A Left-Wing Pro-Life Perspective

[Joe_5859]

You seem to be the exception. There are those on these very boards who revel in what amounts to calling people who are “pro-choice” nazis and ghouls. There are those who also revel in using pictures of murdered unborn children for political shock value. That’s the kind of stuff that is being talked about.

Actually, I do not think nannygirl is the exception. The pro-lifers that use pictures are the ones who gain the most media attention (which is the whole point of that strategy).

I agree that **both **must be worked for. But they are inter-related. I have read too many posts on this thread that seen to convey a misguided belief that the law is enough, and that once a law is passed then everyone can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. I’ve said this better in previous posts.

I favor changing hearts first, as the natural progression to the law. Seek you first the Kingdom of Heaven, the rest will come. Though I favor one, both must be worked for, but a law will continue to be blocked without a change of heart. We want a law that honors unborn humans to be passed, don’t we? (mapleoak?)…

If I’m understanding Nom’s whole point, it’s not that he disagrees with working to make abortion illegal. He just believes that, practically speaking, it will be almost impossible for us to succeed in doing so without changing people’s hearts first. Therefore, it would be better for us to focus more energy on the social aspect as it would succeed in bringing about both social and legal change much faster than if we waste time and resources on obtaining a legal change before the social change. Is this a fair representation of what you’re saying, Nom? (Not trying to put words in your mouth, but just to see if I’m understanding you correctly).

If this is your point, I think it’s a fair one. It seems hard for me to imagine that a legal change would take place in our current cultural environment without a prior change of heart. And a social change would certainly facilitate a legal change.

I think this whole discussion brings to light something important: who exactly is involved in the pro-life movement? If you go by media coverage, the ones working for legal changes get far more attention than those who pray their rosaries outside the abortion mills. I don’t think this means that there are more people working for legal changes and ignoring the change of heart. It just means that their publicity stunts are working. From my experience with pro-life work, there are far more people working for this change of heart through prayer and witness than there are those who stand on street corners with graphic posters yelling “Murderer!” to women entering the abortion centers. (Even this is a caricature because there are some that witness with the graphic posters without yelling inflammatory things at people.)

I think Vern brought up an interseting point, too, with his comment about the Civil Rights movement. There was certainly a lot of picketing and publicity surrounding their efforts. And it worked. Some pro-life groups that use these tactics are quite intentionally trying to model the Civil Rights Movement because those tactics worked for them. Now, whether or not those same tactics that worked back then will work now is debatable, but not impossible.

 

[mapleoak]

There are a great many behaviors that are legal that I do not engage in because my faith tells me not to. Abortion is only one of them. It doesn’t matter to me that these things are legal, my faith and my Church tells me that they will injure my relationship with God so I stay away.

The real way to lead people to a change of heart about abortion is to FIRST bring them back to God. Once they have done that, the idea of obeying a higher law than civil government becomes a part of their daily life.

To allow people to continue to be murdered with the blessing of the law until such time as people have a “change of heart” is a grave disservice to the unborn. And it is extremely difficult if not impossible to influence many people one way when the law tells them another.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

If I’m understanding Nom’s whole point, it’s not that he disagrees with working to make abortion illegal. He just believes that, practically speaking, it will be almost impossible for us to succeed in doing so without changing people’s hearts first. Therefore, it would be better for us to focus more energy on the social aspect as it would succeed in bringing about both social and legal change much faster than if we waste time and resources on obtaining a legal change before the social change. Is this a fair representation of what you’re saying, Nom? (Not trying to put words in your mouth, but just to see if I’m understanding you correctly).

If this is your point, I think it’s a fair one. It seems hard for me to imagine that a legal change would take place in our current cultural environment without a prior change of heart. And a social change would certainly facilitate a legal change.

I came back. Thank you, Joe5859. This is the only point that I’ve been arguing. I apologize deeply for my frustration with several of you (mapleoak, vern, fix) but twice now I’ve walked away from my computer only to see my words twisted and several posts in a row making snide comments about what I think is the only reasonable solution. **I have made sarcastic remarks of my own in reply, which is a scandal to my heart **and a scandal to my devotion to Christ. I will stop whether or not you stop. I really regret the post about the trailer park, as my Uncle Mike lives in a trailer. This will be the real reason of backing out of this thread, as I cannot trust myself not to get angry again and lash out. Forgive me or not. I’m asking for it, and I’m forgiving you all as well.

Abortion is legal RIGHT NOW. This is no surprise to anyone. This is a scandal to all of us who know the truth. I have been at my wits end how other pro-life advocates don’t see the logic in the OP’s position. Better people than I are **already **lobbying for the change in the law, ever since Roe v. Wade, and even with Roe coming out and asking herself that the law be changed it still remains on the books. The law is being worked on. What other recourse do we have but to Christ RIGHT NOW? To echo the scriptures: Where else will we go?

The other position that is often attacked, is that when and if a law is passed, there must be discerment. There are degrees of murder already on the books. Murder 1 is different than involuntary manslaughter. There is no debate that abortion is murder of human life, but there will be a difference in culpability between the teenage girl from the projects and the Beverly Hills woman who regularly aborts as a matter of birth control. Both are crimes, yes, but both are not to be considered equally culpable, in the same way that all murders, legally, are not viewed the same RIGHT NOW. This isn’t something that can be argued. It’s fact. I wouldn’t want to live in a country that would send a teenage girl to jail for life because she had an abortion at 14. There are some who have implied that this should be the case.

**mapleoak **said “We wage the war on abortion and we don’t attack those in our own ranks. That is the sure way to defeat.”

You’ve been attacking me. I’ve been defending myself. That I allowed myself to be angry and lash out is a travesty and again, I apologize. But overall I agree with this statement. I am Pro Choice/Pro Life/Anti abortion, just like my Church. Just like Christ. I have nothing further to prove.

 

[Ridgerunner]

If I’m understanding Nom’s whole point, it’s not that he disagrees with working to make abortion illegal. He just believes that, practically speaking, it will be almost impossible for us to succeed in doing so without changing people’s hearts first. Therefore, it would be better for us to focus more energy on the social aspect as it would succeed in bringing about both social and legal change much faster than if we waste time and resources on obtaining a legal change before the social change. Is this a fair representation of what you’re saying, Nom? (Not trying to put words in your mouth, but just to see if I’m understanding you correctly).

If this is your point, I think it’s a fair one. It seems hard for me to imagine that a legal change would take place in our current cultural environment without a prior change of heart. And a social change would certainly facilitate a legal change.

My point is that this is exactly backwards. My own state would indisputably ban abortion RIGHT NOW if the “law” allowed the people to decide. Nobody’s mind has to be changed. Nobody’s heart needs to be changed. No social change would be required. What needs to change IS the “law” (Roe) that prevents lawmakers from enacting what the people, in their hearts and minds and consciences, already want.

My impression is that somewhere around 40% of the populace is totally prolife, with another 30% favoring abortion’s limitation to one degree or another. 40% of the population is (theoretically) 20 states. 70% is 35 states.

I suspect some of the “blue” states would retain abortion on demand if the “minds and hearts” of the people were given effect. I suspect a goodly number of “red” states would ban it if the consciences of the population could have any effect on the outcome.

But it can’t happen, because of the Supreme Court, and because of people who insist on continuing to vote for those who promise to appoint pro-abortion justices to the Supreme Court, including liberals who, in their hearts, really don’t approve of abortion, or say they don’t.

And, given that, people actually wonder why prolifers sometimes act or talk in a frustrated fashion. It’s because they have been disenfranchised by a pro-abortion Supreme Court and those who support those whose function it is to appoint them, that’s why.

How can some possibly justify this “minds and hearts” argument when they, themselves, are in part responsible for thwarting the “minds and hearts” of what is actually the majority of the population? It just mystifies me, and tempts me to suspect disingenuousness because it defies all reason.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

How can some possibly justify this “minds and hearts” argument when they, themselves, are in part responsible for thwarting the “minds and hearts” of what is actually the majority of the population? It just mystifies me, and tempts me to suspect disingenuousness because it defies all reason.

What else can be done? Roe v Wade happened in the 70s. It is still on the books, even with Roe changing her mind. If we are not working towards a social change, what do you suggest? Really, I want to know. What do you mean how can we “justify this minds and hearts argument”? What other argument is there? We can be morally outraged all we want, as we have been since the 70s. George W. Bush has been in office (a pro-lifer) for 8 years. There is still opposition. We don’t have to justify it. It is our only option being that the law exists right now, and the fight to change the law has never ended. With all the love of Christ in my heart, what do you suggest?

 

[Fitswimmer]

But again, there are states which, if allowed to do so, would ban abortion right now. Many would at least limit it, while some would not. What I don’t understand is why some insist that a “change of heart” must occur before the Supreme Court-imposed “law” can be changed. If the people in some states have already made up their minds that abortion is wrong, why must they be disenfranchised concerning the subject? Why insist that the whole nation be prolife first? Why not include Canada in that as well. It makes no sense to me that some people insist on some kind of national unanimity before the people of any state can be allowed to vote on the matter.

And even if, say, an overwhelming majority of the populace favored at least some curbs on abortion (which is the case) it wouldn’t make any difference until Roe and its progeny are reversed. Only the Supreme Court can do that. Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President with the consent of the Senate. The obvious answer is to vote for the most prolife presidential and senatorial candidates available. Right now, that means Republican.

The only other route is a constitutional amendment. But that’s even harder to do, and gives the abortion party what essentially amounts to a veto even if it does not have a majority in the Senate.

Those who say there must be some kind of national “change of heart” before anything can be done about abortion, seem to be ignoring the fact that constituencies are out there right now who would ban or limit it right now if they could, and their insistence on some vague notion of unanimity is one of the things that defeats their ostensible purpose.

If State A bans abortion because the majority of those voters agree with it-those living in State A who want to have abortions will go to State B whose voters did not agree with a ban in their state. Abortion is not gone , it may not even be reduced.

Prior to Roe v Wade, abortion existed. Whether those abortions were procured out of state, in illegal “clinics” or in the privacy of a woman’s home-they occurred. We’ll never know how often they occurred, because they were illegal and there is no reliable system of collating how many there were.

the Pro Life movement has been trying to elect politicians and get bans passed since 1973…how much has changed? I’m not suggesting giving up the fight-only that a change in strategy might be good tactics.

 

[Ridgerunner]

What else can be done? Roe v Wade happened in the 70s. It is still on the books, even with Roe changing her mind. If we are not working towards a social change, what do you suggest? Really, I want to know. What do you mean how can we “justify this minds and hearts argument”? What other argument is there? We can be morally outraged all we want, as we have been since the 70s. George W. Bush has been in office (a pro-lifer) for 8 years. There is still opposition. We don’t have to justify it. It is our only option being that the law exists right now, and the fight to change the law has never ended. With all the love of Christ in my heart, what do you suggest?

Easy to suggest the only thing you can do.

The ONLY thing that has the least chance of changing Roe is to NOT vote for or otherwise support Presidential or Senatorial candidates who are “pro choice”. Right now, “pro choice” includes all Democrats. Keep in mind that Bush appointed Roberts and Alito, and that the only significant case limiting abortion in any way was “Carhart”, voted by the four prolife justices, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, all Catholic Repub appointees. “Catholic” Repub appointee, Anthony Kennedy, voted with the prolifers. (the partial birth abortion case). Kennedy cannot be relied on to vote prolife and only did so in Carhart because there were no facts presented which could support a conclusion that there is ever a medical (including “psychological”) reason to perform a partial birth abortion. All Democrat appointees always vote in favor of abortion, as they did in Carhart, and the Dem presidential candidates both promise they will apppoint pro-abortion justices. It is almost certain that there will be one or more appointments to the Supreme Court in the next eight years, if not the next four. The Supreme Court is probably only one justice short of a prolife majority.

George Bush (and I know liberals hate him, but that’s their choice) did the only thing a president could do to get Roe overturned, by appointing Roberts and Alito, and in doing so, he did more than all the presidents since Roe put together. He brought us closer to overturning Roe than anyone ever has. “Catholic” John Kerry was “pro choice” and would have appointed pro choice justices, locking in an abortionist majority for decades. It was no secret. He said he “supported choice”. How embarrassing it was for me, a Catholic, to support a Methodist (Bush) who is more Catholic than the nominally Catholic Kerry.

If you’re liberal, you can go back to voting for Democrat Presidential and Senatorial candidates after Roe is overturned. That’s not my concern in this thread. This is a political issue at this point, not a social issue. If Roe is overturned, then individual states will be able to allow voters a chance to vote their consciences on it. So, perhaps, could the U.S. as a whole. It could actually change the Dem party to a less abortion-supporting party if people are ever allowed to vote on it. For anyone who is a “prolife Democrat” that would allow them to finally vote on social issues without compromising their souls by being forced to vote pro-abortion when they support other Dem causes. It’s a terrible moral dilemma that Dems are in right now. I would probably still be a Dem except for the Dem party becoming the abortion party; because I couldn’t vote for a Dem without voting for abortion at the same time. Now I’m not a member of any party and I vote prolife every time. That means, for the moment, I vote Republican every time.

If you’re a liberal, you’ll hate doing it. But that’s all there is.

 

[BamaRider]

The RidgeRunner came out and said this-

If you’re liberal, you can go back to voting for Democrat Presidential and Senatorial candidates after Roe is overturned. That’s not my concern in this thread. This is a political issue at this point, not a social issue. If Roe is overturned, then individual states will be able to allow voters a chance to vote their consciences on it. So, perhaps, could the U.S. as a whole. It could actually change the Dem party to a less abortion-supporting party if people are ever allowed to vote on it. For anyone who is a “prolife Democrat” that would allow them to finally vote on social issues without compromising their souls by being forced to vote pro-abortion when they support other Dem causes. It’s a terrible moral dilemma that Dems are in right now. I would probably still be a Dem except for the Dem party becoming the abortion party; because I couldn’t vote for a Dem without voting for abortion at the same time. Now I’m not a member of any party and I vote prolife every time. That means, for the moment, I vote Republican every time.

If you’re a liberal, you’ll hate doing it. But that’s all there is.

Man some folks ain’t gonna like hearing that, but it’s true.

 

[frankadams]

George Bush (and I know liberals hate him, but that’s their choice) did the only thing a president could do to get Roe overturned, by appointing Roberts and Alito, and in doing so, he did more than all the presidents since Roe put together. He brought us closer to overturning Roe than anyone ever has.

Roberts replaced Renquist, so there was no net gain there. Alito replaced O’Connor, so we have a *potential *net gain there. I say potential, because “pro-life” presidents Reagan and Bush both appointed pro-aborts to the Supreme Court.

We had a Republican-dominated Supreme Court make Roe law. We have had 23 out of 35 years since Roe with a Republican president in office. About the only thing that has happened to abortion is that it is far more common than it was pre-Roe. If there is an insistence that one must slavishly vote Republican no matter what at the cost of “compromising their soul,” (your words) one would like to see at least an occasional result from the “pro-life” party.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The real way to lead people to a change of heart about abortion is to FIRST bring them back to God. Once they have done that, the idea of obeying a higher law than civil government becomes a part of their daily life.

And when you have done that, you will also eliminate murder, rape, bank robbery, drug abuse, and so on. You will be able to walk the streets of the toughest neighborhoods unarmed and unescorted. You won’t have to worry if your daughter is late coming home from school, nor take any other precautions.

When will that day come?

And what do we do in the meantime?

 

[Al_Masetti]

Easy to suggest the only thing you can do.

The ONLY thing that has the least chance of changing Roe is to NOT vote for or otherwise support Presidential or Senatorial candidates who are “pro choice”. Right now, “pro choice” includes all Democrats. Keep in mind that Bush appointed Roberts and Alito, and that the only significant case limiting abortion in any way was “Carhart”, voted by the four prolife justices, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito, all Catholic Repub appointees. “Catholic” Repub appointee, Anthony Kennedy, voted with the prolifers. (the partial birth abortion case). Kennedy cannot be relied on to vote prolife and only did so in Carhart because there were no facts presented which could support a conclusion that there is ever a medical (including “psychological”) reason to perform a partial birth abortion. All Democrat appointees always vote in favor of abortion, as they did in Carhart, and the Dem presidential candidates both promise they will apppoint pro-abortion justices. It is almost certain that there will be one or more appointments to the Supreme Court in the next eight years, if not the next four. The Supreme Court is probably only one justice short of a prolife majority.

George Bush (and I know liberals hate him, but that’s their choice) did the only thing a president could do to get Roe overturned, by appointing Roberts and Alito, and in doing so, he did more than all the presidents since Roe put together. He brought us closer to overturning Roe than anyone ever has. “Catholic” John Kerry was “pro choice” and would have appointed pro choice justices, locking in an abortionist majority for decades. It was no secret. He said he “supported choice”. How embarrassing it was for me, a Catholic, to support a Methodist (Bush) who is more Catholic than the nominally Catholic Kerry.

If you’re liberal, you can go back to voting for Democrat Presidential and Senatorial candidates after Roe is overturned. That’s not my concern in this thread. This is a political issue at this point, not a social issue. If Roe is overturned, then individual states will be able to allow voters a chance to vote their consciences on it. So, perhaps, could the U.S. as a whole. It could actually change the Dem party to a less abortion-supporting party if people are ever allowed to vote on it. For anyone who is a “prolife Democrat” that would allow them to finally vote on social issues without compromising their souls by being forced to vote pro-abortion when they support other Dem causes. It’s a terrible moral dilemma that Dems are in right now. I would probably still be a Dem except for the Dem party becoming the abortion party; because I couldn’t vote for a Dem without voting for abortion at the same time. Now I’m not a member of any party and I vote prolife every time. That means, for the moment, I vote Republican every time.

If you’re a liberal, you’ll hate doing it. But that’s all there is.

I’m beginning to wonder if President Bush is a “closet Catholic”.

After he was inaugurated as President, one of his first acts was to make a “house call” on Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington.

And then the other week, when the Pope arrived, President Bush greeted the Holy Father the way a Catholic would.

And, then another Protestant, Rush Limbaugh played many of the Presidential/ Papal greeting ceremonies over and over.

And Limbaugh quotes Chesterton “all the time” and Limbaugh’s definition of “life” is right exactly in alignment with the Catholic Church.

Anyway, I dunno where these two gentlemen are, religious-preference-wise, but they sure do talk and act like Catholics … certainly a lot more than John Kerry or Ted Kennedy. Or some others I could name, but then I would be writing uncharitably.

[sigh]

[don’t get me started]

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I’m beginning to wonder if President Bush is a “closet Catholic”.

After he was inaugurated as President, one of his first acts was to make a “house call” on Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington.

And then the other week, when the Pope arrived, President Bush greeted the Holy Father the way a Catholic would.

And, then another Protestant, Rush Limbaugh played many of the Presidential/ Papal greeting ceremonies over and over.

And Limbaugh quotes Chesterton “all the time” and Limbaugh’s definition of “life” is right exactly in alignment with the Catholic Church.

Anyway, I dunno where these two gentlemen are, religious-preference-wise, but they sure do talk and act like Catholics … certainly a lot more than John Kerry or Ted Kennedy. Or some others I could name, but then I would be writing uncharitably.

[sigh]

[don’t get me started]

I guess Rush’s multiple marriage/divorce situation doesn’t count?

 

[Al_Masetti]

I guess Rush’s multiple marriage/divorce situation doesn’t count?

He’s not married right now.

So, theoretically, as long as he stays chaste, he’s ok.

Theoretically, his first marriage counts. His later marriages, if the first was on the up & up, would be considered as adulterous relationships. So as long as Limbaugh stays unattached (and if he were to confess to a priest his adulteries and other sins), then he would be considered to be in the state of grace.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Roberts replaced Renquist, so there was no net gain there. Alito replaced O’Connor, so we have a *potential *net gain there. I say potential, because “pro-life” presidents Reagan and Bush both appointed pro-aborts to the Supreme Court.

We had a Republican-dominated Supreme Court make Roe law. We have had 23 out of 35 years since Roe with a Republican president in office. About the only thing that has happened to abortion is that it is far more common than it was pre-Roe. If there is an insistence that one must slavishly vote Republican no matter what at the cost of “compromising their soul,” (your words) one would like to see at least an occasional result from the “pro-life” party.

I’m aware of all that. I’m also aware of the odds, and I’m not anybody’s “slave”. There is a pretty good chance a Repub appointee will be prolife. There is zero chance a Dem appointee will be prolife. Are you not aware how the candidates stand on that?

I am not under any illusions that the prolife cause will be easy. Roe might not be overturned in my lifetime, and I hate the thought of that. But the one thing I can do is try, understanding that politicians are sometimes fickle and sometimes make mistakes. And I’m sorry if it causes you to gnash your teeth, but yes, I am persuaded that it’s a mortal sin to in any manner support a “pro choice” candidate. Please spare me the hypotheticals I sometimes see in here, like “if Hitler was against abortion would you vote for him”. We have the choices we have, not some made-up choice.

Truth be told, I don’t particularly care for any of the Presidential candidates, for all kinds of reasons. But the other issues are things in which Catholics may exercise prudential judgment and, after all, I can still vote for Representatives who most nearly share my views. Abortion is an absolute. I’m not voting for a pro-abortionist. Period.

 

[robben29]

Murderers have a choice but if they choose to and get caught they pay the consequences. Seems to me, we need to make people realize that that’s just what abortion is: murder.

I can’t bring myself to vote for anyone that believes that if someone chooses to abort (murder), there should be no consequences for that choice.

I don’t agree with everything Republicans stand for either but at least they provide some hope they might appoint pro-life judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade. Dems offer no such hope.

And even if someone says they are a pro-life Democrat, they are supporting many, many fellow Dem candidates and policies that aren’t if they’re a faithful member.

As an aside, as I see it, both parties think the government is the way to solve far too many of our country’s problems while it’s usually the most inefficient way.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m beginning to wonder if President Bush is a “closet Catholic”.

After he was inaugurated as President, one of his first acts was to make a “house call” on Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington.

And then the other week, when the Pope arrived, President Bush greeted the Holy Father the way a Catholic would.

And, then another Protestant, Rush Limbaugh played many of the Presidential/ Papal greeting ceremonies over and over.

And Limbaugh quotes Chesterton “all the time” and Limbaugh’s definition of “life” is right exactly in alignment with the Catholic Church.

Anyway, I dunno where these two gentlemen are, religious-preference-wise, but they sure do talk and act like Catholics … certainly a lot more than John Kerry or Ted Kennedy. Or some others I could name, but then I would be writing uncharitably.

[sigh]

[don’t get me started]

I don’t know about Limbaugh. Nor do I know about Bush becoming Catholic. I do know he is more “Catholic” than most “Catholic” politicians I know. I have a lot of dissatisfactions with him as a politician, but of his genuinness, and good-heartedness, I have little doubt.

I happened to be nearby when a tornado tore a little town apart near here. Just destroyed it. Bush flew in to a larger town, then on Marine One to a local airport nearby, then by car to the little town. He had to cross a swollen creek to get there; hubcap deep at least. Went to the local Catholic Church and arranged with the priest there to have people come who had problems because of the storm. The church itself had some fairly minor damage. He assured the priest he would take care of it. Bush frustrated the secret service by just walking in and among the people; very ordinary people. There was not a child with whom he would not stand or whom he would not hold, so parents could take a picture; parents who had maybe lost everything and had this one uplifting moment. He allowed every man or woman who wanted to, to put their arm around his shoulder for a photo, and he reciprocated the gesture.He talked to a good number of the locals about their losses. Not one did he brush aside. Some he told an aide to make notes about. Some he evidently just remembered. He then walked through the town, without the secret service people, with people who had lost their rather modest businesses. He went into some of the ruined places with them. Ultimately, he asked people who could, to bring food, etc, to the Church for distribution to those in need. He said he would do what he could to help, talked to the priest off in the corner for quite some time, about what, I do not know, then left.

Every single one of the people received help, often well in excess of what anyone would have expected. FEMA completely re-roofed the Church and paid for some significant renovations that weren’t even caused by the storm.

This town was so Republican Bush didn’t gain a single vote by doing any of that. I told him that myself. He said he knew it. I told him I thought it was good of him to do what he was doing, knowing there was no political gain to it at all, and would pray for him. I thanked him for being there when people needed so much. He thanked me for that with what seemed real sincerity, and told me he needed the prayers for sure. At someone’s request, he posed for a photo of himself and the pastor inside the parish hall, a blowup of which hangs there today. That priest is from Poland, and knew John Paul II well. I think he knows the good guys from the bad guys, even if I, myself, might be easily impressed.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Roberts replaced Renquist, so there was no net gain there. Alito replaced O’Connor, so we have a *potential *net gain there. I say potential, because “pro-life” presidents Reagan and Bush both appointed pro-aborts to the Supreme Court.

We had a Republican-dominated Supreme Court make Roe law. We have had 23 out of 35 years since Roe with a Republican president in office. About the only thing that has happened to abortion is that it is far more common than it was pre-Roe. If there is an insistence that one must slavishly vote Republican no matter what at the cost of “compromising their soul,” (your words) one would like to see at least an occasional result from the “pro-life” party.

I voted Republican for over 20 years, but I have found that I can no longer reconcile the broader teachings of the Church on life (pre-emptive war, the death penalty) the preferential option for the poor that the Gospel demands and the policies of the people I was voting for. Add the failure of this same party to do anything meaningful about abortion-even with majority in both houses…and I’ve given up on them as really being interested in the issue. IMHO-Catholics and other Pro-life people have been USED by the Republican party.

 

[rlg94086]

I voted Republican for over 20 years, but I have found that I can no longer reconcile the broader teachings of the Church on life (pre-emptive war, the death penalty) the preferential option for the poor that the Gospel demands and the policies of the people I was voting for. Add the failure of this same party to do anything meaningful about abortion-even with majority in both houses…and I’ve given up on them as really being interested in the issue. IMHO-Catholics and other Pro-life people have been USED by the Republican party.

So, who have you decided to be “USED” by now?

 

[BamaRider]

the Swimmer said-

Originally Posted by Fitswimmer
I voted Republican for over 20 years, but I have found that I can no longer reconcile the broader teachings of the Church on life (pre-emptive war, the death penalty) the preferential option for the poor that the Gospel demands and the policies of the people I was voting for. Add the failure of this same party to do anything meaningful about abortion-even with majority in both houses…and I’ve given up on them as really being interested in the issue. IMHO-Catholics and other Pro-life people have been USED by the Republican party.

Well, doesn’t look like he’ll be voting anytime soon. We can debate just war, poverty, DP forever, but most Catholics agree about the evil of abortion, which in my eye, does not compare to millions of infant deaths. But if the other issues cancels that out in your mind, at least you’ll be on the sidelines in the fall and not a factor, because in order to be consistent with your adopted line of the thought noway you can vote for pro choice candidate.

The power to appoint not just Suprement Court but appellate and federal judges up and down the system is profund, and can affect the country for decades. Every election is serious business.

One candidate has openly announced he wants judges that make social policy, and not just interpert law.

 

[mapleoak]

As an aside, as I see it, both parties think the government is the way to solve far too many of our country’s problems while it’s usually the most inefficient way.

It is ironic that many of the same people who generally advocate having government control every aspect of ones life possible become somehow adverse to a law banning abortion. They call it an intrusion on ones ‘privacy’.