Are we losing the pro-life battle?

[Whitacre_Girl]

First let me say that I am extremely Pro-life. I do not think abortion should be allowed in any case. Including rape, incest, or deformity. Only to save the mother’s life in extreme cases (ectopic pregnancy is really the only case) and that involved removing damaged tissue.

I live on the west coast in the pacific northwest, and as everyone knows, we are one of the most liberal, non-christian regions in the country so I may be despairing a but here. But we’ll see what you think.

From what I can see, we are not gaining any ground in the protection of the unborn. It REALLY sucks, and for me it is incredibly infuriating. Something I was thinking while discussing this with a rather pro-choice friend of mine was abandoning the recriminalization for now. Don’t get me wrong, I will ALWAYS vote pro-life, and I will ALWAYS support the recriminalization of it. But what if we focus our energy and funding MORE on trying to support women when faced with a “tough” decision. We work to try to eliminate the need for abortion, and change the opinions of the people so when, years down the road, the opinions have shifted, and the number of abortions goes down, it can be recriminalized, eliminatingthe few who are left that would still do such a horrible thing.

 

[aicirt]

First let me say that I am extremely Pro-life. I do not think abortion should be allowed in any case. Including rape, incest, or deformity. Only to save the mother’s life in extreme cases (ectopic pregnancy is really the only case) and that involved removing damaged tissue.

I live on the west coast in the pacific northwest, and as everyone knows, we are one of the most liberal, non-christian regions in the country so I may be despairing a but here. But we’ll see what you think.

From what I can see, we are not gaining any ground in the protection of the unborn. It REALLY sucks, and for me it is incredibly infuriating. Something I was thinking while discussing this with a rather pro-choice friend of mine was abandoning the recriminalization for now. Don’t get me wrong, I will ALWAYS vote pro-life, and I will ALWAYS support the recriminalization of it. But what if we focus our energy and funding MORE on trying to support women when faced with a “tough” decision. We work to try to eliminate the need for abortion, and change the opinions of the people so when, years down the road, the opinions have shifted, and the number of abortions goes down, it can be recriminalized, eliminatingthe few who are left that would still do such a horrible thing.

I have a friend who became Catholic after experiencing the liberalism in the Pacific Northwest. She said some women take abortion as a right of passage. It is there right, so they do it. She suspected from their zeal, some may have even gotten pregnant to have an abortion. Unbelievable. Because of that experience, she was drawn to the Church by its strong anti-abortion stand.

Stats are saying there are more pro-lifers now than before Obama became President. Maybe the Notre Dame scandal made people think. I personally support the denial of communion and the public excommunication of politicians who support abortion while claiming to be Catholic. The Bishops seem to be waffling on that issue. Go figure.

Ray Arroyo, The World Over on EWTN, had a discussion featuring a professor from Princeton, Robert George, and another from Pepperdine U., CA. Amazing how much more liberal was the Pepperdine prof than the Princeton prof. Maybe it is something in the water? It was on last night. Maybe you can catch the encore presentation. Worth seeing.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I have never really heard of the “Abortion as a right of passage” thing, and I came from a very liberal high school (we were FORCED to go to Martin Luther King day assemblies that consisted of students making speeches for gay rights.) and I didn’t hear anything about that. Although, abortion is about as routine in this area as getting an oil change, it seems.

I hope the tides turn. I also am in favour of denying communion to anyone who claims to be pro-choice and catholic. They are mutually exclusive.

 

[aicirt]

I have never really heard of the “Abortion as a right of passage” thing, and I came from a very liberal high school (we were FORCED to go to Martin Luther King day assemblies that consisted of students making speeches for gay rights.) and I didn’t hear anything about that. Although, abortion is about as routine in this area as getting an oil change, it seems.

I hope the tides turn. I also am in favour of denying communion to anyone who claims to be pro-choice and catholic. They are mutually exclusive.

I didn’t mean to imply they’re actually doing it as a right of passage but her impression was they were so nonchalant about it, that it appeared to be par for the course and totally acceptable. An everyone does it kind of thing.

I find it odd that the Church will deny communion to those divorced and remarried without an annulment but can’t muster the courage to excommunicate pro-choice/pro-abortion politicians.

Also the US abortion issue has been going on for 40 years and certainly the Vatican must have discussed what its policies and attitude would be if Obama won. Well, he did win. Catholic universities should have known what was acceptable and if they did know and didn’t chose to follow the local bishop, the whole thing could have been nipped in the bud with a phone call from the Pope to Fr. Jenkins. End of story, moving on.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .

I find it odd that the Church will deny communion to those divorced and remarried without an annulment but can’t muster the courage to excommunicate pro-choice/pro-abortion politicians. . . …

Divorced and remarried are excluded from the sacraments because they are in continuing sin. They are not excommunicated.

Sorry if that first sentence sounds harsh, but I haven’t found a smoother way to state it. A few years back I was running an Adult Confirmation class . The class consisted of an oler woman who was in the process of getting her marriage convalidated and three or four younger women. At one point the older woman mentioned how she missed being able to receive Communion. One of the younger women asked why she couldn’t receive. As I frantically sought for some way to shield her, she responded, “Because I am living in sin honey child.” Some times the simple statement of facts is the only way to explain things.

 

[reggieM]

Interestingly, for the first time ever – a majority of Americans identified themselves as pro-life versus pro-choice in a major poll this year.

So, we’re actually gaining ground and winning minds.

Although, if you live in a very liberalized climate I think you have to use different tactics than you do elsewhere. You have to frame the issue in liberal terms – e.g. “abortion hurts women”. There are many good examples of that.

One thing I think we are losing though is a common understanding among people who don’t share our faith. That group is becoming more polarized against religion in general, and it’s much harder to reach them with just the secular arguments (and there are many good ones) against abortion.

 

[Didi]

I live in the Portland metro area in the northwest. While it is liberal, for the first time we had the Roe v. Wade memorial rally in downtown Portland at Pioneer Courthouse Square (it is usually held in the capital of Salem). There were over 5000 people there, and only a handful (20 or so) of protesters.

But, guess what made the news – the protesters.

The media wants us to believe that everyone is pro-choice, but that is really so far from the truth. We must not give up the fight to protect the unborn, even when we feel discouraged.

 

[aicirt]

Divorced and remarried are excluded from the sacraments because they are in continuing sin. They are not excommunicated.

Sorry if that first sentence sounds harsh, but I haven’t found a smoother way to state it. A few years back I was running an Adult Confirmation class . The class consisted of an oler woman who was in the process of getting her marriage convalidated and three or four younger women. At one point the older woman mentioned how she missed being able to receive Communion. One of the younger women asked why she couldn’t receive. As I frantically sought for some way to shield her, she responded, “Because I am living in sin honey child.” Some times the simple statement of facts is the only way to explain things.

What’s the difference between being excluded from the sacraments because they are in continuing sin and excommunicated? If you are excommunicated, you don’t receive the sacraments.

 

[miguel]

What’s the difference between being excluded from the sacraments because they are in continuing sin and excommunicated? If you are excommunicated, you don’t receive the sacraments.

This is true. But I believe a person who is formally excommunicated would have to go through the local Bishop to be reinstated.

 

[Dale_M]

Interestingly, for the first time ever – a majority of Americans identified themselves as pro-life versus pro-choice in a major poll this year.

Yes, and here is the poll:
gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

So, we’re actually gaining ground and winning minds.

Not necessarily. The same poll shows that there is a remarkable consistency over the past 35 years in the percentage of people who think abortion should be illegal in all cases, or legal in all cases, or legal in some cases.
(see the second graph in the link I provided)

The change in the self-identification numbers may reflect that “pro-life” is considered a more respectable thing to be. But it doesn’t necessarily reflect that attitudes have changed. However, the poll doesn’t explore what people mean when they say they are pro-life or when they support abortion’s legal status in some cases. I think important information is missing from the poll, and we can’t really make sense of it without that information.

But the good news is that the pro-life side isn’t losing ground, either.

 

[aicirt]

Anyone see the movie BELLA? Lovely story on this topic.

 

[aicirt]

This is true. But I believe a person who is formally excommunicated would have to go through the local Bishop to be reinstated.

Fine with me. They’ve been given enough warnings.

My understanding is they could be excommunicated in their home state parish but once moving to Washington DC, it would not carry because a different bishop would be in charge. This makes no sense to me. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. You cannot call yourself a Catholic and then encourage people to murder their babies.

 

[miguel]

…My understanding is they could be excommunicated in their home state parish but once moving to Washington DC, it would not carry because a different bishop would be in charge. This makes no sense to me. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. You cannot call yourself a Catholic and then encourage people to murder their babies.

I think a formal excommunication follows a person wherever he goes. Generally, if a person moves from one diocese to another, his local Bishop changes. In the case of politicians, it’s not clear (to me anyway). They might live in DC while serving their term of office, but to be able to serve, there are residency requirements in their home state. In this case I don’t know if the local Bishop changes.

 

[aicirt]

I think a formal excommunication follows a person wherever he goes. Generally, if a person moves from one diocese to another, his local Bishop changes. In the case of politicians, it’s not clear (to me anyway). They might live in DC while serving their term of office, but to be able to serve, there are residency requirements in their home state. In this case I don’t know if the local Bishop changes.

I would think the formal excommunication would follow a person too.

 

[Florida_mom]

Fine with me. They’ve been given enough warnings.

My understanding is they could be excommunicated in their home state parish but once moving to Washington DC, it would not carry because a different bishop would be in charge. This makes no sense to me. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. You cannot call yourself a Catholic and then encourage people to murder their babies.

NOTE: I disagree with people who do what I am about to say…

I think that Catholic politicians rationalize themselves in this manner when they say they are pro-choice:

They believe in separation of church and state.

They would never believe in forcing someone to choose Catholocisim.

They see abortion as a Catholic issue.

They don’t want to legislate their faith b/c it violates the constitution.

They will not force their “pro-life for themselves” views on folks who may not be Catholic.

I have heard some politicians rationalize their “pro-choice” stance in this manner.

I have also heard on the apologetics show on Catholic Radio where a priest used the analogy of trying to vote for a politican who wanted all Mexicans murdered. He went on with this great analogy and used it to explain that voting for any politician who was “pro-choice” was the same in their disregard for human life. The analogy was used to explain that abortion as a single issue voting standard to the caller who faced scrutiny from peers for not voting for pro-choice/abortion politicians.

For politicians–especially Catholic politicians who rationalize their “pro-choice” stance as I stated above–would be similar to a person making the claims that it is okay to assasinate any specific portion of the population based on one trait.

For abortion–that trait is either:
Lack of viability
Lack of resemblance to a full term baby
Size
Gestational age

But it is just as wrong as trying to terminate any life for any other traits once they are born.

For any politician to say–well it is my faith and I won’t force that upon anyone–is cowardly and just their way of trying to gain support en masse to score votes. They’ve put aside some of their morals just so that they could get a job. Pretty sad.

I homeschool my children and have tought them from very young the beauty of life and when it begins.

The pro-life movement begins at home and since it is likely that those who are pro-choice have much less children than their pro-life counterparts, soon we shall overtake them. (Okay–this is a joke–though out of all my liberal friends in College, it is at least true for me!)

 

[Joe_Kelley]

What’s the difference between being excluded from the sacraments because they are in continuing sin and excommunicated? If you are excommunicated, you don’t receive the sacraments.

One is excluded from the sacraments whenever one commits a mortal sin. One returns by repenting the sin and making a good confession.

Excommunication is a medicinal penalty

Can. 1331 §1. An excommunicated person is forbidden:
1/ to have any ministerial participation in celebrating the sacrifice of the Eucharist or any other ceremonies of worship whatsoever;
2/ to celebrate the sacraments or sacramentals and to receive the sacraments;
3/ to exercise any ecclesiastical offices, ministries, or functions whatsoever or to place acts of governance.
§2. If the excommunication has been imposed or declared, the offender:
1/ who wishes to act against the prescript of §1, n. 1 must be prevented from doing so, or the liturgical action must be stopped unless a grave cause precludes this;
2/ invalidly places acts of governance which are illicit according to the norm of §1, n. 3;
3/ is forbidden to benefit from privileges previously granted;
4/ cannot acquire validly a dignity, office, or other function in the Church;
5/ does not appropriate the benefits of a dignity, office, any function, or pension, which the offender has in the Church.

It is lifted by the one imposing it or his delegate.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Fine with me. They’ve been given enough warnings.

My understanding is they could be excommunicated in their home state parish but once moving to Washington DC, it would not carry because a different bishop would be in charge. This makes no sense to me. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. You cannot call yourself a Catholic and then encourage people to murder their babies.

Note that in the case of Nancy Pelosi, archbishop Wuerl, of Washington, has said it is a problem for archbishop Niederauer, of San Francisco. A politician’s residence remains his home district.

 

[livi]

Abortion is an intrinsic evil, and I wish everyone would recognize that.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Well wishing won’t get you very far.

The answer to the OP’s question is a divided one. If the context of the question is, Will the USA become a nation of legislated morality (regarding abortion, contraceptive, cohabitation – or any of these)? then your answer to losing that battle is Yes. You are not only losing; you have lost, in that context. Maybe it could have happened 50 years ago. To insist that a largely secular or secularly-driven gov’t will see morality and codify morality within a Catholic vision was a lost cause long ago – again, in the context of absolute Catholic moral theology. I personally don’t believe it was ever realistic, and I think a huge amount of energy has been invested in a lost legal cause for absolutely decades. In the meantime, other battles could have been conquered on particular life issues before they became as mainstream and casually accepted in society as they are today. Some of those battles – which could have been won, i.m.o – are also now lost causes (sperm banks, assisted suicide laws, gay marriage legislation, gay adoption laws, and more), because there was no peripheral vision in the “pro-life” community. Some of us spoke up about these with alarm when they were just emerging on the national horizon, but we found little support or even awareness from the single-issue Catholic mainstream.

OTOH, if the context of the question is, Is there room for persuasion in the public at large, regarding any or all life issues, I think that it’s clear that the answer is Yes. And successful persuasion, in turn, may lead to some restriction & controls on abortion, eventually. I think that the so-called simple majority in the Gallup Poll reflects that. (I don’t think that the poll is evidence of a wish to overturn any right to abortion as a choice; I think it’s evidence of an increase in moderation & caution among the public, which also may reflect an interest in restrictions.)

For example, I remain hopeful in some areas of bioethics, but only if Catholics are willing to communicate without divisive language. (Same for those on the other side.) I do not think legislative battles will be won with ultimatums on the part of any self-designated “pro-life” community, including if supposedly “pro-life” politicians are elected to particular offices. Individual legislators and individual executives still have to do business with, and bargain with, actual legislative bodies and actual courts. A city, a county, a State, the country, are not dictatorships.

I think much can be done to encourage a moral vision in amoral settings, by consensus and shared language which lead to articulated shared ideals, which in turn become legislated or otherwise regulated. But confrontation will not cut it. So if this is anyone’s version of “pro-life,” it ain’t happening in a 21st century technology-heavy democracy. We don’t work by coercion here.

 

[fix]

But what if we focus our energy and funding MORE on trying to support women when faced with a “tough” decision. We work to try to eliminate the need for abortion, and change the opinions of the people so when, years down the road, the opinions have shifted, and the number of abortions goes down, it can be recriminalized, eliminatingthe few who are left that would still do such a horrible thing.

Sorry, that is the “new” propaganda being used. What if Catholics actually started living as Catholics? That includes all of us especially lawyers, judges, and politicians. If those of us who claim to be Catholic actually believed as we say and lived as we say we could start to transform our culture. We are called to be a sign of contradiction, not called to be co-opted by political left propaganda.