A Left-Wing Pro-Life Perspective

[Joe_5859]

Ah, and that’s the point. Posters here on this board have fanfared the partial birth abortion ban as a major stride and proof of the Republicans’ pro-life intentions. I say it’s mere symbolism over substance.

If even one baby was saved by that law, I’d call it a major stride.

I understand frustration with the Republicans not having done more. We want to see the results of our voting for them for so long. But I also understand the feeling of many pro-lifers that Roe v. Wade’s demise is (for the first time in a while) seemingly within our grasp. If but one more Judge on the Supreme Court was pro-life, it could happen. As has been said before, this wouldn’t do anything by itself, but it would allow the states to vote the issue themselves, which would be a major turning point.

Now, the Republicans certainly do not have a perfect record in appointing pro-life judges, but the odds are better than zero, which is what you’d get with the Democrats. I think people get so frustrated here because it seems so close. Just one more election…(wait, isn’t that what we said last time! )

 

[robben29]

Just one more election…(wait, isn’t that what we said last time! )

There weren’t as many or the right ones to replace as we’d hoped.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

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.

So, the same crime committed by someone from the projects and someone from Beverly Hills should not be prosecuted the same? Why, because the poor person is too dumb to know any better? Isn’t that kind of a patronizing attitude?

Also, a 14 year old would not go to jail for life, since she’s a minor and would be sentenced as a juvenile.

Also, there was no social “change of heart” that made abortion legal in the first place - it was a Supreme Court decision that took away the right of states to make/keep their own laws outlawing it.

A law would not stop all abortions. It would prevent there from being Planned Parenthood clinics in poor neighborhoods actively pushing abortion as an “option” for pregnant women. It would prevent doctors from making money off of the practice. Laws against murder don’t stop all murders. Should we repeal all the laws against murder?

A baby in the womb cannot defend itself. If there’s anyone that needs the protection of the law, it’s that baby.

 

[Al_Masetti]

At least there’s hope for it. There’s not even the slightest hope for a Democrat to appoint a pro-life judge. They’re dedicated to doing the opposite.

What is distressing is that even the Catholic Democrats support abortion … Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, … amazing.

Pray for those folks; they sure need it.

It’s one thing to commit a sin personally.

It’s quite a different thing to give scandal. Something about being cast into the sea with a millstone around one’s neck.

We need to fight these scandal-givers.

And send a check to CA to help the effort.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ah, and that’s the point. Posters here on this board have fanfared the partial birth abortion ban as a major stride and proof of the Republicans’ pro-life intentions. I say it’s mere symbolism over substance.

Well, it will certainly save some lives.

But I do agree it is mostly symbolic, but what symbolism!

Partial birth abortion is a procedure whereby a child, already 90% born, is arrested in completing his emergence into the world so a “doctor” can shove a sharp object into his head and scramble his brains or vacuum them out, causing his death. It’s a procedure so anti-human that even the usually pro-choice Anthony Kennedy couldn’t stomach it.

But every last Democrat appointee voted to keep it legal. Every one.

I’m one of the few people I know who remembers being born. Doubtless that fact colors my thinking a bit about partial-birth abortion. About abortion at all, I expect. No one can tell me those children do not experience pain or horror.

I agree there is a great deal of symbolism in the Carhart decision.
A very great deal.

 

[frankadams]

What is distressing is that even the Catholic Democrats support abortion … Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, … amazing.

Beyond that are those Catholic Democratic politicians that were previously pro-life, but became pro-abortion once they became political players on a national level. Ted Kennedy is among those who previously opposed abortion. Others include Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, and Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich had his “revelation” in his 50’s about three weeks before declaring himself a presidential candidate.

 

[frankadams]

If even one baby was saved by that law, I’d call it a major stride.

I understand frustration with the Republicans not having done more. We want to see the results of our voting for them for so long. But I also understand the feeling of many pro-lifers that Roe v. Wade’s demise is (for the first time in a while) seemingly within our grasp. If but one more Judge on the Supreme Court was pro-life, it could happen. As has been said before, this wouldn’t do anything by itself, but it would allow the states to vote the issue themselves, which would be a major turning point.

Now, the Republicans certainly do not have a perfect record in appointing pro-life judges, but the odds are better than zero, which is what you’d get with the Democrats. I think people get so frustrated here because it seems so close. Just one more election…(wait, isn’t that what we said last time! )

You are right about that frustation. The court that upheld Roe in 1992 was eight-ninths Republican. Eight-ninths! That may have been our best shot. Yet I keep being told, “Republicans only, Republicans always.”

Now we have another sixteen years of people growing accustomed to abortion, both here and in an increasing number of countries around the world. And at the same time, technology advances so that it becomes more and more possible to have abortions outside of a doctor’s office. And my hope dwindles…

My main frustation comes from the fact that in the 35 years of waiting, I have been told that I need to give a blank check to Republicans on all other issues. I have been told that no other social teaching of the Church remotely compares to abortion, so systematic violations of those teachings cannot even be considered when I go to the ballot box. I have been told on this very thread that voting for a pro-abortion candidate means “compromising my soul.” And all the while, there have been no meaningful results on abortion that have come from voting Republican and only Republican.

So, yes, I am frustrated.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You are right about that frustation. The court that upheld Roe in 1992 was eight-ninths Republican. Eight-ninths! That may have been our best shot. Yet I keep being told, “Republicans only, Republicans always.”

Now we have another sixteen years of people growing accustomed to abortion, both here and in an increasing number of countries around the world. And at the same time, technology advances so that it becomes more and more possible to have abortions outside of a doctor’s office. And my hope dwindles…

My main frustation comes from the fact that in the 35 years of waiting, I have been told that I need to give a blank check to Republicans on all other issues. I have been told that no other social teaching of the Church remotely compares to abortion, so systematic violations of those teachings cannot even be considered when I go to the ballot box. I have been told on this very thread that voting for a pro-abortion candidate means “compromising my soul.” And all the while, there have been no meaningful results on abortion that have come from voting Republican and only Republican.

So, yes, I am frustrated.

Frustration is an emotion, not a strategy. It leads to anger, and anger leads to bad judgement.

Instead of feeling frustrated, feel** responsible**. Work to end abortion in your community. Join your local Right to Life chapter. Support crisis pregnancy clinics. Hold fundraisers for them.

Connect with like-minded people. Join your local party committee (Democrat or Republican). Push pro-lifers for party positions, local elected office, and so on.

Work to end abortion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are right about that frustation. The court that upheld Roe in 1992 was eight-ninths Republican. Eight-ninths! That may have been our best shot. Yet I keep being told, “Republicans only, Republicans always.”

Now we have another sixteen years of people growing accustomed to abortion, both here and in an increasing number of countries around the world. And at the same time, technology advances so that it becomes more and more possible to have abortions outside of a doctor’s office. And my hope dwindles…

My main frustation comes from the fact that in the 35 years of waiting, I have been told that I need to give a blank check to Republicans on all other issues. I have been told that no other social teaching of the Church remotely compares to abortion, so systematic violations of those teachings cannot even be considered when I go to the ballot box. I have been told on this very thread that voting for a pro-abortion candidate means “compromising my soul.” And all the while, there have been no meaningful results on abortion that have come from voting Republican and only Republican.

So, yes, I am frustrated.

If you pay any attention to the record, you are also just as frustrated with the Democrat failure to accomplish any of those “social benefits” they talk about so much but never deliver.

If the appointment of Roberts and Alito (just need one more), the fact that Carhart was about a ban passed under Republicans, the Hyde Amendment and other smaller acts, in a situation in which only the Supreme Court can return the decisionmaking about abortion to the people, are not enough for you, then I think you might want to re-examine your own sense of commitment to the prolife cause.

Neither party does anything of consequence for the poor, and neither has for decades. Granted, the Dem candidates now promise middle class welfare increases that might benefit you. Maybe they’ll deliver on them, maybe not. Decide where your heart really is. Perhaps one can be excused for supposing you already have.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Neither party does anything of consequence for the poor, and neither has for decades. Granted, the **Dem candidates now promise middle class welfare increases **that might benefit you. Maybe they’ll deliver on them, maybe not. Decide where your heart really is. Perhaps one can be excused for supposing you already have.

If these “middle class welfare increases” do for us what welfare did for the poor, I’ll take vanilla, thank you.

 

[Fitswimmer]

You are right about that frustation. The court that upheld Roe in 1992 was eight-ninths Republican. Eight-ninths! That may have been our best shot. Yet I keep being told, “Republicans only, Republicans always.”

Now we have another sixteen years of people growing accustomed to abortion, both here and in an increasing number of countries around the world. And at the same time, technology advances so that it becomes more and more possible to have abortions outside of a doctor’s office. And my hope dwindles…

My main frustation comes from the fact that in the 35 years of waiting, I have been told that I need to give a blank check to Republicans on all other issues. I have been told that no other social teaching of the Church remotely compares to abortion, so systematic violations of those teachings cannot even be considered when I go to the ballot box. I have been told on this very thread that voting for a pro-abortion candidate means “compromising my soul.” And all the while, there have been no meaningful results on abortion that have come from voting Republican and only Republican.

So, yes, I am frustrated.

I agree-and what I have chosen to do use my energy with private organizations that are helping mothers choose to have their children and helping them once the babies are born. I’ve chosen to invest in education of our children so that from the very earliest stage they understand the concept of life from womb to tomb and what our faith tells us about it.

When it comes to the voting booth, I have to view ALL of the candidates policies about all the issues that matter to me and choose the one that comes closest. I can’t vote single issue on any of them.

 

[Joe_5859]

If you pay any attention to the record, you are also just as frustrated with the Democrat failure to accomplish any of those “social benefits” they talk about so much but never deliver.

That’s a good point. I guess all our politicians are a little wanting in the “follow-through” category.

I remember in college, one of my very liberal teachers (she was a homosexual activist) told us how she felt sick to her stomach the day Clinton passed his welfare “reform”. It’s not just the Republicans that disappoint their constituency.

 

[Ender]

"DL82:

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.

Posters here on this board have fanfared the partial birth abortion ban as a major stride and proof of the that Republican’s pro-life intentions. I say it’s mere symbolism over substance.

These two arguments represent the bookends of the liberal approach abortion. On one hand it is argued that abortion shouldn’t be criminalized until the majority believe it to be immoral and on the other that Republican efforts to legally restrict abortions are “mere symbolism” because they don’t actually restrict them. That is, liberal Democrats chide Republicans both for trying to legally restrict abortions and for not making significant progress in work they oppose anyway.

If one really believes that hearts and minds have to be changed first, then symbolic victories such as the partial birth abortion ban should be cheered. That debate forced people who otherwise prefer to ignore the details of what actually occurs during an abortion to face the horrific nature of that particular action. Most people oppose it. Score one in the battle for hearts and minds.

Regarding the dismissive charge of “no substance” - this is disingenuous. There is no possibility of making substantial progress until Roe is overturned. There can only be small, mostly symbolic, gains so long as Roe survives. Until Roe is overturned there can never be any substantial progress, as both sides recognize.

Overturning Roe, however, is something I would think pro-life Democrats would support as this would not criminalize abortion. There is no national abortion policy; the laws restricting it are all state laws and not all states oppose it. That would seem to meet everyone’s objectives: substantial progress without new laws criminalizing it and, since control of the issue would be returned to the states, each state would debate the issue and people would become much better informed. That’s how hearts and minds are changed. What’s not to like?

So how come pro-life Democrats won’t work to overturn Roe when that is the only action that can possibly meet the objectives they claim to support?

Ender

 

[vern_humphrey]

These two arguments represent the bookends of the liberal approach abortion. On one hand it is argued that abortion shouldn’t be criminalized until the majority believe it to be immoral and on the other that Republican efforts to legally restrict abortions are “mere symbolism” because they don’t actually restrict them. That is, liberal Democrats chide Republicans both for trying to legally restrict abortions and for not making significant progress in work they oppose anyway.

The argument is “It can’t be done.” The “proof” is that liberals work as hard as they can to defeat anti-abortion measuires.

 

[frankadams]

So how come pro-life Democrats won’t work to overturn Roe when that is the only action that can possibly meet the objectives they claim to support?

Generally in these forums, “working to overturn Roe” means voting Republican and only Republican and ignoring any and all Republican principles and policies that violate Catholic social teaching because they are not as important as abortion.

I am told this despite the fact that a Republican-dominated Supreme Court created Roe in 1973 and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court (8 out of 9!!!) upheld Roe in 1992. But none of that seems to matter to many of the posters on this thread.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Generally in these forums, “working to overturn Roe” means voting Republican and only Republican and ignoring any and all Republican principles and policies that violate Catholic social teaching because they are not as important as abortion.

I am told this despite the fact that a Republican-dominated Supreme Court created Roe in 1973 and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court (8 out of 9!!!) upheld Roe in 1992. But none of that seems to matter to many of the posters on this thread.

Do you understand the meaning of that new word: “Borked”?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Generally in these forums, “working to overturn Roe” means voting Republican and only Republican and ignoring any and all Republican principles and policies that violate Catholic social teaching because they are not as important as abortion.

I am told this despite the fact that a Republican-dominated Supreme Court created Roe in 1973 and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court (8 out of 9!!!) upheld Roe in 1992. But none of that seems to matter to many of the posters on this thread.

Ah! You blame it on the Republican party then. And yet, you ignore the fact that it has changed in a prolife direction over the last several years, and also the fact that Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas are the latest Repub appointees. From a prolife standpoint, it’s the “only game in town” and nobody could possibly think otherwise.

You want to vote for the abortionist candidates, have already made up your mind that you will, and are going to do it. So if you are determined to violate the teachings of the Catholic Church concerning abortion, you’ll surely find fifty ways of rationalizing it. But it is doubly wrong to try to persuade others to do so as well.

 

[Ender]

… a Republican-dominated Supreme Court created Roe in 1973 and a Republican-dominated Supreme Court (8 out of 9!!!) upheld Roe in 1992.

One step at a time:

• do you agree or disagree that abortion can never be made illegal at either the state or federal level until Roe is overturned?
• do you believe that a Democrat president will ever nominate a Supreme Court justice about whom there is the slightest risk that he might vote to reverse Roe?

Regarding the 1992 case, I assume you are talking about the Casey decision. In that one, four justices (Scalia, Thomas, White, and Rehnquist) all joined the dissent that concluded: *“that a woman’s decision to abort her unborn child is not a constitutionally protected ‘liberty’.”

*The four justices ended their dissent by saying about abortion rulings: “We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.”? Is it not obvious how close the court is to overruling Roe? The pro-abortion people certainly recognize the danger.

Ender

 

[mapleoak]

It would prevent there from being Planned Parenthood clinics in poor neighborhoods actively pushing abortion as an “option” for pregnant women. It would prevent doctors from making money off of the practice.

You hit the nail on the head.

Ah, and that’s the point. Posters here on this board have fanfared the partial birth abortion ban as a major stride and proof of the Republicans’ pro-life intentions. I say it’s mere symbolism over substance.

This is an example of the inconsistancy of the liberal position. Lets see if I got this right, on the one hand the liberal position is saying that laws would be useless without a change of heart. On the other hand, moral victories such as the partial birth abortion ban which (in its symbolism) are frowned upon as being useless.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

You hit the nail on the head.

This is an example of the inconsistancy of the liberal position. Lets see if I got this right, on the one hand the liberal position is saying that laws would be useless without a change of heart. On the other hand, moral victories such as the partial birth abortion ban which (in its symbolism) are frowned upon as being useless.

A ‘moral victory’ that has makes no difference is useless except as a symbol.