A Left-Wing Pro-Life Perspective

[vern_humphrey]

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.

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.

Again, Vern, I will correct you. Ender used the phrase “questionable conclusion” to refer to somthing I wrote about the “culture of death,” not about candidates. I responded, and you quoted me, fabricating the “questionable conclusion” (yet again) to suit your own purposes.

 

[Al_Masetti]

… 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

In my opinion, this is the absolutely correct statement of the crux of the entire issue.

Some years ago, some religious put on a lecture in which they actually said “if you have your health, you have everything.”

I replied that’s not the way I was brought up. The way I was brought up … if you still have your SOUL, you have everything. Health is incidental. The soul comes first.

My statement really caused a lot of consternation.

There was a priest present and he remarked that I was actually correct.

There seems to have been a loss of the sense of perspective. We have bought into or accepted the secular debate on THEIR terms.

We need to turn the debate back to Christian principles.

[My goodness, we could even turn to the debate back to Hindu or Muslim principles, for that matter. We need to get back to puttng God first. God is the Infinite Creator. And we humans are mere fabrications; we walk and talk and we drink and we wet. And we think we are hot stuff. But God is Infinite.]

 

[vern_humphrey]

Again, Vern, I will correct you. Ender used the phrase “questionable conclusion” to refer to somthing I wrote about the “culture of death,” not about candidates. I responded, and you quoted me, fabricating the “questionable conclusion” (yet again) to suit your own purposes.

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.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

I owe you an apology, Frankadams, and you have it, at least in part.

Anyway, I think I do. The question was:
“As between two presidential candidates, one of whom supports the continued legality of abortion but opposes the Iraq war (leaving aside who “really” does) and one who would appoint prolife justices to the Supreme Court but would continue the war, who gets your vote?”

Your answer above is “the former”. But at the end of a longer post previously, you answered “the latter”. I guess I just didn’t see it. If you think that was an error on your part and feel “the former” really was your answer, you might want to correct it now. Or, if your answer the first time was the one you meant, you might want to clarify it.

But your response was also qualified by saying that would be your answer if you were locked up and had no other information on the candidate, which suggests that in combination with other positions, you might still opt for the pro-abortion candidate. So, I’m not that sure I ever really got a full answer. Doubt I will without going through every issue in an endless permutation of combinations.

But, whatever. Taken all in all, this thread is not really going anywhere anymore. I think it’s fairly clear, returning to the topic, that some “left wingers” anyway, put a good number of moral issues (in their current context, not some Hitler thing) on a par with abortion, which allows them to, in clear conscience, vote for an abortion-supporting candidate if, say, that candidate opposes the death penalty and/or the Iraq war. Some have more nuanced positions, but still allow of the possibility that some combination of “seamless fabric” issues in a realistic context might still compel them to vote for the pro-abortion candidate.

Some, however, will put a bullet between their teeth, hold their noses and vote Repub until a genuinely prolife Dem shows up.

I’m not sure further debate will give us any answers additional to that.