A Left-Wing Pro-Life Perspective

[frankadams]

frankadams;3651418:

I guess it depends. Will the candidate who would appoint “prolife” justices be like the Republican presidents who appointed 6 of the 9 justices who gave us Roe in 1973? Or would he or she be more like the the Republican presidents who appointed 8 of the 9 justices that upheld Roe in 1992?

By the way, I was wondering why making an inquiry about the 8 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court that upheld Roe in 1992 that were appointed by Republicans somehow makes me guilty of “misrepresentation?”

 

[Ridgerunner]

Frankadams:

Somehow I knew you would evade the questions.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Scrolling up a bit, I think, despite all the red herrings and evasions, and returning to the actual topic, the actual “Left Wing Prolife Perspective” can be summarized as follows:

“Democrat victory trumps all.”

 

[Al_Masetti]

Ridgerunner;3653880:

By the way, I was wondering why making an inquiry about the 8 of the 9 justices on the Supreme Court that upheld Roe in 1992 that were appointed by Republicans somehow makes me guilty of “misrepresentation?”

Remember what happened to Robert Bork and what the Liberals did to him during his confirmation hearing.

Don’t forget the Democrat/Liberal Republican alliance in the Senate … to prevent strict Constitutionalists / original intent judges from being confirmed.

Don’t forget the threatened filibusters.

confirmthem.com/

Don’t forget how California pro-life voters stayed home and allowed a pro-choice Democrat [Alan Cranston] to be elected to the Senate and that was one more vote against Bork. [In truth, Bork may have been defeated anyway. But keep in mind that it was the left wingers who have consistently voted to keep pro-life judges off the Supreme Court.]

 

[Al_Masetti]

At Robert Bork’s Senate confirmation hearing … when Ronald Reagan nominated him for the Supreme Court … Bork answered questions freely and openly.

He got slaughtered.

Reagan and subsequent presidents caved to the left wing and nominated left-wing candidates.

Roberts and Alito were nominated by George W. Bush and those nominees basically kept their mouths shut. Said as little as possible.

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/08/INGODGH99O1.DTL&hw=Charles+Geyh&sn=001&sc=1000

 

[frankadams]

Frankadams:

Somehow I knew you would evade the questions.

Actually, you asked me only one question. And secondly, I answered it by writing “the former.” If you wish to explain how this constitutes an “evasion,” kindly elaborate.

 

[Joe_5859]

There’s a lot of back and forth about the Church and the war in Iraq. It seems to me that much of the conversation seems almost exclusively focused on what the pope or USCCB said before the war.

The fact is, we are there now. On one level, it doesn’t matter how we got there, we are there. Now that we are there, what is the best thing we can do? Do we leave immediately, or do we stay and clean things up?

And a further question would be, do we honestly see any of the three major candidates for this November doing an immediate withdrawal? Now that we’re already there, how different would the policy really be for the three candidates?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I take the Pope’s appointed spokesman at his word.

No, you don’t – you merely use his words (and all other pronouncements of the Church) as a springboard for your opinions.

Security and civil order are the responsibility of an occupying force.

Conversely, if a country provides aid to militias, it is morally complicent in their acts.

One of the biggest problems with your response is the concept that there are even clearly identifiable ‘sides’ in Iraq. Us and Them plays well on Fox News, but bears no relationship to the complex, multi factional reality of violence and conflict in Iraq.

Take the recent Shia/Shia conflicts. The simplistic view would be, Us backed ‘good’, Iran backed ‘bad’. But that has not been the reality. All Shia groups get aid from Iran, the US was actually backing the group with the strongest ties to Iran. Not really intentionally, but because we got forced into pre-election power play by our current would-be sock puppet.

When you look into US/Sunni relationships, it becomes more convoluted still. As with some Shia groups, we are aiding and arming groups who, in turn, attack US troops, often with the more sophisticated tactics we just taught them.

Small wonder that 5 years and $750M a day and we still cannot secure the fortified Green Zone or the short road to the airport. It makes Pope John Paull II’s warnings look all the more astute.

I appreciate your take on the situation in Iraq. But I note you are not an instructor at the Command and General Staff College.

 

[Drlit]

EVERYBODY MUST MUST SEE GLENN BECK TONIGHT (MAY 8) on CNN HEADLINE NEWS!!!

There is a doctor on who believes that LIFE does not begin until AGE 2!!! And that it should be legal to kill your handicapped, physically deformed or ill child prior to that age!!!

It is what I have been saying for years, the ABORTION MENTALITY will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.

I read an article (in Utne Reader I think) where a guy said that a fetus is not protected by the Right to Life because it doesn’t have a birth certificate. Hence, a new-born child left in a dumpster isn’t a protected human either!!!

Now someone proposes to raise the age of “real life” to 2 YEARS!!!

Watch and learn!

 

[frankadams]

It is what I have been saying for years, the ABORTION MENTALITY will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.

You are in conformity with the Church, which likewise has stated for years that “the abortion mentality will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.”

The Church has likewise stated that capital punishment and war also lead to a “general disrespect for life,” i.e. a “culture of death.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

You are in conformity with the Church, which likewise has stated for years that “the abortion mentality will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.”

The Church has likewise stated that capital punishment and war also lead to a “general disrespect for life,” i.e. a “culture of death.”

So we should all vote for anti-war, pro-abortion politicians.

 

[frankadams]

Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You are in conformity with the Church, which likewise has stated for years that “the abortion mentality will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.”

The Church has likewise stated that capital punishment and war also lead to a “general disrespect for life,” i.e. a “culture of death.”

So we should all vote for anti-war, pro-abortion politicians.

I disagree. Perhaps rather than drawing erroneous conclusions, you might tell me what is inaccurate about my above statement.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Originally Posted by frankadams forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
You are in conformity with the Church, which likewise has stated for years that “the abortion mentality will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.”

The Church has likewise stated that capital punishment and war also lead to a “general disrespect for life,” i.e. a “culture of death.”

I disagree. Perhaps rather than drawing erroneous conclusions, you might tell me what is inaccurate about my above statement.

So you agree – we should vote for the pro-life politician, against the pro-choice politician, even if the latter is “right” on some other issues?

 

[frankadams]

So you agree – we should vote for the pro-life politician, against the pro-choice politician, even if the latter is “right” on some other issues?

Vern, I already answered this question for you earlier today. Rather than repeat my answer, I was hoping you would have the courtesy to answer my question about what you find erroneous in regards to my comment about the “culture of death.”

 

[frankadams]

This is the comment of yours that I disagree with…

So we should all vote for anti-war, pro-abortion politicians

 

[Ender]

… the Church, … has stated for years that “the abortion mentality will ultimately lead to a general disrespect for life.”

I think, depending on who’s life is at stake, this is either true or untrue.

The Church has likewise stated that capital punishment and war also lead to a “general disrespect for life,” i.e. a “culture of death.”

I personally find this conclusion questionable. It has been pointed out that opposition to capital punishment arose first in more secular nations while it was supported by more religious (especially Christian) ones. It has been suggested that this is because of the difference in the perspective one view has on life versus the other. Where life is held to be all there is (the secular view) it will be held as the highest importance of all, but the Christian view of life is different and it is the afterlife that is most significant - which accepts the concept of relinquishing one’s life in expiation of one’s sins.

It seems to me that lumping all these “life” issues together has caused us to lose sight of what’s really significant about Christian teaching. The debate is being held in secularist terms.

Ender

 

[frankadams]

I think, depending on who’s life is at stake, this is either true or untrue.
I personally find this conclusion questionable. It has been pointed out that opposition to capital punishment arose first in more secular nations while it was supported by more religious (especially Christian) ones. It has been suggested that this is because of the difference in the perspective one view has on life versus the other. Where life is held to be all there is (the secular view) it will be held as the highest importance of all, but the Christian view of life is different and it is the afterlife that is most significant - which accepts the concept of relinquishing one’s life in expiation of one’s sins.

It seems to me that lumping all these “life” issues together has caused us to lose sight of what’s really significant about Christian teaching. The debate is being held in secularist terms.

Ender

This is simply the language of the Catholic Church: that all attacks upon the inviolability of human life contribute to a culture in which *all *human life becomes less valued. To me, the Church’s conclusion seems well-reasoned. But there is, to be certain, a predictive element there, and so I will concede that it is possible that attacks on human life in one realm may not necessarily lead to a diminished respect for all human life.

However, my point is that this (“culture of life,” “culture of death,” “consistent ethic of life,” etc.) is how our Church speaks about life issues. I don’t find this to be a “questionable” conclusion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Vern, I already answered this question for you earlier today. Rather than repeat my answer, I was hoping you would have the courtesy to answer my question about what you find erroneous in regards to my comment about the “culture of death.”

In the front rank of the “culture of death” is abortion. Abortion in this country has killed four times as many innocent people as the Nazi Holocaust. Abortion is intrinsically evil.

We have an obligation to save all we can. If I, by my actions, can save one child I am obligated to do it.

We cannot “balance” abortion against some other issue that is subject to prudential judgement.

I get the impression that you disagree with that – that you hold that we can pile up other, lesser issues, until they outweigh the slaughter of the innocent. I get the impression that if a pro-choice candidate is not “perfect” (and no candidate can ever be perfect) it is licit to vote for a pro-choice candidate, including those who are members of a party which not only supports abortion, but wants the public to pay for it.

Now if I’m wrong, speak up.

 

[vern_humphrey]

This is simply the language of the Catholic Church: that all attacks upon the inviolability of human life contribute to a culture in which *all *human life becomes less valued. To me, the Church’s conclusion seems well-reasoned. But there is, to be certain, a predictive element there, and so I will concede that it is possible that attacks on human life in one realm may not necessarily lead to a diminished respect for all human life.

However, my point is that this (“culture of life,” “culture of death,” “consistent ethic of life,” etc.) is how our Church speaks about life issues. I don’t find this to be a “questionable” conclusion.

The questionable conclusion is the one that says, “Well, if you consider the candidate’s position on matters of prudential judgement as being equal to or outweighing things like abortion, it’s morally acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, whose party stands for taxpayer-funded abortion.”

That seems to be the underlying thread here. Correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[frankadams]

The questionable conclusion is the one that says, “Well, if you consider the candidate’s position on matters of prudential judgement as being equal to or outweighing things like abortion, it’s morally acceptable to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, whose party stands for taxpayer-funded abortion.”

That seems to be the underlying thread here. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Actually, the poster I was responding to was Ender. And the “questionable conclusion” to which he was referring was an assertion I made in my post about the “culture of death.”

Consider yourself corrected.