched is turned-off in your soul when you support an abortion than the one that is turned-off in your soul when you kill someone – you’re never the same again. Only through the grace of God are you saved.

Michael O

Something to go along with your abortion counter on your front page which says (on May 10) that 1.3 million children die by abortion per year (converted to per year since the March 2003 start of Iraq war).

5.3 million pre-school aged children die per year of malnutrition (World Health Organization).

Jack,

Would you vote for (or hope for the election of) a Nazi? If not, why would you vote for (or hope for the election of) a pro-abortion politician?

If you think abortion is murder, do you think abortion should be illegal?

Jack

Interesting comment. "I have never met someone who was planning to have an abortion who thought, let alone said that they knew or thought they were about to murder their child." I had a college roommate who happened to be Jewish... I used much of what has been posted on this thread to convince her of the terrible moral stance of abortion. She noted on many an occasion "Even if a fetus is an individual life, the mother has the right to terminate its existence, period no question." I think you need to ask these people you quote. If I am right and the fetus is a living child, does the mother have the right to terminate it? I think you will find a surprising answer as I did.

In Love

wwwo

Burnt,

Why would you vote for a candidate who says s/he is "pro-life" when they support the death penalty, and if you knew that her/his proposed international economic policies would directly contribute to the death of millions of pre-school aged children? (This is to leave the biosphere as such, out of the discussion for a moment).

I do think that abortion should be illegal precisely because I know in my heart and mind that it is murder. I also know that much of what my country does in its own interest in the global market economy is at least, involuntary "man-slaughter" (leaving her military exploits out of this for the moment, though the two are closely related).

Mother Theresa's great quote about abortion is ironically appropriate for what I am talking about here:

It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.

This applies very directly to abortion and the global market economy as it now functions with the US consuming the majority of the resources, and producing the most waste in return.

Jack, do you recall that I said that I have no issue with Catholics who refuse to vote Republican (I live in Canada so I cannot vote in US elections)?

I whole-heartedly agree with the Vatican and Pope John Paul II when they declare the American practice of Capital Punishment and the American war in Iraq as immoral. The sins of the Republicans do not allow us to ignore the sins of the Democrats and the sins of the Democrats do not allow us to ignore the sins of the Republicans.

I do not hope for more republicans whose committment to pro-life runs no deeper than lip-service to the anti-abortion movement. I hope for leaders genuinely dedicated to pro-life in its entirety. This means more "hot-button" or "non-negotiable" issues not fewer. By the same token I do not hope for more pro-choice democrats who vigorously promote the pro-choice agenda.

Why do you hope for more democrats when they promote a pro-choice agenda? Capital punishment and abortion are both unjustifiable evils - I reject both. Why do you support and hope for the election of leaders who support abortion?

By the way, when it comes to intentionally killing children in abortion, I encourage you to read some posts by the pro-choice community on this forum (Jibiel's post in particular).

Did you notice that she considers the human life of the child irrelevant to the abortion debate. For her, the only question is the ability of the mother to care for the child. Even the desires of the mother are irrelevant.

My wife has told her friends about the abortifacient aspects of depo-prevera. Her friends consistently reply: "I don't care". The ignorance here can hardly be called invincible.

wwwo,

I appreciate your response. While it is true that I've yet to meet someone who was intending to get an abortion thinking that they were killing a "real human life," I am not naive enough to think that there is not someone - many perhaps - who think just that, and do it anyway.

What you describe as a response is exactly what needs to be done. People considering abortion need to be convinced not only that the fetus is a living thing, but that it is a child of God - like they are! Fearfully and wonderfully made. This is what needs to be done - education! And proclamation of the truth about life. The only lasting and real results will be reached by this very means.

I also believe that there are other ways to make abortion illegal other than electing candidates who are simply manipulating Pro-Life voters to get into office so they can advance the interests of their benefactors, or even their own financial & ideological interests. The best way is to work toward disclosing to people what abortion really is!

Burnt,

Obviously, you and I are “talking at” each other but not listening…which often happens in contentious discourse.

Let me articulate some things as clearly as I can. I do not “hope for democrats when they promote a pro-choice agenda” – as you put it. Likewise, I do not “support and hope for the election of leaders who support abortion” as you put it too. On the other hand, I do hope for the election of democrats or republicans whose policies/agendas promote a consistent ethic of Life – a holistically, life-affirming agenda. This is an ideal, I know. But it is at least a template with which to gauge as best I can, a candidate’s suitability for office. Gauging such suitability is – or should be! – hard work given the complexities of modernity, world politics, economics and the rest of it. Unfortunately, many of my Pro-Life sisters and brothers eschew such hard work, see the world as black-and-white, and really have no idea what they are voting for except for a candidate who says s/he is anti-abortion, because that issue “is the only issue that really matters after all.”

It seems to me that the politically conservative base, by-and-large, prefers to know as little as possible because – and this is understandably a natural reaction – if you don’t like something, you avoid it. And the deeper one goes into the intricacies of local and especially global politics (economics etc), the more one knows – and subsequently, what we know we do not like. The reaction is to focus on one thing, one issue, as if the fixing of that one issue will fix it all. Conservative politics is, to my mind, driven by a fear that is nurtured by a myth of scarcity that is perpetuated principally by the Republican party. It gets them into office.

So, I do not hope for the election of leaders who I know vigorously claim to be Pro-Life, but whose other policies blatantly evince a culture of death in the form of poverty, malnutrition, economic colonialism, nation building, environmental exploitation, and isolationism. To me, such candidates are using "Pro-life" to cover over the deathly results of their real economic and political interests. Such candidates are just plain lying!

Finally burnt, regarding Jibiel’s posts – as I said to wwwo, I am not naïve enough to think that every single person who has sought to have an abortion did not know what they were actually doing – i.e. committing murder. I've simply yet to meet one. On the other hand, you should not be naïve enough to think that every person seeking an abortion is like Jibiel either.

Pax!

Jack

Thanks for clarifying your position. I'm glad to see you are not that "naive."

But then you say "I also believe that there are other ways to make abortion illegal other than electing candidates who are simply manipulating Pro-Life voters to get into office so they can advance the interests of their benefactors"

Which party doesn't represent their benefactors so I can vote for them...but if I did vote for them they would immediately not represent me. This seems to be a nonsensical statement.

In Love

wwwo

Wwwo,

You responded: “Which party doesn't represent their benefactors so I can vote for them...but if I did vote for them they would immediately not represent me. This seems to be a nonsensical statement.”

Yep! My comment was nonsensical, but (I believe), unfortunately quite true.

I’ve seen no reason to think that if abortion was not the “hot button issue,” then most republican candidates would not make a great deal of it – either before the election, nor during their tenure in office. It is perceived as a purely “moral” issue – and it of course is. But because it is perceived that way, it is more often than not, only appealed to because it will garner votes. I believe that most Republican candidates love Pro-Life, not because they firmly believe what Pro-Life is up to is as important as, say, ensuring that a particular industry garners most of the government contracts (or something of the kind). They love Pro-Life because they know it is a big swing vote.

All I’m trying to point out is that I believe Catholic Christians should vote their conscience based on the very hard work of carefully considering which candidate’s tenure might (“might” is the best we can go by) attempt to truly evince a holistic – consistent ethic of Life, and not vote by means of a “black-n-white” anti-abortion litmus test. A great way to do this is to simply follow the advice of our USCCB who have, to my mind, consistently shown great wisdom by not telling the faithful to vote via a litmus of some kind.

Blessings!

Jack,

I have repeatedly said that I have no quarrel with your criticisms of conservative political candidates. I have repeatedly said that I have rejected the positions of American Catholic "defenders of the faith" on capital punishment and the war in Iraq - instead I accept the positions advanced by senior officials in the Vatican including the late Pope John Paul II.

But you yourself have said in an earlier post that you hope for the election of more democrats. Democrats by and large aggressively promote abortion (Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Gore). When I ask you how voting for such candidates can be considered supporting a holistic attitude towards life, you simply sling mud at the Republicans (though I admit the grossly evil nature of their policies).

A holistic attitude towards life means you respect it in the womb AND on death row.

Have I ever said abortion is the only issue that matters? No, I have said it is non-negotiable. If you want to add to the list of non-negotiable issues (capital punishment, just war criteria) be my guest. What I object to is your removal of abortion, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage from the list of non-negotiable issues.

You ask why I reject the position of the USCCB and Cardinal Bernardin in favor of that advanced by EWTN and Catholic Answers (for the record, their approach to capital punishment and warfare in Iraq leaves much to be desired). I have now found Cardinal Ratzinger's letter which states that abortion and euthanasia are of greater moral weight than capital punishment and just warfare.

Incidentally, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick refused to follow the instructions and concealed the letter from the other bishops.

Show me two pro-life candidates, and then I will gladly consider their positions on other issues. Right now we have none. The myth of scarcity is perpetuated by "the left" as well - to aggressively promote contraceptive programs. The United Kingdom thinktank on the environment has declared large families to be a burden on the environment. Last time I checked I didn't fly around in a private Lear Jet like Al Gore.

Jack,

When Pope Benedict XVI says that pro-abortion Catholic politicians must not present themselves for communion but pro-capital punishment politicians may do so, is he applying a "black-n-white" anti-abortion litmus test?

Should Benedict XVI follow the lead of the USCCB and consistently show great wisdom by not telling the faithful of Cardinal Ratzinger's clear directives that ministers of Holy Communion must refuse to distribute communion to pro-abortion politicians?

Do you realize that it was Cardinal Ratzinger who was proclaimed Pope, not Cardinal Bernardin?

Burnt,

Based on what Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae in a situation where it is not possible to overturn or repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality,” I have and will continue as a civilian and lay person vigorously seek to do the same.

That said, I would point out to you that the construct of “non-negotiability/negotiability” is not being set up as a litmus for voting by our Pope - though you may choose to see it that way, and use it thusly. Nevertheless, I appreciate your pointing out our Pontiff’s position here, which I am in agreement with, though with the caveat.

It seems to me that it is impossible for you even to vote for a candidate who does not promote a consistent ethic of Life. After you have determined that a candidate says (I emphasize “says”) that s/he is going to vigorously seek to overturn Roe-v-Wade, are you going to take the extra step to determine if her/his policies – if actually implemented of course – are going to result in the death of millions of innocent children around the globe?

“…it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good” (DOCTRINAL NOTE on some questions regarding The Participation of Catholics in Political Life).

Show me your Republican candidate whose “political program” does not in some serious way – i.e. resulting in the death of a child, fetus and/or not – contradict the fundamental contents of faith and morals.

I’m not all that stubborn of a fellow Burnt. I think you may have convinced me that I cannot in good Catholic-Christian conscience vote for any candidate of any party unless s/he proposes serious and considerable cultural, moral, economic, and political change on a local and global scale. I truly believe that it is a shame that a child somewhere must, no, will die so that I can live the way I want – i.e. drive to Wal-Mart in my big SUV and buy a six-pack of beer and a really nice (and cheap!) Panama Jack hat whenever I darn well please. I’m thinking now that the only truly faithful response is to find ways to “licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by (whoever is elected) and at lessening (our next administration's) negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality” rather than support a candidate who is Pro-Life when it comes to abortion, but actually (actually, in praxis) Pro-death when it comes to evincing global economic policies that directly result in the death of human beings. I leave the biosphere out of the discussion for your sake.

Jack, when have I ever said that I would support a Republican - much less call a Republican "my candidate"?

The republican position on capital punishment and the war on Iraq is enough for me to withdraw support. Though as you say, licit co-operation on specific issues remains a possibility.

Can you in good Catholic-Christian conscience vote for a pro-abortion candidate? If you say yes, then I accuse you of holding an inconsistent life ethic. If you say no, I have no issue with your voting strategy - but I would ask you to retract your statement in an earlier post which said that you hoped for the election of more democrats as it would "restore the balance" (the way Anakin Skywalker restored balance by becoming a Sith Lord?).

As for the biosphere and social justice issues, I would echo Daniel's sentiments that these noble causes have been so badly corrupted and co-opted by treacherous and diabolical twisting (take Amnesty Internation for example whose recent policy changes have caused bishops to speak out against what was once a fine organization) that if we are serious about promoting the Church's position on life in the wider and holistic sense, we need to start from scratch.

Benedict XVI's, encyclical Deus Caritas Est would be a great place to start. It begins with the call to personal holiness and morality, calls us to destinguish between eros and lust, shows us how eros finds completion in marriage and agape, how this sweet yet powerful fusion provides underlies all social justice and charitable work, and finally how Marxist and similar ideologies fail to accomplish their stated goals of establishing a just society because they neglect the critical dimension of charity.

Burnt,

Can you in good conscience vote for an anti-abortion candidate who says that s/he is against everything on the usual litmus that anti-abortion folks typically throw out as the ruler for voting (abortion, stem-cell, gays, etc.) and who “says” they are against capital punishment? If “yes” to that…what if you learned that the candidate’s national and global economic policies – if, of course, successfully implemented – will result in the death of millions of children in third world and developing nations? And what if that candidate suggested a particularly direct nation-building program against every Muslim nation (except those in sub-Saharan Africa that we don’t care about anyway – not enough oil or some other commoditity that we want)? And what if you found out that candidate says that s/he was going to push for having all environmental regulation repealed to ensure that the “wheels of industry keep rolling in America, and across the globe”? – but remember, s/he says s/he is Pro-Life and against capital punishment?

Could you vote for that candidate?

If you say that you would vote for such a candidate, I suggest that you evince an inconsistent ethic of life – and one that promotes a deathly and dangerously subtle status quo.

But then what I suggest about you, or what you “accuse” me of holding means nothing…this is only a blog (for cryin’ out loud). And stringing together an elaborate “what if” scenario means nothing too…and is of course, a waste of time (I recognize the irony here).

I made clear (to me at least) where I stand on this issue with my last note. In the mean time, I will continue to vigorously promote however I can, a holistic culture of life locally, and that radiates beyond our borders, and embraces all of Life, which is God’s and not ours.

Finis!

Now, have you/are you reading the Pope’s book on Jesus? It is fantastic!!!

Jack,

The only thing you made clear in the post before last was that the biosphere was non-negotiable and that abortion was a negotiable.

When it comes to abortion, you speak of licit co-operation. When it comes to the biosphere you have said support is completely out of the question.

You tell others they must abandon their simplistic "hot-button" issues and "one-issue voting" and naive "litmus tests". And yet you do the same on your pet issues. You have every right to ask the pro-life community to widen its scope to something more holistic - but I suggest you do the same and reduce your support of the Democrats.

I have said repeatedly that I consider Republicans unsuitable candidates because they mostly support capital punishment and the unjust war in Iraq. The Democrats are unsuitable because they mostly promote abortion.

All I want to hear is one simple clarification: "I will not vote for a pro-abortion candidate". (This is in apparent contrast your earlier post about hoping for the election of more democrats which will restore the balance).

I keep asking you the same question about support for pro-abortion politicians and you keep responding by asking about my support for anti-biosphere politicians. I keep responding that I do not support Republican-style politics and yet you refused to categorically deny support for pro-abortion politicians. You also say that abortion has the same moral weight as social and green issues (citing Cardinal Bernardin) even though Cardinal Ratzinger has said otherwise.

May I remind you that you are the one pushing the holistic approach, and so I think it only fair to ask you to display a consistent life ethic and withdraw any support for pro-abortion politicians.

B Record...

I don’t think I ever wrote that environment is non-negotiable. Have I implied it? To your reading of my posts? Maybe. But I will say this – Two things really sicken me about elections and abortion: First, abortion sickens me, and politicians sicken me – period! Two, the fact that Pro-Lifers in America (Catholic and not) have put into office and tolerated administrations that are Pro-Life when it comes to abortion, and yet who establish policy that results in the death of millions of people in the third world and developing nations – many, if not most of which are directly and indirectly related to the degradation of the environment in some form or fashion. We Americans, relative to the rest of the world, are still somewhat insulated from the dying of our planet – for example, we've never experienced 20,000 people (infants, children, adults) dying in less than a half hour from mud sliding off of hillsides where there once stood forests before they were clear-cut it to raise beef to sell cheap to American fast-food companies. We just eat the Big Mac, and go on our way.

Nevertheless, to respond to your note.

The last paragraph of my note on May 18 reads thusly: "I’m not all that stubborn of a fellow Burnt. I think you may have convinced me that I cannot in good Catholic-Christian conscience vote for any candidate of any party unless s/he proposes serious and considerable cultural, moral, economic, and political change on a local and global scale. I truly believe that it is a shame that a child somewhere must, no, will die so that I can live the way I want – i.e. drive to Wal-Mart in my big SUV and buy a six-pack of beer and a really nice (and cheap!) Panama Jack hat whenever I darn well please. I’m thinking now that the only truly faithful response is to find ways to “licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by (whoever is elected) and at lessening (our next administration's) negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality” rather than support a candidate who is Pro-Life when it comes to abortion, but actually (actually, in praxis) Pro-death when it comes to evincing global economic policies that directly result in the death of human beings."

Let me adjust the final line for you: "I’m thinking now that the only truly faithful response is to find ways to “licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by (whoever is elected) and at lessening (our next administration's) negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality” rather than support either a candidate who is Pro-Life when it comes to abortion, but actually (actually, in praxis) Pro-death when it comes to evincing global economic policies that directly result in the death of human beings, or a candidate who is Pro-Choice and intends to vigorously uphold abortion."

Are we clear?

Ok! "Now, lets all jump into our big SUVs, grab a Big Mac & fries at Mickey-Ds, and head on over to the Pro-Life rally at the abortion clinic four blocks away - we can eat it there."

I'm not just being sarcastic with that last remark. I think that it sadly reflects the duplicities of the inconsistent "culture of life" as it is evinced by many Pro-Lifers.

Everyone,
With all the seriousness of this issue how about a fresh perspective on things? I think this caption/cartoon says it all when it comes to the pro-life debate:

http://intoonwiththeworld.blogspot.com/2005/11/pro-choice-fetus.html#links

isnt their bad people and good people in both parties? how come all democrats are bad and republicans are bad to some people but ive met good people who are either one

i donno it jus seems like everyone who is one things hates everyone else jus cuz their a democrat or a republican...even tho the person and the party might think different things

sorry i donno wat i mean lol i tried

donny

To Everyone that cares about life:
The abortion issue is very close to my heart in more ways than one.
Animals seem to have more rights than our innocent unborn babies.
Read Psalm 139.13 in your Bible:" For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my Mother's womb"
God new us all before we were ever formed in our Mothers womb.
Pray and Fast to end Abortion
God be with you all
Rosalie Morrison

How can you be against abortion, yet in favor of war?

If you call 2008 a "disaster for life", just look at Bush before you judge these candidates. So killing innocent people in war (a wrongful war at that) is now more moral than abortion?

In my opinion, abortion is wrong, and I would never tell anyone to get one, just like I would not be so quick to go to war.

But if we are going to be against abortion, we have to support the people who are having the babies. We can't just tell them not to get one and then leave them there to dry. Abortions happen for many reasons: some people are just morally numb and don't care, but others were either raped or can't support the baby and don't know what to do. And what if the mother’s health is at risk, and she will die if she does not receive the abortion?

Most of the people who are against abortion wouldn't go out there themselves and help support the children that are born. As terrible as it sounds, there has to be incentive for the person not to get the abortion.

Also, God gave us the gift of choices didn’t he?

I honestly don’t really know where I stand because I know for a fact abortion is wrong, but I don’t think it is fair to make decisions for everyone else. Moreover, I know what could happen to the kids that are born. They might be forgotten and that shouldn’t be the case. I know I’d definitely be against abortion if we supported the mothers and families who have the babies.

Now, that being said, who should I vote for?

Donovan,
You misunderstood several things:
- who said we were "for war"? Of course, being "against war" doesn't mean you have to be completely ignorant to the reality that war exists. In other words, it sounds like you would perceive any warfare as unjust, etc.
- You assert that "Most of the people who are against abortion wouldn't go out there themselves and help support the children that are born." Is that supposed to be a joke? It's a completely biased, prejudicial statement that has no basis in reality. Virtually everyone I know who is pro-life lives in a way that proves you wrong. This sounds like a silly justification for abortion (not that that's the way you are using it).
- take a look at the number of people who have died since the Iraq war began and compare it to the number of babies aborted every day. And then rethink your argument.
- Also consider that there is a difference between a person who is killed before ever being given a chance to live vs someone who dies in war. Yes, the fighter died at a young age, but our army is voluntary and these men choose to join. They also had 20 years (sometimes significantly more) to live a life and make choices (for or against God). In other words, some life is better than no life as a general rule.
- finally, the percentage of abortions caused by rape or life of the mother is unbelievably small. You can't justify the death of millions of children because of less than 1% that fits your definitions of "acceptable."

It is almost impossible to compare the deaths of the Iraq war with the deaths of the unborn, innocent babies with a straight face. The differences are profound, especially in number.

God bless,
Jay

I'm sorry, but I could not help but notice that most of the commentators on this site are men. I would just like to say that I feel that the decision on abortion should be left to the women. I do not like the idea of abortion, but I can see why some women would choose to have one, under certain situations/circumstances. It is impossible for any man to completely understand specific issues that many women go through, both physically and mentally. So before you criticize try to empathize.

Hi Alice,
Yes, women are responsbile for the the great difficuly (and joy) of bearing children...no denying that. However, as men who are commenting on this site it should be obvious that we are fulfilling our role to act as protectors--of the unborn. We are not criticizing at all. If you get that impression I think you need to re-read the postings. The bottom line is that for every "choice" a woman would make to have an abortion denies the child in her womb the right to life. The "founding fathers" of our country say specifically in the Declaration of Independence that the unalienable rights of ALL that are fundamental and not awarded by human power, but by our Creator are the right to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. To deny this right to the unborn is basically putting the individuals [womens] "rights" over the Creator's [God]. There is no way to reconcile abortion as a Godly choice. Again, the comments you see here are out of concern, love, and protection...not coercion or judgement.
In Truth,
Matthew

WITHOUT LIFE WE HAVE NOTHING!!! I WILL ONLY VOTE PRO-LIFE. GOD HELP YOU ALL

I've got a wake up call for those of you who say you are against abortion personally but think it's wrong to tell others they can't abort their babies.....YOU'RE PRO-CHOICE!!!!!! Call it like it is... you can't sugar coat this one!!! And Alice, please do not speak for women as a group. I hate it when women like you try to represent women in general.

Since the subject of legal issues has come up, I would like to talk about the Supreme Court. The highest court in our country. The Supreme Court at one time stated that slavery was constitutional because black people were only part human. Does anyone in their right mind think this was correct? Don't you think the Supreme Court could have it wrong again??? THINK!!! These babies are not "tissue", they are not an "unidentifiable mass" ...they are babies. Doctors, who take a vow to save lives, are going into a woman's womb, chopping up babies, sucking them out, then throwing them into the trash so no one has to see this horror. Instead of picturing a trash can of "tissue", why don't you pro-choicers picture reality...a trash can with little human body parts. This is by far the worst atrocity against humans...ever!

I like to imagine..... about 50 years or so after the Emancipation Proclomation ... a grandmother telling her grandchildren how she remembers when the Supreme Court stated that slavery was constitutional and that blacks were only part human.

I can picture the shocked faces of those little children hearing such unbelievable history.

I like to imagine... about ? years in the future....me sitting with my grandchildren telling them how I remember when the Supreme Court stated that it was legal to visciously kill unborn babies and throw them in the garbage like trash.

I can picture the shocked faces of those little children hearing such unbelievable history.

May the Lord have mercy on our souls and forgive our country.

PRAY TO END ABORTION

God Bless,
Mary

Post a comment