Are liberals rabidly pro-abortion?

[Swan]

See my stage 5 explanation above. Southerners, of course made the exact same argument about how emancipation was a northern scheme to undercut their ability to compete economically and that northerners would do nothing to help the (presumed at the time) ‘feeble-minded black man’ survive on his own once freed. Such criticism of northern motives might even have been true, but the motivation was rather irrelevant to the moral principle at hand.

I often find it very helpful when trying to discern a moral issue that affects me personally to find an analogous situation that DOESN’T affect me personally. Much easier to avoid rationalizing to get the answer my emotions want.

Kudos to you Swan for at least attempting to explain why you don’t feel abortion victims rate human person status (though I obviously don’t agree). Most abortion defenders simply default to rants about their own rights. Food for thought: what crime should someone be charged with who stabs a 2.5 month pregnant woman (one joyfully pregnant) in the stomach and kills her child?

You know, I really have agnoized over this subject - though because of the conclusions I came to lots of folks seem to want to think I didn’t (not you, BTW). I replied above to another post in which I mention my attemps to force myself to be pro-life. It has just always seemed to me that killing the unborn was something of an oxymoron - which, I realize, equates life with birth. As for the death of the 2.5 unborn child: the woman was the victim of violent crime which led to the termination of her pregnancy. She did not choose to terminate, she was attacked. But she is still the one who suffers, not the fetus, IMO, as I don’t think it would be developed enough as I explained above. Now, had she been say 6 months pregnant you might very well get me to go with murder on the baby but maybe on manslaughter (was the harm to the baby intentional? what were the circumstances of the crime? ).

 

[buffalo]

You know, I really have agnoized over this subject - though because of the conclusions I came to lots of folks seem to want to think I didn’t (not you, BTW). I replied above to another post in which I mention my attemps to force myself to be pro-life. It has just always seemed to me that killing the unborn was something of an oxymoron - which, I realize, equates life with birth. As for the death of the 2.5 unborn child: the woman was the victim of violent crime which led to the termination of her pregnancy. She did not choose to terminate, she was attacked. But she is still the one who suffers, not the fetus, IMO, as I don’t think it would be developed enough as I explained above. Now, had she been say 6 months pregnant you might very well get me to go with murder on the baby but maybe on manslaughter (was the harm to the baby intentional? what were the circumstances of the crime? ).

Why can’t we love them both?

 

[dmelosi]

I actually know a lot of Christians who agree with me - or who at least belive it should be up to the woman. I wasn’t aware that the Bible mentioned abortion. Perhaps you can point that out to me. However, if you are going with “thou shalt not kill” I don’t believe the fetus has a soul until fairly late in development so I don’t see it as “murder”.

There are many Christians are so emotionally tied to their own political party that they search and search for ways try to make abortion into something less than killing. It is very easy to search the internet to see what the bible says about abortion. To name a couple, Jer. 1:5; Is. 44:2. The Hebrew scripture regularly refers to individuals existing in the womb. There are many, many more versus in the bible that are very clear on this.

No soul, no person, IMO. And I’ve given this a lot of thought and prayer. I “forced” myself to be pro-life for a while, too. I even donated money to pro-life charities. But, in the end, I just can’t equate a fetus, especially one in the early stages of development, with a fully developed, born, human child. But I can see the born ones suffering and for that I find no excuse - not in a society as wealthy as ours. To me, this is a true sin. I know this is a vastly unpopular opinion here, however.

You are falling into the trap of lumping the 2 issues together. The fact is that there is no one that I know of that is for suffering and hunger in the young. It appears that you think it has to be either or.

The only vastly unpopular opinion here is that you think that the unborn life is something less than a life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It’s not good enough for liberals to say conservatives don’t have programs to help pregnant women. I’ll agree.

Except that there are programs to help pregnant women. Here in Stone County, Arkansas, we are working to create a help center for pregnant women. In the meantime, we support such a center in another county. We publicize the help available, provide transportation to the center – where a great deal of help is provided – we have an “adoption” program, where a pregnant woman can be “adopted” by a local church, and so on.

We do a lot more than the government programs.

 

[manualman]

You know, I really have agnoized over this subject - though because of the conclusions I came to lots of folks seem to want to think I didn’t (not you, BTW). I replied above to another post in which I mention my attemps to force myself to be pro-life. It has just always seemed to me that killing the unborn was something of an oxymoron - which, I realize, equates life with birth. As for the death of the 2.5 unborn child: the woman was the victim of violent crime which led to the termination of her pregnancy. She did not choose to terminate, she was attacked. But she is still the one who suffers, not the fetus, IMO, as I don’t think it would be developed enough as I explained above. Now, had she been say 6 months pregnant you might very well get me to go with murder on the baby but maybe on manslaughter (was the harm to the baby intentional? what were the circumstances of the crime? ).

I’m glad you ponder it and give it honest thought. The principles you use are interesting though and give rise to some troubling possibilities. You cite the capacity to feel pain and possibly self awareness as the criteria for personhood. Does this mean that someone brain damaged to the point where they no longer respond to pain stimulus is no longer a person? Why or why not? I’d suggest that criteria like yours lead to utilitarianism and ultimately result in euthanasia and open the door to things like eugenics.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Except that there are programs to help pregnant women. Here in Stone County, Arkansas, we are working to create a help center for pregnant women. In the meantime, we support such a center in another county. We publicize the help available, provide transportation to the center – where a great deal of help is provided – we have an “adoption” program, where a pregnant woman can be “adopted” by a local church, and so on.

We do a lot more than the government programs.

:clapping: Very, very good point. My own ob volunteers his services to a Crisis pregnancy center, for free. I know personally nun’s, priests and lay people who work at pro-life causes, who work with the poor and hungry, who work for the homeless. And they do it quietly, with no fanfare or need for applause.

I have said before, and I will repeat it… small preborn children must be loved and accepted and protected because they are human. To claim that certain subjective criteria, such as the ability to suffer, make abortion tolerable or acceptable is wrong. I lost 2 babies recently. I guess perhaps that if they were too small to suffer, I didn’t lose anything? Nothing bad happened? That I was pregnant and have no little baby to show for it is insignificant? Please, pro-choice people, please explain to me that my feelings of loss are somewhat irrational?

 

[jman507]

I would say that most people are not rabidly anything politically. There are just a few people who are rather passionate about some subject and are activist for it. I doubt most people really strongly define themselves as liberal, conservative, or what ever title. They may tend to favor one way or another, and then will vote that way. I am sure most people have political views like they get food from a cafeteria. Take a little of this and a little of that. This comes along with that, so you’ll get that too. Maybe there really is something that someone cares about, and takes a lot of it.

 

[jman507]

I would say that most people are not rabidly anything politically. There are just a few people who are rather passionate about some subject and are activist for it. I doubt most people really strongly define themselves as liberal, conservative, or what ever title. They may tend to favor one way or another, and then will vote that way. I am sure most people have political views like they get food from a cafeteria. Take a little of this and a little of that. This comes along with that, so you’ll get that too. Maybe there really is something that someone cares about, and takes a lot of it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

:clapping: Very, very good point. My own ob volunteers his services to a Crisis pregnancy center, for free. I know personally nun’s, priests and lay people who work at pro-life causes, who work with the poor and hungry, who work for the homeless. And they do it quietly, with no fanfare or need for applause.

I have said before, and I will repeat it… small preborn children must be loved and accepted and protected because they are human. To claim that certain subjective criteria, such as the ability to suffer, make abortion tolerable or acceptable is wrong. I lost 2 babies recently. I guess perhaps that if they were too small to suffer, I didn’t lose anything? Nothing bad happened? That I was pregnant and have no little baby to show for it is insignificant? Please, pro-choice people, please explain to me that my feelings of loss are somewhat irrational?

Pro-choice only means they get to choose. You don’t. Your loss is of no concern to them. The pain women may feel later after an abortion is not concern to them. Aborting pregnant teenagers and throwing them right back into the environment where they got pregnant in the first place is of no concern to them.

 

[dmelosi]

I would say that most people are not rabidly anything politically. There are just a few people who are rather passionate about some subject and are activist for it. I doubt most people really strongly define themselves as liberal, conservative, or what ever title. They may tend to favor one way or another, and then will vote that way. I am sure most people have political views like they get food from a cafeteria. Take a little of this and a little of that. This comes along with that, so you’ll get that too. Maybe there really is something that someone cares about, and takes a lot of it.

I would agree mostly with this except to add that most people will tend to believe the political party that promote the most important issue to them.

For example, I believe more of what the republican party says because the democratic party openly believes and promotes abortion on demand. I believe more of what the party that is against abortion says. I just find it hard to believe much of what the abortion party says as they have sold their soul to the devil for power.

 

[SoCalRC]

All right let’s look at it this way. Are there any conservatives that are pro-death?

Using a Catholic definition, yes. Probably ‘most’ actually.

Remember how right to life, for the laity, is explained:

In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of therights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.

The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: “All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator” - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, #38

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_30121988_christifideles-laici_en.html

The political divide in the US is based on a severely abridged version of this broad, dogmatic principle.

 

[SoCalRC]

You have in your profile that you are Christian. Just curious where you got your definition that abortion is ok if there is a reason? How do you back that up biblically?

FWIW, It is the Catholic belief that there is no direct guidance on abortion in Holy Scripture (see Evangalium Vitae). We also permitted abortions of medical necessity and treated early abortions as a less grievous sin (though still a sin) up until the late 19th century.

 

[Swan]

I’m glad you ponder it and give it honest thought. The principles you use are interesting though and give rise to some troubling possibilities. You cite the capacity to feel pain and possibly self awareness as the criteria for personhood. Does this mean that someone brain damaged to the point where they no longer respond to pain stimulus is no longer a person? Why or why not? I’d suggest that criteria like yours lead to utilitarianism and ultimately result in euthanasia and open the door to things like eugenics.

Thank you for your efforts to understand where I’m coming from. I appreciate it.

17% of all children in the U.S. live in poverty. In most cases, their parents work, sometimes more than one job. Yet the jobs are low wage and are not enough to pull the family out of poverty. For details and more information see: nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html The National Center to Children in Poverty at Columbia University. While there are some things being done, it is far from enough.

As for folks in comas and such, because these people did develop fully and were sentient, and have the capacity to be sentient, I don’t think we should second guess their ability to feel pain or their level of consciousness. This differs from a fetus who has not yet developed to this stage. As for euthanasia, I am somewhat ambivalent but I have a very personal reason for being so. My father killed himself. He was suffering from emphysema and in his note he said that his quality of life was so bad that he just didn’t care to go on. Bipolar disorder runs in my family. I have it myself. I am unsure that my dad was really cognizant of what he was doing. I fear that he was depressed and irrational. Had he had legal options I feel he may have sought out more advice and assistance. After becoming fully aware of the choices to improve the quality of his life, had he still decided to end it he could have told us of his choice and done his best to make sure we understood. He could have used a method more dignified than a hand gun. And we would have been spared the shock and uncertainty that seem to be never ending. I do realize that this is a slippery slope and it is my fear of potential abuse that keeps me from being in the actual “for” category.

 

[Jennifer123]

Being a liberal, I thought I’d share my thoughts, so you probably won’t like them. I am not rapid about abortion, but I am pro-choice up thru 12-14 weeks. My reason is the process of fetal development and the death of sentient beings. Research I have read seems to show that there is not enought nerve and brain development for the fetus to be conscious of self or pain until the second trimester. To me, then, this gives the woman, who is a sentient being, the authority and right to terminate the pregnancy (please, I’m familiar with “silent scream” and have read and posted scientific information debunking the emotionalist claims).

The problem I have with most pro-life people is that they don’t seem to be concerned with the born folks who, as sentient beings, are conscious of their suffering in both a mental and physical way. When we cut social programs, the children and elderly suffer the most - the very ones least able to help themselves. Yet, the pro-life folks generally vote for conservative candidates who view most social programs as a waste of money. So those very children they wanted to be born so badly often end up living in abject poverty and/or dying young as a result of crime, inadequate health care, or improper nutrition. I live in Los Angeles, we have homeless kids here - they live on the streets because there are no programs (or program funding) to house them. They are innocent victims. If they manage to make it to adulthood many will have turned to crime and wind up in prison - a rather costly solution to the problem (we can always build new prisons, it seems, but heaven forbid we should provide more low cost housing or money for education and after school programs). As a liberal, I think that if the energy spent on the unborn were focused instead on ending poverty in this country that the abortion issue would, in many cases, take care of itself - we could team up a really be pro-life (the right to a life of dignity and a fair chance for all - when you do that, I’ll be with you). I myself had an abortion about 25 years ago for health and financial reasons. Many folks see this as their only alternative to increased poverty. Abortion is often the symptom of a much larger problem. It’s not so much that people don’t value the life of the unborn as that they don’t value the life of the born - IMO.

This is all perception. When I was a enthusiastic liberal, very active in politics as a political organizer, I saw conservatives the way you’ve described here. I realized my perceptions weren’t truth. I didn’t know too many conservatives. I lived in a bubble where my perceptions were treated as truth and were constantly reiterated back to me.

Without going into too much detail, my perception changed, then my beliefs changed. I went from being pro-choice, to being “pro-life” in that I don’t personally condone it but wouldn’t “force” my beliefs on everyone else, to realizing that wasn’t good enough.

Ending abortion is the start to a path to justice where everyone can have the same opportunities. We have to accept that not all with have the same outcome. And to me, that is the difference. It’s not that we don’t care, we want all to have the opportunity knowing that the rest is in the hands of God. :twocents:

 

[kmw7339]

All right let’s look at it this way. Are there any conservatives that are pro-death?

I submit if you are pro-death you are liberal.

Of course there are Pro-Death conservatives:

**** Cheney
Timothy McVeigh
Fred Phelps, Sr.
Ruhollah Khomeini
Paul Jennings Hill

I would submit to you that if you really believe all liberals
are pro-death, then you’re probably a pedophile
priest

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thank you for your efforts to understand where I’m coming from. I appreciate it.

17% of all children in the U.S. live in poverty. In most cases, their parents work, sometimes more than one job. Yet the jobs are low wage and are not enough to pull the family out of poverty. For details and more information see: nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html The National Center to Children in Poverty at Columbia University. While there are some things being done, it is far from enough.

As for folks in comas and such, because these people did develop fully and were sentient, and have the capacity to be sentient, I don’t think we should second guess their ability to feel pain or their level of consciousness. This differs from a fetus who has not yet developed to this stage. As for euthanasia, I am somewhat ambivalent but I have a very personal reason for being so. My father killed himself. He was suffering from emphysema and in his note he said that his quality of life was so bad that he just didn’t care to go on. Bipolar disorder runs in my family. I have it myself. I am unsure that my dad was really cognizant of what he was doing. I fear that he was depressed and irrational. Had he had legal options I feel he may have sought out more advice and assistance. After becoming fully aware of the choices to improve the quality of his life, had he still decided to end it he could have told us of his choice and done his best to make sure we understood. He could have used a method more dignified than a hand gun. And we would have been spared the shock and uncertainty that seem to be never ending. I do realize that this is a slippery slope and it is my fear of potential abuse that keeps me from being in the actual “for” category.

Reading this reminded me of the Alphonsine system of computing astronomical tables – based on the geo-centric theories, it added “epicycles,” and innumerable fudge factors to make it come out right.

Did you ever think that when you have to fudge like this;

As for folks in comas and such, because these people did develop fully and were sentient, and have the capacity to be sentient,

it may mean there is a fundamental flaw in your theory?

 

[Newbie2]

I do not why so many people here associate liberals with abortion. However, many liberals accept abortion rights large because one major tenet of liberalism is secularism and this might contribute to liberal sympathy for abortion rights. .

Well there ya go, there’s your explanation. In politics, Liberal=Democrat=Abortion rights, at least in general.

I’m slightly liberal and still prolife so the correlation is ridiculous.

In your case, yes. But politically, there is a correlation.

 

[SoCalRC]

Blah, blah, blah.

Another attempt to paint anyone who upholds the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constition is a “protestant.”

No, actually it was just pointing out another instance of Protestant thought. Similiar to your stated beliefs that socio economic status is a reasonable measurement of virtue and that the poor are primarily responsible for their own plight.

These concepts are very Protestant and not in keeping with Catholic teaching.

Answer me this – would it be “protestant” to say an unborn child is an individual human being?

Yes. The concepts of ‘abortion is always murder’ and every fetus is a full fledged human being from conception are not Catholic doctrine or dogma. Our objection is more nuanced and, as it turns out, more in keeping with known human biology:

“This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent…”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html

Would it be “protestant” to say…

There are two aspects of this argument that I find particularly interesting. First, the Church was not at all excited about the prospects of a constitutional democracy during our early years.

In fact, the “optimum model” for humanity was officially held to be a Christian state up to the Second Vatican Council. The Church has revised its position, noting the benefits of democracy - provided it is tempered with a proper understanding and protection of the inalienable rights of the human person.

The second thing I find interesting is that, by and large, you appear to support the opposite of the two documents you cite. For example, you politically support limiting and constraining Constitutionally protected individual rights and expanding certain political powers beyond those outlined in the Constitution.

Similarly, you have a major focus on addressing abortion through secular law. That is, you want to assert what is not a majority view on the whole population.

This, of course, is why I say that society must be brought to the light. If you want fewer abortions you need fewer unwanted pregnancies and a public that better understands the true nature of the human person.

 

[dmelosi]

FWIW, It is the Catholic belief that there is no direct guidance on abortion in Holy Scripture (see Evangalium Vitae). We also permitted abortions of medical necessity and treated early abortions as a less grievous sin (though still a sin) up until the late 19th century.

You greatly have twisted things to make this comment. You changed from below “never address” to “no direct guidance”

If people take the time to read through this…it clearly shows the direct guidance in Holy Scripture over and over.

Go here vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html

1. The texts of Sacred Scripture never address the question of deliberate abortion and so do not directly and specifically condemn it. But they show such great respect for the human being in the mother’s womb that they require as a logical consequence that God’s commandment “You shall not kill” be extended to the unborn child as well.

 

[dmelosi]

Yes. The concepts of ‘abortion is always murder’ and every fetus is a full fledged human being from conception are not Catholic doctrine or dogma. Our objection is more nuanced and, as it turns out, more in keeping with known human biology:

What is the difference between “full fledged human being” and “human being”?