A Left-Wing Pro-Life Perspective

[mapleoak]

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

It goes along with that ‘change of heart’ in society being promoted by liberals in this thread, and that is exactly what a moral or symbolic victory promotes. Yet, when there is actually something done to help promote that change of heart, who is the first to attack it as useless? You guessed it.

 

[BamaRider]

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.

Look here brother, this is where ya have it wrong. We don’t feel voting conservative on the issues contradicts our Catholic Faith. I agree with the Church when She says, unjust war is wrong, the DP unless in extreme cases, and feedimg the hungry, there is debate between lib and conservative how we go about those those items.

We’ve had that talk on this thread if ya wanna go back about 25 pages. But it usually consists of Vern posting from the CCC and someone telling him he doesn’t understand what he just read. LOL.

But there is no debate abortion is wrong. You put a plan out here on how rid us of it and every conservative on this board will listen. All ya gotta do is present us with a liberal candidate with a sure plan to do a end run on Row v Wade, and we’ll take a look.

But the thing is ya can’t. Pro life and liberal right now is a oxymoron. That species doesn’t currently exist, so you gotta make a call, not us..

Y’all kick and scream when a guy like the RidgeRunner, who is not party loyal, comes on here and says," I vote the best I can for what I believe, I don’t get all I want, but I get most of it." And y’all say he is “compromising.” No he’s *not *he still believes what he believes, so instead of gettign NONE, (what those do that sit out for vote for some wackon 3rd party that is not gonna win dog catcher on a good day. He’s gonna get some of what he wanted, and keep working on the rest.

But we can have a guy with a distinct pro life heart, who will appoint conservative (many of them Catholic) judges in courts across this land. but y’all dismiss him because he wont jack up the minimum wage, and wants to cut the rate of growth for some social program from 6% to 4%. When that happens libs jump up and down and proclaim the repubs are cutting social programs, when all they’re doing is cutting the rate of growth!

Just so happens our guys not only agree with us on abortion, but most secular issues. My issue with the current crop of repubs has not been their* abortion *stance, but what they’ve been doin regarding their secular agenda such as “no child life behind,” which dems were bemoaning as soon as the ink dried, never mind Ted Kennedy helped write it!

It appears you’ve made your choice, your secular agenda has trumped how ya feel on abortion, at least you’re honest.

 

[rlg94086]

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

Oh…I see you have come around to my way of thinking when it comes to voting third party.

 

[Nom_the_Wise]

Years ago when I did retreats for kids, one of my buddies did a talk about how the American Eagle’s eggs are Federally protected, to demonstrate the Government’s hypocrisy by recognizing an unborn eagle but not an unborn human. I just looked it up to check to see if that was still in effect and it is: 10G’s or 10 years in prison for so much as owning a piece of an American Eagle, an egg etc. (unless you’re a Native American with a permit to use Eagles in religious ceremonies).

The other thing he brought up in his talk was how farmers with pregnant cows can write off unborn cows on their taxes, another example of recognizing a living unborn cow but not a human. I have been trying to google this but I suppose my search parameters have been vague.** I figured someone on this thread would know if unborn cattle can still be declared on taxes ** I’m writing a piece and I need to know. Thanks.

 

[mapleoak]

Oh…I see you have come around to my way of thinking when it comes to voting third party.

 

[mapleoak]

But we can have a guy with a distinct pro life heart, who will appoint conservative (many of them Catholic) judges in courts across this land. but y’all dismiss him because he wont jack up the minimum wage, and wants to cut the rate of growth for some social program from 6% to 4%. When that happens libs jump up and down and proclaim the repubs are cutting social programs, when all they’re doing is cutting the rate of growth!

It appears you’ve made your choice, your secular agenda has trumped how ya feel on abortion, at least you’re honest.

This is the heart of the matter. Social programs and any other agenda which benefits ME rather than that which benefits others, those least among us who currently are in MOST need.

 

[Al_Masetti]

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

I see that there is a lot of criticism about the Republicans not getting rid of abortion.

But not one mention of how the Democrats got rid of Bork.

Does ANYONE care to comment on what happened to Robert Bork?

It is central to the issue of the pro-life cause!

 

[quasimodo]

Random thoughts:

There is nothing the legislatures or either party can do about ending abortion - it has to come from the courts - which is why the presidency is important.

Even if the supreme court overturns Roe, the states will still have the ability to allow abortion.

Roe v Wade was a bad decision because it relied on words not actually in the constitution which therefore became a document governed by Humpty Dumpty (‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’ Through the Looking Glass)

A pro-life liberal has no political way to express himself and therefore has politically emasculated himself - Like Ray Flynn - former ambassador to the Holy See - Flynn supports someone for president who has never seen an abortion the taxpayer shouldn’t pick up the tab for. He claims to be pro-life.

 

[rlg94086]

Random thoughts:

There is nothing the legislatures or either party can do about ending abortion - it has to come from the courts - which is why the presidency is important.

Actually, that isn’t true. If an amendment is to be passed, it has to start from the House or Senate. We are far from having enough pro-lifers in the legislature to pass an amendment, but I wouldn’t say that they can do nothing.

quasimodo:

Even if the supreme court overturns Roe, the states will still have the ability to allow abortion.

Roe v Wade was a bad decision because it relied on words not actually in the constitution which therefore became a document governed by Humpty Dumpty (‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’ Through the Looking Glass)

Yes, Roe v Wade was a bad decision, and I agree with you the presidency is important so we can continue to get judges who won’t try to legislate from the bench.

quasimodo:

A pro-life liberal has no political way to express himself and therefore has politically emasculated himself - Like Ray Flynn - former ambassador to the Holy See - Flynn supports someone for president who has never seen an abortion the taxpayer shouldn’t pick up the tab for. He claims to be pro-life.

Agreed. Another good example is Harry Reid. He is on the list of “pro-lifers” someone placed on the thread. As majority leader in the Senate, I doubt he would go against his party if a pro-life bill came up.

 

[mapleoak]

There is nothing the legislatures or either party can do about ending abortion - it has to come from the courts - which is why the presidency is important.

Note that the judiciary doesn’t legislate (or is not supposed to). It interprets legislation.

 

[quasimodo]

Note that the judiciary doesn’t legislate (or is not supposed to). It interprets legislation.

In Roe, the court compared existing legislation with their private reading of words not actually found in the Constitution and found the legislation wanting. From that point onward only the court can correct the error.

An amendment is a dream not to be realized in time to save millions of babies (if it ain’t a baby - you ain’t pregnant)

 

[rlg94086]

In Roe, the court compared existing legislation with their private reading of words not actually found in the Constitution and found the legislation wanting. From that point onward only the court can correct the error.

An amendment is a dream not to be realized in time to save millions of babies (if it ain’t a baby - you ain’t pregnant)

If everyone took that same viewpoint, we would still have slavery in this country and women wouldn’t be voting. Amendments take time and a lot of hard work. Don’t dismiss it as a dream and give up. Get out there and do something to make that “dream” become reality.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. While we get justices on the bench who may someday overturn Roe v Wade (some dismiss that as a dream too btw ), we also need to work on changing hearts and minds so that 75% of the people will be in favor of an amendment.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If everyone took that same viewpoint, we would still have slavery in this country and women wouldn’t be voting. Amendments take time and a lot of hard work. Don’t dismiss it as a dream and give up. Get out there and do something to make that “dream” become reality.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. While we get justices on the bench who may someday overturn Roe v Wade (some dismiss that as a dream too btw ), we also need to work on changing hearts and minds so that 75% of the people will be in favor of an amendment.

At the risk of repeating myself, “However long it takes, if we wait until tomorrow to start it will take one day longer.”

 

[mapleoak]

An amendment is a dream not to be realized in time to save millions of babies (if it ain’t a baby - you ain’t pregnant)

Self defeat is our own worst enemy.

 

[quasimodo]

If everyone took that same viewpoint, we would still have slavery in this country and women wouldn’t be voting. Amendments take time and a lot of hard work. Don’t dismiss it as a dream and give up. Get out there and do something to make that “dream” become reality.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. While we get justices on the bench who may someday overturn Roe v Wade (some dismiss that as a dream too btw ), we also need to work on changing hearts and minds so that 75% of the people will be in favor of an amendment.

(engaging in typical internet argumentation …)So, you want another Civil War? We got the 13th amendment as a strategic move in the Civil War, NOT as a result of the fine sentiments of the abolitionists. Suffrage was not nearly as divisive. “Pro-life” liberals can hold out the desire for such an amendment to make themselves feel better, but it is a very small fig leaf practically speaking.

I never said we should not work on minds and hearts. Another 40 years should close the gap … maybe.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I see that there is a lot of criticism about the Republicans not getting rid of abortion.

But not one mention of how the Democrats got rid of Bork.

Does ANYONE care to comment on what happened to Robert Bork?

It is central to the issue of the pro-life cause!

Gee. Still not one remark about what “they” did to Robert Bork.

Why is that???

Hmmmmmm???

 

[sacredcello]

Gee. Still not one remark about what “they” did to Robert Bork.

Why is that???

Hmmmmmm???

The Jesuits sent some of their brightest young priests to Washington to serve on a commission to defeat the Bork nomination.

This is true, by the way – one of these Jesuit Fathers was our pastor who just recently died and I learned this about him at the funeral.

 

[rlg94086]

(engaging in typical internet argumentation …)So, you want another Civil War? We got the 13th amendment as a strategic move in the Civil War, NOT as a result of the fine sentiments of the abolitionists. Suffrage was not nearly as divisive. “Pro-life” liberals can hold out the desire for such an amendment to make themselves feel better, but it is a very small fig leaf practically speaking.

I never said we should not work on minds and hearts. Another 40 years should close the gap … maybe.

There are “‘pro-life’ liberals” who are in favor of amending the Constitution to protect the unborn? Where? Let’s get them to join the cause and sign petitions!

 

[mapleoak]

(engaging in typical internet argumentation …)So, you want another Civil War? We got the 13th amendment as a strategic move in the Civil War, NOT as a result of the fine sentiments of the abolitionists.

The 13th amendment was proposed before the end of the Civil War and signed into law after its end. Strategic move?

 

[goofyjim]

There are “‘pro-life’ liberals” who are in favor of amending the Constitution to protect the unborn? Where? Let’s get them to join the cause and sign petitions!

I’m one.