Are liberals rabidly pro-abortion?

[ribozyme]

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. (Originally, early forms of liberalism were derived from Renaissance humanism that challenged the idea of “divine right”. One early liberal theorist, John Locke, proposed that citizens have the right to rebel against their government. Such a proposal was antithetical to the prevailing dogma of the divine right of kings. Most other liberal thinks are largely secular (e.g. Mill, Bentham, Sen, Rawls, Singer, Popper) and do not have significant Judeo-Christian influences in their work.)

But I do not see how most liberals obsess about abortion despite their secularism. One organization based on modern liberal values (for example, the Rawlsian difference principle states that inequality should be tolerated when it benefits the least fortunate of society) is the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities which:

conducts research and analysis to inform public debates over proposed budget and tax policies and to help ensure that the needs of low-income families and individuals are considered in these debates. We also develop policy options to alleviate poverty.

cbpp.org/info.html

Of course, CBPP does not state that it is based on utilitarian principles or a Rawlsian value system (the ethical theories that liberals usually adopt). However, its goals are compatible with the aforementioned theories. A search on “abortion” on its website does not yield much.

Furthermore, another example is Paul Krugman who is deeply concerned with inequality and the welfare of the poor in this country. He rarely mentions abortion too.

My main point is that liberal groups and people do not obsessively focus on abortion. Liberalism is NOT about killing fetuses and having a monomaniacal interest in abortion. Instead modern liberalism goals focuses on maximizing “positive liberty” and focusing on the well-being of the unfortunate in the world through a secular perspective.

 

[Mighty_Q]

Nat Hentoff, a liberal to the extreme has virtually been declared persona non gratia by the DNC and the “liberal community” for his pro-life views.

Not all liberals are pro-abortion, but the majority are, and they silence those who would stand for the right to life.

 

[goofyjim]

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

 

[Kaninchen]

I’m just rabid.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

I do equate Liberalism with secularism, atheism, socialism, etc. because that is how it has historically identified itself. When I think of liberalism I do not equate it with one American political party or the other but with the general tendencies found in much of Democratic Republicanism from France, German Nazism, Russian Communism, and at least some of what passes for political positions in both major American political parties. Pro-abortion seems to be an “orthodox” liberal position. I despise it, by and large. It is an almost unspeakable evil to kill babies but even this evil has a plus side. The more liberals kill their own next generation the fewer of them there will be. I pray that is not simply a pipe dream on my part.

CDL

 

[dmelosi]

Liberals are lumped into one and are viewed pro abortion in my mind because I rarely if ever see liberals condemn abortion. It appears to me that most will not “loudly” condemn this as killing of the most innocent.

I am sure that there many liberals who are “stongly” pro-life, but I just don’t any organized effort to change their parties views on abortion.

It is easier and easier for liberals who are pro-life to ease their conscience and continue to condone this killing on demand.

If you are not against it, you are for it.

 

[Ender]

I do not why so many people here associate liberals with abortion.

It is useful to distinguish between the liberal rank and file - like the many Catholic Democrats who oppose abortion but support the liberal social agenda - and liberals in leadership positions who appear overwhelmingly to support abortion. Frankly, it doesn’t matter much what the rank and file believe since they do not affect the political direction taken by the leaders on this issue.

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.

At least half of all Catholics are Democrats and I suspect very few of them are conservatives. Are you suggesting that they are closet secularists? Your comment reinforces what I said above: there is a disconnect between what the leaders want and the desires of their followers. In the future I will assume, when you use the term liberal, you are referring to the leaders and not the followers.

But I do not see how most liberals obsess about abortion despite their secularism.

Define obsess and explain it in the context of getting judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate.

One organization based on modern liberal values (for example, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities) … A search on “abortion” on its website does not yield much.

Please, anecdotal evidence of individuals or organizations that don’t trumpet their support for abortion doesn’t make your case.

Liberalism is NOT about killing fetuses and having a monomaniacal interest in abortion. Instead modern liberalism goals focuses on maximizing “positive liberty” and focusing on the well-being of the unfortunate in the world through a secular perspective.

No one has claimed that liberals (leaders, not followers) are interested solely in abortion, only that it is an indispensable component of their world view. Perhaps the next liberal solution to poverty will be to expand on Peter Singer’s theories and suggest that abortion be extended to the poor.

Ender

 

[vz71]

It is useful to distinguish between the liberal rank and file - like the many Catholic Democrats who oppose abortion but support the liberal social agenda - and liberals in leadership positions who appear overwhelmingly to support abortion…At least half of all Catholics are Democrats and I suspect very few of them are conservatives.

Are we discussing liberalism, or the Democrat party?

Is it really that hard to tell the difference?

 

[dmelosi]

My main point is that liberal groups and people do not obsessively focus on abortion. Liberalism is NOT about killing fetuses and having a monomaniacal interest in abortion. Instead modern liberalism goals focuses on maximizing “positive liberty” and focusing on the well-being of the unfortunate in the world through a secular perspective.

Liberal groups do not focus on abortion because it is not something that even they are proud of. Why would you focus on being pro killing? Liberal groups try to cloud the issue to make abortion appear to be anything but killing.

The really sad part is that many people that claim to be against abortion use the propoganda to ease their own conscience to vote for a party that will keep abortion on demand.

 

[vz71]

It has often been my own pet theory that liberals believe that there should be no limit to liberty.

The logical extension of that is to recognize no morality…no action is immoral.

Abortion simply falls in line with that.

What better way to demonstrate that there are no limits to your actions.

I do not view liberalism as rabidly pro-abortion, but I do see pro-abortion as a logical point in the path.

 

[SoCalRC]

If you are not against it, you are for it.

Or, you simply have doubts about the perfection of your own moral compass.

Consider the case of “Rosa”, the Nicaraguan 9 year old who was raped and impregnated in 2002. She was also infected with not one, but two STDs.

Here is how pro-life activists viewed the situation:

cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=19960

Nicaragua had very strict abortion laws (even stricter now), but a doctor did eventually perform an abortion. Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo pronounced that the abortion was direct (no ‘double effect’ etc.) and that the parents and doctor were excommunicated. Having read multiple reports on the statements, it is not 100% clear to me if the girl was excluded from his pronouncement or not (the CBS overview is here):

cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/23/world/main545560.shtml

The sentence was later lifted, reportedly in response to letters and appeals from tens of thousands of fellow Nicaraguan Catholics.

Obviously, lots of Catholics, and the Church saw the matter as black and white. It is our teaching. But large numbers of Catholics had a lot of empathy for the family’s decision.

That does not necessarily mean that they disagree with the Church’s position. Some presumably did, with the absolute certainty of their moral conscience, which we are supposed to follow. CCC 1782:

A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.

But others may have agreed with the Church, but have been reluctant, given the empathy and emotion they felt for the family, to assert their own position as moral certainty. CCC 1790 ends:

Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

This is actually tied to abortion in Catholic teaching. Our beliefs about abortion are based on our belief of the inalienable rights of the human person. Our beliefs on the moral conscience have the same foundation (see CCC 1776-1782 and cited references). So, it is not unreasonable for a person to both be certain that terminating a 9 year old’s pregnancy is gravely immoral and equally certain that forcing such a decision on a fellow Catholic would be possibly assualting that Catholics inalianble rights as well. CCC 1782 reads:

Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.”

Still other Catholics might simply have considered the opinion medical and defferred to those most responsible for the patient. That position is also not without some foundation in our faith. For example, euthanasia is another infallible absolute in our faith, but the Church concedes that modern medicine makes the decision difficult and gives some defference to the patient, or patient’s representatives (see CCC 2278).

The point I am making is that support for the sin of abortion and support for specific efforts, particularly those focused on secular law, are two very different things. Ultimately, secular law alone is not a Catholic solution to abortion. Babies still die in illegal abortions, mothers still risk their salvation by wanting them. And the societal forces, like broken families, divorce, promiscuity, and structural poverty remain unaddressed, even though they are also immoral in the Catholic faith.

So differing on emphasis and approach to a problem which cannot be solved in isolation should not be twisted to support of a grave evil. Disagreeing on approach is one thing. Questioning other’s moral character is another.

 

[ribozyme]

I When I think of liberalism I do not equate it with one American political party or the other but with the general tendencies found in much of Democratic Republicanism from France, German Nazism, Russian Communism, and at least some of what passes for political positions in both major American political parties. Pro-abortion seems to be an “orthodox” liberal position. I despise it, by and large. It is an almost unspeakable evil to kill babies but even this evil has a plus side. The more liberals kill their own next generation the fewer of them there will be. I pray that is not simply a pipe dream on my part.

CDL

Do you have any evidence that liberalism is associated with Nazism and Communism? Do you have any evidence that the ideas of Mill and Bentham (the fathers of modern liberalism) had significant influence on Adolf Hitler or Karl Marx?

 

[Ender]

Are we discussing liberalism, or the Democrat party?

The discussion is about liberals. I mentioned Democrats in this context to indicate that the term is a bit slippery depending on how it is used. I think perhaps that liberalism (the ideology) is a better term than liberals, which might include a greater variety of perspectives.

Regardless of whether liberals are rabidly pro-abortion, it seems that liberalism is unyieldingly so and I think that flows directly from its principles.

Ender

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Do you have any evidence that liberalism is associated with Nazism and Communism? Do you have any evidence that the ideas of Mill and Bentham (the fathers of modern liberalism) had significant influence on Adolf Hitler or Karl Marx?

I have plenty of evidence that Liberalism as understood in mid nineteenth century movements was intent on destroying the Church and was in fact the general movement that inspired all of Socialism including Marx, Hitler, Stalin, etc…

CDL

 

[SoCalRC]

Regardless of whether liberals are rabidly pro-abortion, it seems that liberalism is unyieldingly so and I think that flows directly from its principles.

Do you have any evidence of this? It seems that expressed position is primarily libertarian in nature - ie, intimate choices of this nature should be made by the individual, not the state.

Empowering the individual and endorsing a particular choice are two different things.

If we look at the views that Americans express, it would be much fairer to assert that the nation, as a whole, is unyieldingly pro-abortion. Only about 1/5 to 1/20 people in the US state that abortion should be illegal in all cases. When those people are questioned about specific instances, like uterine cancer and ectopic pregnancy, the number drops to a couiple per hundred. This should be no surprise, multiple posters here who profess to be unyieldingly “pro life” have also supported fetal terminations that would not pass mustard under Nicaraguan law, which I mentioned above.

Obviously far more than 1-2% of the population identifies itself as conservative. And we see this in public positions. For example, the majority of the GOP caucus openly supports abortion in specific instances (rape, incest, etc.) Couple this to the GOP’s other positions, such as the death penalty, preventive war, torture, and other policies that the Church teaches are connected to the inalienable rights of the human person, and the distinction of US political labels seems almost moot.

We are a culture of promiscuity and death. Is it any wonder that neither of our major political ideologies is in sync with Catholic teaching on life?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Liberal groups do not focus on abortion because it is not something that even they are proud of. Why would you focus on being pro killing? Liberal groups try to cloud the issue to make abortion appear to be anything but killing.

The really sad part is that many people that claim to be against abortion use the propoganda to ease their own conscience to vote for a party that will keep abortion on demand.

Ah, so the question I have is, how many abortions are ok in order to reap the rewards of this “change” I keep hearing about?

 

[vern_humphrey]

It has often been my own pet theory that liberals believe that there should be no limit to liberty.

Which is why they support things like gun control, confiscatory tax rates, laws that forbid people on Medicare from paying for their own medical treatment, and so on.

The logical extension of that is to recognize no morality…no action is immoral.

Abortion simply falls in line with that.

What better way to demonstrate that there are no limits to your actions.

I do not view liberalism as rabidly pro-abortion, but I do see pro-abortion as a logical point in the path.

Liberalism extolls people in groups, but devalues the individual. It takes a village, you know.

 

[SoCalRC]

I have plenty of evidence that Liberalism as understood in mid nineteenth century movements was intent on destroying the Church and was in fact the general movement that inspired all of Socialism including Marx, Hitler, Stalin, etc…

CDL

That I would be interested in seeing. It was, after all, the Protestant Reformation that thought to elliminate the Church’s divine authority, and modern US conservatism is overwhelmingly Evangelical Protestant in its moral thinking today.

You might be confusing Progressivism with Liberalism. Because ‘liberal’ has become a bad word, labeling oneself a ‘progressive’ has become popular these days. But the liberal movement was never connected to communism, but the early progressive movement was.

Progressive thinking splintered and can be seen in both major US political parties today. For example, Socialists and Republicans joined forces with regards to the eugenics movement here in the US. We (the US) provided the template for Nazi purity laws.

Strangely, the ‘imposed social order’ crowd seems to have fostered neoconservatism. It is amazing how many modern neoconservative thinkers were speculating about the need for violent rebellion here in the US just a few decades ago.

 

[dmelosi]

Ah, so the question I have is, how many abortions are ok in order to reap the rewards of this “change” I keep hearing about?

Not sure what you are asking?

 

[SoCalRC]

Liberalism extolls people in groups, but devalues the individual. It takes a village, you know.

Another good example of the Protestant foundation in modern US conservative thought. Notice that the Protestant view is that salvation is via a relationship between self and Christ, while the Catholic view is that salvation can only come through a community in Christ. As the Pope recently noted, there is no such thing as Catholicism in isolation and our call to Christ cannot be answered solely in our heads.