A Left-Wing Pro-Life Perspective

[Ridgerunner]

Please stop using the word hate. I don’t hate Bush. I don’t hate anybody. And I now oppose Bush because of his involving us in Iraq so you have that backwards. And I don’t recall what words JPII used but he did warn the presdient strongly that it would make things worse by going in. When you consider that Christians at least had amnesty under Hussein whereas now they don’t he probably was right. Of course I am more willing to honor the foresight of the Pope than the President.

I’m willling to stipulate that you, Jim, do not hate Bush. But you cannot credibly maintain that Bush hatred is not pervasive among Dems.

Never did JPII say U.S. involvement in the Iraq War was evil or unjust. He might well have believed it was not prudent. But that’s a different thing.

Nobody had “amnesty” under Saddam Hussein. I know a Chaldean lady who is related to Tariq Aziz. Her branch of the family committed the crime, not of being Christian, but of being part Kurdish and part Turk, thus being under Saddam’s suspicion. Being related to Aziz and being Christian didn’t help a bit. So her part of the family was tortured, murdered and exiled. While privileged, Aziz was a prisoner every day of his life, and lived in peril every day. All Christians did. Christians were not persecuted by Saddam because they were useful to him. Since they had no political constituency, they could be relied upon to serve Saddam unless, of course, they gave him reason to suspect them; reasons like being part Kurd or Turk, or just because.

It is terrible that Islamic terrorists persecute Christians in Iraq. But not all Iraqis are terrorists, and it is against precisely those terrorists that Bush and the Congress and thirty-some countries went to war. And are Sunnis and Shiites any safer from the terrorists? If you’re blown apart by murderers, it hardly matters whether it happens because you’re a Christian, because you’re a Turkoman or because you just happened to be shopping for vegetables in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[DL82]

DL82 wrote

If no one is truly Pro-ABortion as you say here then why was March 10th 2008 the National Day of Appreciation of Abortion Providers ???

In fact there are specifically people wo are Pro-Abortion, people who believe that an aborted baby is the best baby …

Look at the rational … better than being* unwanted* or growing up in poverty you wrote …

Well … unwanted by whom? … just the mother? … what about society? What if Jonas Salk’s mother had not wanted him … would the world have still wanted the polio vacine? What of the father, the siblings yet to be born, the grandparents or the childless couple willing to adopt? …

Abe Lincoln was born in poverty and a host of others … Martin Luther King, Jr … George Washington Carver, Ghandi… not everyone is a Kennedy or a Roosevelt, Hilton or De Beers … many of the worlds finest people overame poverty and disadvantages to make our world a better place …

I’m not saying the point of view that says abortion is better than the alternative is rational, I’m merely stating what the pro-choice lobby argues. Their words, not mine. I’m pretty sure the appreciation day was in appreciation of the difficult job they do for mothers in ‘necessity’ too, not saying everybody should have an abortion, or that abortion is a jolly happy event that should be celebrated.

I’m sure there are some Republicans who would happily have a day of appreciation for state executioners too! That brings me on to another argument against abortion - nobody’s job should require them to degrade themselves and commit mortal sin. That includes executioners, pornographers, prostitutes, abortionists, and anyone else who has sunk so far down the social ladder that they are forced to sell their soul on a daily basis. Nobody should be so desperate that they have to do these jobs.

 

[Joe_5859]

A lot of people talk about the pope’s or the USCCB’s statements on the Iraq war before it started. I do remember that coming up a lot in the news at the time. Have the pope or US Bishops said anything after the war started asking the US to withdraw from Iraq?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I’m sure there are some Republicans who would happily have a day of appreciation for state executioners too!

Ah, the old “They didn’t actually do this, but I think they would, so they’re guilty” ploy, eh?

 

[frankadams]

I say that because I challenged your claim that the Republican Platform contradicts Catholic teaching. When you run away from that and try to introduce other materials, you’re blowing smoke up my kilts.

Simply post the relevant parts of the Republican Platform, and the relevant Catholic doctrine that is in opposition to that platform.

You are trying to raise a smokescreen – for example, claiming the use of a technique to which we routinely subject men in training is “torture.”

So stop trying to blow smoke up my kilts and post the Republican Platform, and the opposing Catholic doctrine, or admit you’re wrong.

The Republican Platform is 92 pages long! The section detailing the justification for the war and the “success” of the war is several pages long! Do you mean we can’t have this exchange if I don’t post all of that?

I planned to go through the Republican Platform point-by-point to make my case. I posted the link to said platform that you can check out at your leisure. I am not copying and pasting 92 pages into hundreds of posts to satisfy this frivolous demand. If in your mind, this constitutes me “admitting I’m wrong,” so be it.

 

[frankadams]

A lot of people talk about the pope’s or the USCCB’s statements on the Iraq war before it started. I do remember that coming up a lot in the news at the time. Have the pope or US Bishops said anything after the war started asking the US to withdraw from Iraq?

The Vatican and especially the USCCB have issued multiple docments regarding post-war Iraq. None calls for an immediate withdrawal. A quick Google search (both the Vatican and the USCCB have poor internal search engines) can lead you to those documents.

 

[goofyjim]

I’m willling to stipulate that you, Jim, do not hate Bush. But you cannot credibly maintain that Bush hatred is not pervasive among Dems.

Never did JPII say U.S. involvement in the Iraq War was evil or unjust. He might well have believed it was not prudent. But that’s a different thing.

Nobody had “amnesty” under Saddam Hussein. I know a Chaldean lady who is related to Tariq Aziz. Her branch of the family committed the crime, not of being Christian, but of being part Kurdish and part Turk, thus being under Saddam’s suspicion. Being related to Aziz and being Christian didn’t help a bit. So her part of the family was tortured, murdered and exiled. While privileged, Aziz was a prisoner every day of his life, and lived in peril every day. All Christians did. Christians were not persecuted by Saddam because they were useful to him. Since they had no political constituency, they could be relied upon to serve Saddam unless, of course, they gave him reason to suspect them; reasons like being part Kurd or Turk, or just because.

It is terrible that Islamic terrorists persecute Christians in Iraq. But not all Iraqis are terrorists, and it is against precisely those terrorists that Bush and the Congress and thirty-some countries went to war. And are Sunnis and Shiites any safer from the terrorists? If you’re blown apart by murderers, it hardly matters whether it happens because you’re a Christian, because you’re a Turkoman or because you just happened to be shopping for vegetables in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The same could be said about the Republicans hating Clinton. You are judgin the hearts of the Democrats saying they hate while assuming the Republicans are all just full of love. Oh brother. I would rather assume that noone hates and not read the hearts of anybody.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The Republican Platform is 92 pages long! The section detailing the justification for the war and the “success” of the war is several pages long! Do you mean we can’t have this exchange if I don’t post all of that?

I planned to go through the Republican Platform point-by-point to make my case. I posted the link to said platform that you can check out at your leisure. I am not copying and pasting 92 pages into hundreds of posts to satisfy this frivolous demand. If in your mind, this constitutes me “admitting I’m wrong,” so be it.

Enough with the excuses. Simply post the relevant parts of the Republican Platform, and the relevant Catholic doctrine that is in opposition to that platform.

Watch me do it for the Democratic Party Platform:

**Pursue embryonic stem cell research **
Pres. Bush has rejected the calls from Nancy Reagan, Christopher Reeve & Americans across the land for assistance with embryonic stem cell research. We will reverse his wrongheaded policy. Stem cell therapy offers hope to more than 100 million Americans who have serious illnesses-from Alzheimer’s to heart disease to juvenile diabetes to Parkinson’s. We will pursue this research under the strictest ethical guidelines, but we will not walk away from the chance to save lives and reduce human suffering.

Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.29

And here’s the Catholic moral doctrine violated by that excerpt, straight from the Catechism:

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."83

"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."84

"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"85 which are unique and unrepeatable.

**Support right to choose even if mother cannot pay **

Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. At the same time, we strongly support family planning and adoption incentives. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36

And here’s what the Catechism says about that:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

Now you do it with the Republican platform!

 

[frankadams]

Simply post the relevant parts of the Republican Platform, and the relevant Catholic doctrine that is in opposition to that platform.

That was part of the idea. You and I both know what the Catechism says about abortion, and I won’t require you to post it all. But let’s start with something that won’t require ten pages of the Republican Platform…

“Faithful Citizenship” USCCB:
“Where the effects of past discrimination persist, society has the obligation to take positive steps to overcome the legacy of injustice."

“We support judiciously administered affirmative action programs as tools to overcome discrimination and its continuing effects.”

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE ***CONTRIBUTION TO WORLD CONFERENCE ***

***AGAINST RACISM, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, ***
XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE
(Durban, 31 August - 7 September 2001)

Positive discrimination as a means of counteracting racism and forms of discrimination

1. Regarding “good practices to promote” and more especially what is called “positive discrimination” or “affirmative distinctions”, it is well known that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, of 21 December 1965, envisages in Article 1, 4 the possibility of adopting special measures "for the sole purpose of securing adequate advancement of certain racial or ethnic groups or individuals requiring such protection as may be necessary in order to ensure such groups or individuals equal enjoyment or exercise of human rights … " (the Holy See ratified this Convention in 1969; see CR, Part IV, n. 30. See also the Holy See’s Report to CERD, n. 4 k: “So far as the *International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination *is concerned, the Holy See takes special pleasure in reiterating its support of the Convention as the Catholic Church considers it its duty to preach the equal dignity of all human beings, created by God in His image”).

On this basis of “affirmative action”, various countries have adopted legislation providing special protection notably for indigenous peoples and minorities. These voluntary measures are intended to ensure effective recognition of the equality of all, for example by facilitating access to bank loans for a particular category of the population. There are different systems of applying such measures: the many more or less obligatory provisions for *affirmative action, *the system of quotas imposing a fixed percentage of one or other group of people (in public employment, schools, universities, elections …), etc.

1. The choice of this kind of policy remains controversial. There is a real risk that such measures will crystallize differences rather than foster social cohesion, that in the area of employment or political life, for example, there will be recruitment or election of individuals on the basis of their ethnic group rather than their competence, and finally that freedom of choice will be compromised. Those who support these voluntary policies reply that it is not enough to recognize equality - it has to be created. And in fact it cannot be denied that the weight of historical, social and cultural precedents requires at times positive action by States.

The Catholic Church is always keen to defend the reality of the concrete person, situated in history (cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter *Redemptor hominis *[4 March 1979], n. 13), and she calls for effective respect for human rights. These policies are legitimate to the extent that they respect the prudent reserve of Article 1, 4 of the 1965 Convention, which provides that these measures of positive discrimination must be temporary, that they ought not have the effect of maintaining different rights for different groups, and that they must not be kept in force once their objectives have been achieved.

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST…

 

[frankadams]

Republican Platform
Ensuring Equal Opportunities
Our nation is a land of opportunity for all, and our communities must represent
the ideal of equality and justice for every citizen. The Republican Party favors
aggressive, proactive measures to ensure that no individual is discriminated against on
the basis of race, national origin, gender, or other characteristics covered by our civil
rights laws. We also favor recruitment and outreach policies that cast the widest possible
net so that the best qualified individuals are encouraged to apply for jobs, contracts, and
university admissions. We believe in the principle of affirmative access – taking steps to
ensure that disadvantaged individuals of all colors and ethnic backgrounds have the
opportunity to compete economically and that no child is left behind educationally. We
support a reasonable approach to Title IX that seeks to expand opportunities for women
without adversely affecting men’s athletics. We praise President Bush for his strong
record on civil rights enforcement, and for becoming the first President ever to ban racial
profiling by the federal government. Finally, because we are opposed to discrimination,
we reject preferences, quotas, and set-asides based on skin color, ethnicity, or gender,
which perpetuate divisions and can lead people to question the accomplishments of
successful minorities and women.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Congratulations! You have just shown a section of the Republican platform that echos Catholic morality.

But wait – you were trying to prove the opposite, weren’t you?

 

[frankadams]

Congratulations! You have just shown a section of the Republican platform that echos Catholic morality.

But wait – you were trying to prove the opposite, weren’t you?

Your statement is true only if you failed to read what the bishops and the Pope say, rather than what you wish for them to say.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Your statement is true only if you failed to read what the bishops and the Pope say, rather than what you wish for them to say.

I read exactly what they said – read it several times, in fact.

Suppose you explain to us how the quoted section of the Republican platform contradicts the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s call for voluntary measures?

And then explain how the Democrats, by resisting all measures to improve schools, and hold them accountable, are in compliance with this document?

 

[frankadams]

I read exactly what they said – read it several times, in fact.

Suppose you explain to us how the quoted section of the Republican platform contradicts the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s call for voluntary measures?

The USCCB calls for “judiciously administered affirmative action programs.” Affirmative action programs involve “preferences.” The Republican platform condemns “preferences.”

The Pontifical Council calls for “positive discrimination” when necessary. That also involves “preferences.” The Republican platform condemns “preferences.”

 

[goofyjim]

I read exactly what they said – read it several times, in fact.

Suppose you explain to us how the quoted section of the Republican platform contradicts the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s call for voluntary measures?

And then explain how the Democrats, by resisting all measures to improve schools, and hold them accountable, are in compliance with this document?

They want to improve schools as well. They just have different approaches to doing so. I thought we were arguing about the prolife perspective here? One can be prolife and leftist and a Catholic all at the same time.

 

[frankadams]

And then explain how the Democrats, by resisting all measures to improve schools, and hold them accountable, are in compliance with this document?

If I were to employ your line of reasoning, I guess I would ask where in the Democratic platform they announce their intention to “resist all measures to improve schools and hold them accountable.” But I won’t do that. If you wish to cite specific Democratic policies that would say/do as much, I will accept that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

The USCCB calls for “judiciously administered affirmative action programs.” Affirmative action programs involve “preferences.” The Republican platform condemns “preferences.”

Ah, so you’re the one who reads what he wants to read, not what the document says.

The Pontifical Council calls for “positive discrimination”** when necessary.** That also involves “preferences.” The Republican platform condemns “preferences.”

Note the bolded text.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If I were to employ your line of reasoning, I guess I would ask where in the Democratic platform they announce their intention to “resist all measures to improve schools and hold them accountable.” But I won’t do that. If you wish to cite specific Democratic policies that would say/do as much, I will accept that.

When I ran for Congress in '04, the incumbent Democrat made a big thing of opposing “No Child Left Behind.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

They want to improve schools as well. They just have different approaches to doing so. I thought we were arguing about the prolife perspective here? One can be prolife and leftist and a Catholic all at the same time.

Are you talking about the Democratic Party, the party of the teachers unions? The Democratic Party which vigorously resists all attempts to hold schools accountable? The party which runs most of the largest 50 cities in the country, which have a combined high school dropout rate of 50%?

That party wants to improve schools?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The same could be said about the Republicans hating Clinton. You are judgin the hearts of the Democrats saying they hate while assuming the Republicans are all just full of love. Oh brother. I would rather assume that noone hates and not read the hearts of anybody.

No, Jim. I never said the Repubs didn’t hate Clinton. Many did. Nor did I say all Repubs are full of love. They’re not. I’m not saying all Dems hate Bush, but one would have to blind and deaf not to see all the anti-Bush ire that constantly comes from Dem representatives. If he’s not too stupid to draw breath and keep his heart going at the same time, he’s diabolically clever and “fooled” the entire Senate and House of Represenatives. He’s a torturer, promoter of an unjust war and a hater of the poor. You can read that stuff right in here on CAF. I have lived a good while, but never have I seen the vitriol that has been a constant after about the first year of Bush’s administration. Even Rush Limbaugh, the bete noir of conservative talk shows, doesn’t descend to the nastiness of Oelbermann (sp?) or Bill Maher. He’s not even close.

No, Jim, it’s not a balanced sheet. There’s real hatred among Democrats, though likely not all. I’ll make a prediction for you. If the female Dem candidate gets elected in the Fall, you’ll find that she’s even more warlike than Bush. But you won’t find every news outlet and every commentator or Dem Party representative accusing her of being evil for it. That candidate will get a pass from Dems, who will then support that candidate’s support of the war (and perhaps other wars). Remember, you first heard it here. Maybe, Jim, if that one gets elected, we can discuss that again in, oh, two and a half years? And maybe if the other Dem gets elected in the Fall, we can meet to discuss why we got involved in some nutty war with Pakistan. (He said he would go in there militarily, you know, and got a pass.)