A Left-Wing Pro-Life Perspective

[DL82]

As a Catholic and a Liberal Democrat, I believe that we must do all we can to eliminate the evil of abortion, and I believe that the ultimate end of that campaign must be the criminalisation of abortion.

However, I don’t believe that the criminal law element should be the first part of the campaign, rather it should be the last thing, the crown on top, cementing the end of the campaign. As a liberal democrat, I believe it would be wrong to pass a criminal law before the majority of people believe abortion to be against the moral law.

In other words, I think it would be entirely wrong for Catholics to practice the kind of entryism that was associated with Communists in the 1950’s-1980’s, quietly infiltrating legal and political structures and then showing their true colours once in power, passing draconian laws against abortion that nobody wanted in the first place. Not only would such laws be undemocratic, they would also not stop abortion. Instead, we would be locking up thousands of women who are themselves victims, hundreds of doctors for following their consciences, leading thousands more women to risk their lives in dangerous back-street abortions, condemning countless children to orphanages or life on the streets, and of course, in our modern world of global transport, those women who can afford to (and very few can’t) would simply buy a cheap flight across the border to procure an abortion.

This sounds like pro-choice propaganda, but really it’s the opposite.

What I’m arguing is that our first task as pro-life campaigners must be in advocating SOCIAL change, which must take effect before LEGAL change is even conceivable. We must fight for the economic conditions to be more family-friendly, for no woman to be so poor that she’s unable to raise her child, for flexible employment and education so that women don’t feel like they’d be throwing their lives away by having a baby, for a society that values motherhood and provides support to women who don’t know how to care for their children.

Recent Supreme Court decisions in the USA have said as much themselves, in a society that treats reproduction as an inconvenience to economic life, abortion must be allowed as a fall-back in case of contraceptive failure. What I’m arguing for is that we must campaign for a more inclusive, supportive society that allows women to choose life. Once you have that kind of genuine equality, a society that values our capacity for human happiness more than our financial contribution, I believe most women will choose life, not death. Only then would it be right to criminalize those few who choose death, and eliminate the evil of abortion from our society once and for all. Any other approach merely blames the victim.

Anyway, I know this will be controversial, but that’s just my 2c.

 

[CapIV]

I agree that initially criminalizing women (although rightly so) would be counter productive to the anti-abortion movement.

However, I don’t think you quite understand the issue.

4000 children are being brutally murdered everyday. I think it is about time we had a MORE aggressive outcry.

If 4000 blacks were being killed everyday, would you have this kind of talk? No, you would be outraged.

I am outraged that my country has not only allowed, but supported the murder of 50 million children. An entire generation.

It is sick.

 

[StevenFrancis]

It wasn’t that many years ago that I considered myself to be “left wing”. In fact, even since my conversion, and my new found disdain for political party mentality ideology I’ve retained a few beliefs which are considered very left by our society, and some that are considered very right by our society as well. With this history of mine, I find it difficult to be overly critical or judgemental. In this light, I want to first applaud you for adopting any kind of pro-life stance. I especially appreciate your altruistic ideals regarding the poor, and how if we reached a state of brotherly and sisterly love, en-masse, we could then pass a law without difficulty. The problem is, that the societal changes you speak of could take hundreds of years, IF there was a mind set to even go foward with it. Perhaps we can work on poverty and a reverence for the sanctity of life, just as you speak of, in the ways that the Church, and other churches are already doing. Education about sanctity of life, and teachings about morals, while we, (the Church, and perhaps someday even the Government) focus much more energy on the problems of poverty, and a reversal of contraceptive mentalilty, while simultaneously reversing Roe vs. Wade. This would return the problem to being a difficult and deeply painful moral and ethical decision with visible consequences, rather than a protected legal right of abortion on demand. I’m actually not speaking of making it criminal. Just returning it to being morally represehensible. Returning to the status of the last possible choice. After Roe v Wade is off the books, it would be up to the individual States, as to whether they pass any specific laws. I am admittedly much different in my views than I once was. I’m happy to see that at least left wingers these days are thinking about the issue, and I encourage you to continue to work towards the society you speak of. In the mean time, we need to find more immediate measures also to assist in curtailing this morally bankrupt practice, and stopping the eugenic slaughter of the innocents which is occurring so often. We must protect this children even if it is unpopular with society. Even if people are still poor. (There will always be poor among us). Not that we turn away from them. We must work tirelessly and pointedly at releiving human suffering and poverty. The only place I disagree really is that I think it’s imperative that we work equally hard at protecting the victims of this awful practice NOW. It’s too important to simply rely on a plan which could take centuries to happen. Hearts have become pretty hard. There is a lot of work to do on many many fronts. Once again I appreciate that you’re thinking in pro-life directions, but I might suggest that it’s a little bit on the passive side. I will continue to pray on this matter, and continue my work with the poor to try to do my part to build this perfect society of yours. In the mean time, if you sincerely care about ending this wholesale loss of life, please join us also in praying that we will one day reverse the Government pat on the back for murder that Roe v Wade set up in this country. I agree that strong criminal laws may be a long way’s off, but removing the court sanctioning should happen as soon as possible. This way it becomes a devastatingly hard decision based on morality and ethics rather than a happy little trip to the doctor after stopping at Wal-Mart for some tube socks.

Peace to you, and my sincere thanks for opening this dialog in a peaceful manner for intellectual discourse.

Steven

 

[BamaRider]

Here is what the Holy Father says on the subject spoken in 2007-

Last May, when a reporter pressed Benedict on whether he agreed that Catholic politicians who had recently legalized abortion in Mexico City should be considered excommunicated, his response was, “Yes.”

Benedict’s spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, later said the pope was not setting a new policy and did not intend to formally excommunicate anyone. But Lombardi added that politicians who vote in favor of abortion should refrain from receiving Holy Communion.

He’s told such pro choice politicians what they need to do, now what ya reckon he’s gonna tell Catholics that enable such politicians at the ballot box?

Now you can split this, and study it all the ways you want, but in the end to vote for a pro choice candidate is putting your secular agenda ahead of your Catholic Faith, there is no other way to explain it.

I agree with ya, it would be nice if a pro life candidate on the dem side could emerge. There are a few out there, (conservative southern dems ) but they are more conservative then many GOP office holders, so probably not suitable in your eyes to get your vote. Under current democrat leaderhship, don’t look for them to make it to the higher echlons of the party.

People like you, need to reject pro choice candidates outright, like the GOP did Rudy. Then a pro life liberal might have a chance, but just the opposite takes place. No pro life candidate is going far in your party, and thats just the facts. I don’t know a single pro life candidate that is liberal, and I follow this stuff pretty close.

I think the last pro life dem on the national level was Carter?

 

[goofyjim]

Actually we need to do both concurrently. We need to criminalize the act of abortion and at the same time implement programs to foster life. I know conservatives don’t want to hear that but I do agree that they have to back up their penalties with alternatives and not just make everyone a criminal.

 

[ArdenB]

Actually we need to do both concurrently. We need to criminalize the act of abortion and at the same time implement programs to foster life. I know conservatives don’t want to hear that but I do agree that they have to back up their penalties with alternatives and not just make everyone a criminal.

Are you refering to the same government programs implemented by LBJ that removed the consequences of out-of-wedlock births?

 

[goofyjim]

Are you refering to the same government programs implemented by LBJ that removed the consequences of out-of-wedlock births?

So I guess we should just start criminalizing every sin out there. I would welcome an out-of-wedlock birth over an abortion.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

As a Catholic and a Liberal Democrat, I believe that we must do all we can to eliminate the evil of abortion, and I believe that the ultimate end of that campaign must be the criminalisation of abortion.

However, I don’t believe that the criminal law element should be the first part of the campaign, rather it should be the last thing, the crown on top, cementing the end of the campaign. As a liberal democrat, I believe it would be wrong to pass a criminal law before the majority of people believe abortion to be against the moral law.

In other words, I think it would be entirely wrong for Catholics to practice the kind of entryism that was associated with Communists in the 1950’s-1980’s, quietly infiltrating legal and political structures and then showing their true colours once in power, passing draconian laws against abortion that nobody wanted in the first place. Not only would such laws be undemocratic, they would also not stop abortion. Instead, we would be locking up thousands of women who are themselves victims, hundreds of doctors for following their consciences, leading thousands more women to risk their lives in dangerous back-street abortions, condemning countless children to orphanages or life on the streets, and of course, in our modern world of global transport, those women who can afford to (and very few can’t) would simply buy a cheap flight across the border to procure an abortion.

This sounds like pro-choice propaganda, but really it’s the opposite.

What I’m arguing is that our first task as pro-life campaigners must be in advocating SOCIAL change, which must take effect before LEGAL change is even conceivable. We must fight for the economic conditions to be more family-friendly, for no woman to be so poor that she’s unable to raise her child, for flexible employment and education so that women don’t feel like they’d be throwing their lives away by having a baby, for a society that values motherhood and provides support to women who don’t know how to care for their children.

Recent Supreme Court decisions in the USA have said as much themselves, in a society that treats reproduction as an inconvenience to economic life, abortion must be allowed as a fall-back in case of contraceptive failure. What I’m arguing for is that we must campaign for a more inclusive, supportive society that allows women to choose life. Once you have that kind of genuine equality, a society that values our capacity for human happiness more than our financial contribution, I believe most women will choose life, not death. Only then would it be right to criminalize those few who choose death, and eliminate the evil of abortion from our society once and for all. Any other approach merely blames the victim.

Anyway, I know this will be controversial, but that’s just my 2c.

Hi DL. Glad to hear you are pro-Life, it seems many who are either liberal or conservative will take the side of “their team.” Good to see you are truly open minded! I think you are truly trying to find a way to stop abortion and have empathy for the wounded.

OK, that said I will take an issue with this statement:

“I believe it would be wrong to pass a criminal law before the majority of people believe abortion to be against the moral law.”

You can imagine taking out the word “abortion” and replacing it with “slavery” circa 1850 or making an analogous statement in referrence to the “Final Solution” in 1930s and 40s Nazi Germany. I guess swhat I am saying is that some things are just wrong and aren’t justified by the majority saying they are ok.

Have a great weekend!!!

 

[goofyjim]

Hi DL. Glad to hear you are pro-Life, it seems many who are either liberal or conservative will take the side of “their team.” Good to see you are truly open minded! I think you are truly trying to find a way to stop abortion and have empathy for the wounded.

OK, that said I will take an issue with this statement:

“I believe it would be wrong to pass a criminal law before the majority of people believe abortion to be against the moral law.”

You can imagine taking out the word “abortion” and replacing it with “slavery” circa 1850 or making an analogous statement in referrence to the “Final Solution” in 1930s and 40s Nazi Germany. I guess swhat I am saying is that some things are just wrong and aren’t justified by the majority saying they are ok.

Have a great weekend!!!

But I believe what DL is saying is that if all we do is criminalize it without providing alternatives, that would be wrong as well. Too often those on the right wing just want to make it a criminal act so they can lock people up and glory in that. They don’t provide ample assistance for, say, the unfortunate out-of-wedlock birth. While an out-of-wedlock birth is not ideal it will still happen and why should they be penalized for having the child while being branded a criminal if they don’t.

 

[catholicbuckeye]

But I believe what DL is saying is that if all we do is criminalize it without providing alternatives, that would be wrong as well. Too often those on the right wing just want to make it a criminal act so they can lock people up and glory in that. They don’t provide ample assistance for, say, the unfortunate out-of-wedlock birth. While an out-of-wedlock birth is not ideal it will still happen and why should they be penalized for having the child while being branded a criminal if they don’t.

I have no doubt from reading the post that DL wants to end abortion and that criminalizing it wouldn’t stop it - alternatives need to be provided and the Pro-Life movement and particularly within the Catholic Church are trying to do so. I will also say as one of “those on the right” that I take no glory or joy in locking someone up!!! I’d rather that the wrong had not been committed. I think most on the right would agree with that! C’mon Jim you’re better than to thnk that!

 

[goofyjim]

I have no doubt from reading the post that DL wants to end abortion and that criminalizing it wouldn’t stop it - alternatives need to be provided and the Pro-Life movement and particularly within the Catholic Church are trying to do so. I will also say as one of “those on the right” that I take no glory or joy in locking someone up!!! I’d rather that the wrong had not been committed. I think most on the right would agree with that! C’mon Jim you’re better than to thnk that!

Then why should there be anymore consequences of an out-of-wedlock birth other than the public knowledge that it has happened? Apparently, according to a previous poster here there should be. I say, enough is enough. Just provide shelter and things for the child to enjoy life regardless of how he was born. That will ward off the desire for abortion.

 

[onaquest]

What of the fact the even if I vote for the pro life candidate there still won’t be any change. The pro life movement is in the hands of the people not the government.

 

[ArdenB]

So I guess we should just start criminalizing every sin out there. I would welcome an out-of-wedlock birth over an abortion.

Out-of-wedlock births were never illegal, and no one said they should be. That doesn’t mean they should be rewarded by the government. They go hand in hand with abortion. The abortion rate was lower before all these government programs were expanded, as they removed the negative consequences of premarital sex. It became more common resulting in more abortions and out-of-wedlock births.

 

[Verisimilitude]

The pro life movement is in the hands of the people not the government.

I disagree. A single court case has forced abortion upon this nation. Roe v Wade should be removed from Federal jurisdiction and made null and void. The current President could do that right now if he wanted. It is within his authority as President. Roe was argued for privacy rights, it should be argued for life rights. The privacy of the baby was ignored.

Let SCOTUS decide when human life begins rather than when it can be ended. Let them decide when the Constitutional protections of life, liberty and the persuit of happiness is extended to the unborn. Why should the state be responsible for a 6 month old left in daycare when a 6 month old in the womb is non-human biomass devoid of any protection?

How many of the 50 states do you think would legalize abortion individually if Roe was no longer federal law? Anything less than 50 would be a success to what we have now.

 

[goofyjim]

Out-of-wedlock births were never illegal, and no one said they should be. That doesn’t mean they should be rewarded by the government. They go hand in hand with abortion. The abortion rate was lower before all these government programs were expanded, as they removed the negative consequences of premarital sex. It became more common resulting in more abortions and out-of-wedlock births.

The negative consequences of premarital sex should be only that the couple has to raise the child. But there should be financial assistance to do that. There is already enough shame that one has committed the act when the pregnancy takes place. We don’t have to place further limitations on resources making it ruthlessly impossible to raise the child. And besides which government programs were directly responsible for these births anyhow? Are we talking about those programs that lifted us out of the Great Depression?

 

[goofyjim]

One can be left wing and prolife. It is possible to support social security and understand that the primary failure is not the abuse but the abortions causing fewer people to pay into it. I propose keeping social security and other welfare programs while eliminating abortions. Social security at least guarantees something wheres if all was invested in the markets and the markets crashed investors would then have nothing. And there is no way to safeguard the markets against a crash.

 

[YADA]

The part of your argument DL82 and goofyjim is the presumption that those of us who are pro-life and work to make the killing of babies by abortion illegal are only working towards locking up mothers of aborted babies and the physicians who aborted the chiddren … AND that those same people are not working towards providing alternatives …

The reality from my view of the world is far different …

As a christian who works to end abortion I spend the majority of my financial support “towards the cause” by providing funding to organizations that are providing support to mothers …some of my favorite organizations are JOIN [an organization that moves families and individuals from living on the streets into permanent housing], the Father Taaffe Foundation [a foundation that provides homes for pregnant teenagers and their infants from pregnancy until they are ready to live on their own - whike they graduate from high school, etc - safe and free - he operates 3 homes], the Mother and Child Education Center [formerly - Birthright], Catholic Charities [adoption services and crisis pregnancy resources], Oregon Right to Life [Education Fund and StandupGirl.com web site for teenage girls] in addition to parish groups that provide infant clothes and layettes to families in need …

I support these causes with my time and treasure because we aerw called to assist those in need generously … I suport fund raisers that support these and similar causes… Have you filled a baby bottle with change lately? Did you eat the spaghetti dinner that funded the home for unwed mothers? Have you given to catholic charities adoption services? Attended the golf tournament and then written the $1000 check at the associated dinner?

We are not called to send dollars to the government that enables Planned Parenthood to continue to sell condoms [with the highest failure rate over other brands] and provide abortions [and locate their abortion mills in low income and minoroty neighborhoods] for a profit …

Education and direct assistance are the primary means I target to end abortion … it is always an intrinsic evil and therefore an unjustice and something that should not be legal … a society that kills its most vullnerable citizens is not civilized nor Christian.

I am pro-life, pro family and I provide direct fincial and personal handson support for mothers and their children …

Ys it is possible to want to correct the Law of the land [Abortion on demand from conception to birth] and to truely care about both the mothers and their babies … hard concept … but in truth, they go hand in hand where I come from …

 

[goofyjim]

The part of your argument DL82 and goofyjim is the presumption that those of us who are pro-life and work to make the killing of babies by abortion illegal are only working towards locking up mothers of aborted babies and the physicians who aborted the chiddren … AND that those same people are not working towards providing alternatives …

The reality from my view of the world is far different …

As a christian who works to end abortion I spend the majority of my financial support “towards the cause” by providing funding to organizations that are providing support to mothers …some of my favorite organizations are JOIN [an organization that moves families and individuals from living on the streets into permanent housing], the Father Taaffe Foundation [a foundation that provides homes for pregnant teenagers and their infants from pregnancy until they are ready to live on their own - whike they graduate from high school, etc - safe and free - he operates 3 homes], the Mother and Child Education Center [formerly - Birthright], Catholic Charities [adoption services and crisis pregnancy resources], Oregon Right to Life [Education Fund and StandupGirl.com web site for teenage girls] in addition to parish groups that provide infant clothes and layettes to families in need …

I support these causes with my time and treasure because we aerw called to assist those in need generously … I suport fund raisers that support these and similar causes… Have you filled a baby bottle with change lately? Did you eat the spaghetti dinner that funded the home for unwed mothers? Have you given to catholic charities adoption services? Attended the golf tournament and then written the $1000 check at the associated dinner?

We are not called to send dollars to the government that enables Planned Parenthood to continue to sell condoms [with the highest failure rate over other brands] and provide abortions [and locate their abortion mills in low income and minoroty neighborhoods] for a profit …

Education and direct assistance are the primary means I target to end abortion … it is always an intrinsic evil and therefore an unjustice and something that should not be legal … a society that kills its most vullnerable citizens is not civilized nor Christian.

I am pro-life, pro family and I provide direct fincial and personal handson support for mothers and their children …

Ys it is possible to want to correct the Law of the land [Abortion on demand from conception to birth] and to truely care about both the mothers and their babies … hard concept … but in truth, they go hand in hand where I come from …

But what government programs for the poor have contributed to these things?

 

[ArdenB]

The negative consequences of premarital sex should be only that the couple has to raise the child. But there should be financial assistance to do that. There is already enough shame that one has committed the act when the pregnancy takes place. We don’t have to place further limitations on resources making it ruthlessly impossible to raise the child. And besides which government programs were directly responsible for these births anyhow? Are we talking about those programs that lifted us out of the Great Depression?

I’m talking about the programs instituted by LBJ(welfare for example) in the '60s. There is currently no shame in having a child out-of-wedlock because of them. There are no consequences anymore because of them. The taxpayers fund everything. How fair is that? This has lead to a 500%+ increase in out-of-wedlock births and abortion. These government programs allow some parents not to be responsible for their actions, but they hardly make them more mature, thus the increase in child abuse. Giving a child up for adoption to a loving family is no longer seen as a desirable option when the government will pay you to do otherwise. The child ends up being the one who suffers.

 

[CapIV]

What of the fact the even if I vote for the pro life candidate there still won’t be any change. The pro life movement is in the hands of the people not the government.

Presidents appoint judges. Judges legalized abortion.

Still think it doesn’t matter?