Are we losing the pro-life battle?

[Elizabeth502]

^ and in that vein (and recognizing that Catholics are not the majority in the populace) I think it’s important to appeal to the consciences of American parents as a whole. I think they have lost their consciences. It is reflected in the absence of responsibility I see in parents whom I encounter daily in my job (in education). They apparently don’t even feel it’s their right to Lay Down the Law within their own households, regarding homework, for heaven’s sake. Not to mention regarding computer use, other media use. They apparently feel they need to ask permission of their sons & daughters to create & enforce boundaries, to carry out consequences, to monitor teen activity, friends, and dress.

Not only are those their rights, those are their inborn, secular responsibilities. You have the implicit duty to be the moral guide of your children. What parental irresponsibility leads to is, for example, the unquestioned practice now, in many public schools, of allowing students to come directly to administrators for birth control. (!) No parental permission needed; no parental knowledge (often) allowed.

This is a fight that can be won, eventually. It is possible to make parents aware of how essential their authority is over their minor children, and how not to surrender that authority to any civil body, except in the most basic sense of protective health & welfare (such as nutrition, critical medical care, etc.)

 

[Florida_mom]

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.

There is no reason it can’t be mutually exclusive. It will take time for the three you mention to get the ball fully rolling.

In the meantime, homes for teen moms/single moms and free ultrasounds are a start.

When you have lemons, you make lemonade.

Around her it isn’t like the pro-lifers aren’t trying to get into politics.

So in between elections–it is prudent to try and convince those who are with child–that their human is worthy of not being murdered.

 

[Florida_mom]

Not only are those their rights, those are their inborn, secular responsibilities. You have the implicit duty to be the moral guide of your children. What parental irresponsibility leads to is, for example, the unquestioned practice now, in many public schools, of allowing students to come directly to administrators for birth control. (!) No parental permission needed; no parental knowledge (often) allowed.

Oddly–that would be against every single public schools drug policy.

No we can’t allow you to have ibuprofen for cramps or tylenol for a mild headache, but we will give you tools to engage in wreckless behavior.

(My first thought was they were doleing out BCP’s, but I would take it that you mean condoms.)

 

[fix]

There is no reason it can’t be mutually exclusive. It will take time for the three you mention to get the ball fully rolling.

In the meantime, homes for teen moms/single moms and free ultrasounds are a start.

When you have lemons, you make lemonade.

Around her it isn’t like the pro-lifers aren’t trying to get into politics.

So in between elections–it is prudent to try and convince those who are with child–that their human is worthy of not being murdered.

Sure, but the Church has always done these things and always will. I find the OP argument to be a type of misdirection. It is not either help needy women or change the law. It is all that and more.

In fact, there has always been corporal works of mercy. What is new is the public rejection of the faith without any public correction.

 

[Florida_mom]

Gotcha–makes sense.

Your take is OP is suggesting to ignore the legal aspect while working in other ways, right?

It’s a Pelosi-Biden-ism…thou shalt not force our Catholic Faith on the public in violation of the First amendment. Cowardly–all for votes.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

And here is where OP steps in and says:

I made it quite clear that the legal side of things cannot be abandoned, but I am wondering if too much energy is being channelled that way, and it seems that all our funding is getting no headway in the battle. That maybe shifting the funding towards crisis pregnnacy centers, and advertising for said clinics (All stations in my hometown air PP commercials several times a night.) Shouldn’t we focus now on REDUCING abortions? Trying to get women to go to crisis pregnancy centers, instead of PP right off the bat when they realize they are carrying life.

I’m just wondering if there are any out there who feels like we are stuck in a losing battle, especially with the current administration.

Thank you for the poll though, that helps. Although in my state, I’m sure the numbers are more 65% pro-choice. It’s really hard to listen to the **** they pump out in local media too.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Oddly–that would be against every single public schools drug policy.

No we can’t allow you to have ibuprofen for cramps or tylenol for a mild headache, but we will give you tools to engage in wreckless behavior.

(My first thought was they were doleing out BCP’s, but I would take it that you mean condoms.)

Good points!

No, I had heard BCP’s in some districts/schools had been distributed. Ironically, if there’s been a stop to it, it may be less due to public awareness & more due to reductions in public school funding.

I had actually heard that condoms are routinely distributed in Sex Ed classes, whereas the BCP’s must be specifically requested. (Ha! How enlightened of them.)

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

My friend growing up went to school in the next town over. In their sex ed class, they were told how to put a condom on, and asked to demonstrate with a banana for part of their grade. Then condoms were handed out to everyone.

I agree completely. It makes me sick that you can’t take a cough drop at school without a note from the parent (We had a 3rd grader suspended for doing so at the school where I work) but the school will hand out condoms to its students without a second thought. It’s also said that an abortion requires less parental consent than a stupid cough drop.

I can’t figure out why public schools feel they need to not only TEACH students, but RAISE them.

 

[fix]

And here is where OP steps in and says:

I made it quite clear that the legal side of things cannot be abandoned, but I am wondering if too much energy is being channelled that way, and it seems that all our funding is getting no headway in the battle. That maybe shifting the funding towards crisis pregnnacy centers, and advertising for said clinics (All stations in my hometown air PP commercials several times a night.) Shouldn’t we focus now on REDUCING abortions? Trying to get women to go to crisis pregnancy centers, instead of PP right off the bat when they realize they are carrying life.

I’m just wondering if there are any out there who feels like we are stuck in a losing battle, especially with the current administration.

Thank you for the poll though, that helps. Although in my state, I’m sure the numbers are more 65% pro-choice. It’s really hard to listen to the **** they pump out in local media too.

I do not see it as zero sum game. In fact, imagine if the efforts that have been done these past years were not done. Things could be even worse.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I do not see it as zero sum game. In fact, imagine if the efforts that have been done these past years were not done. Things could be even worse.

I see it more of a 70/30 split. 70 politics, 30 actually helping women and families, as well as social outreach. I’m just thinking maybe it’s time to shift the balance the other way.

 

[fix]

Gotcha–makes sense.

Your take is OP is suggesting to ignore the legal aspect while working in other ways, right?

It’s a Pelosi-Biden-ism…thou shalt not force our Catholic Faith on the public in violation of the First amendment. Cowardly–all for votes.

Yes, that is my point. We can multi task. In fact, we have had decades all all types of social welfare programs and things continue to deteriorate. Does that mean we should stop helping people?

 

[djeter]

It is a very strange time in pro-life affairs:

"The lines of disagreement in the philosophical debate over abortion have never been clearer. While the politics of abortion remain as tumultuous and contested as they have ever been, the underlying philosophical, ethical, and scientific issues have been clarified to the extent that any careful person can examine the arguments of both sides and come to a principled and informed position.

This has not always been the case. Before the Supreme Court thrust the issue onto the national stage more than thirty-six years ago, pro-choice philosophers like Judith-Jarvis Thompson and pro-life philosophers like Germain Grisez were contributing to a debate that became more politically contentious even as the underlying scientific and philosophical issues were becoming clearer.

Consider the basic pro-life argument as it has developed over the last thirty years. Though there are many versions and several sophisticated philosophers who have made the case in more formal terms, the argument rests on three simple fundamental beliefs. The first is normative, the second medical or scientific, and the third is political."

Yet we now have the most aggressively pro-choice President in our history who is committed to a step by step passing of FOCA (He knows he’ll never get it as a package)

Did you see Prof Robert George and Doug Kmiec on EWTN’s World Over Wide? Links are on my post and George’s comments extensively documented.

payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/07/06/the-intellectual-chops-communication-skills-charisma-and-savvy/

It is time for Catholics to get their act together. The 54% have to recognize they were sold a bill of goods and should not interfere with the pro-life agenda. This is a good time to be pro-life. There is no reason the number of abortions in this country could not be halved in the next decade.

No, we are not losing.

DJ

 

[elts1956]

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. The divorced and remarried Catholics are not excommunicated, only denied the Sacraments. The Pro abort pols would not be immediately excommunicated either. The first step is “the talk” between the Bishop/Archbiship/Cardinal and the pol. If this is ignored, then they receive a warning. Lastly if their anti Catholic behavior continues, they will be denied the Eucharist. They will not be excommunicated, but will have to repent of their actions in public and receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

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. Pope Benedict XVI had talks with the heads of Catholic Universities when he visited here last. Those, such as NDU and Georgetown University decided they know better than the Pope. 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.

You may want to look at some of the threads and posts regarding the NDU scandal. There apparently is no simple solution such as the Pope calling Jenkins. In fact, I may possibly be mistaken, , but I understand Jenkins can be called to task only by the superior of his order. I keep forgetting which one that is. Also, the only thing Bishop D’Arcy could do as a “punishment” for ND is to strip her of the right to be called Catholic. This he doesn’t want to do because he believes there is still hope for the University in that observation of the Mass and other Sacraments such as Reconciliation is observed by many students and faculty there.

Sorry didn’t mean to derail the thread, but just wanted to clear up some misconceptions.

 

[elts1956]

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.

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.

They have excommunicated themselves rather than being given a formal excommunication. This is the same as the pols. According to their public voting image, they are receiving the Eucharist sacriligeously. Some weak kneed hierarchy here in the states claim they cannot read minds; that we must not judge these folks: this is their excuse to avoid forbidding these pols the Sacraments. There was a day, long ago, when the sanctity of the Sacraments was primary. With many clergy today this is not so. And they wonder why the Church is losing ground.

 

[elts1956]

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.

Wuerl has said he would uphold Bishop Finn’s decision to deny Communion to Sibelius. Let’s see if he sticks to it.

 

[quiet52]

We have lost many significant pro-life battles, we have won a few, and we’re losing and will lose many battles under the Obama Administration. We should never quit fighting the war and we should never lose hope that we will win some day.

Spiritual warfare is never easy – each of us must do our part in the fighting, however small it may seem. Again, we cannot give up.

 

[libby060]

Hello All,

I hope these reflections are appropriate for this (thread?) or place.

How, do you suppose, did the question of whether or not we are winning or losing any particular cultural issue come about?

I have often referred to the pro-life issue in these terms too. But, not in criticism to the one who started this topic, I wonder why we think in terms of which “side” has the greater numbers?

We were each conceived individually in God’s mind even before becoming a single divided cell, as mysterious a concept as that is. We were not placed on earth in groups or sides. We will not be judged according to whether we were on the winning side. So why do we (me included) consider it important to know if we are? Do we each base our beliefs and actions based on whether we are in the majority?

Is it for moral support, as we are humans, placed on earth to live in community? Is it for moral clarity as we, by nature, require signs and symbols for every belief?

When God surveys his creation, does he look for which side is winning? I tend to think that He does not. He looks rather at each soul and whether He is loved within it. He has told us he will judge us individually, based on how we each loved and carrried out His commands. I think God may be watching the battle that rages within each of us on a daily basis and experiencing happiness or sorrow based on that battle. And so I must ask myself daily, “Which side won within me today.”

The very first persons were divided into sides which battled, good angels vs fallen angels. But the first persons from whom we descend were not placed here in different camps. Each of them chose to turn from God as individuals.

As long as one innocent life is taken, and it is accepted, the pro-life “side” will not be winning, regardless of poll numbers. Were our side to dwindle to the size that Lot’s did, solely his family, we must maintain God’s laws.

Herein is the reason for my questions.

If our “side” is “winning” we must never stop the good fight, within us and about us, each to his own capabilities. If our “side” is “losing” we must never stop the good fight, within us and about us, each to his own capabilities.

Personally, I fight a battle daily to not become discouraged as individual close friends and family members give in to evil in various ways. One accepts a homosexual pastor at her church along with his (mate?) and teen boy living with them. Another accepts as a son-in-law a man who is neither married to her daughter religiously or civilly, but living with her daughter and granddaughters. A recent visit showed a family portrait on the wall, and it included him. I am sure this does not make her happy, nevertheless she has aquiesed. Another is “definitely pro-life” but wasn’t sure if she would vote for the man that did land in the White House.

But I know that discouragement is served up by the evil one in an ongoing attempt to pull me into despair aka Hell. So I battle on.

Thank you for allowing me to share. I am hoping this forum will allow me to meet others who believe as I do. I want the pro-life battle to be won too. But I must stay the course, regardless of the size of the opposition. Please God.

Just before submitting this I learned that the president of our country declared the month of June (traditional marriage month I believe) national homosexual, transgender etc. month, and accompanied it with a party at the White House (so you and I paid for it). He also said among other things that the traditional laws are worn out and must be overturned. God help us.

 

[libbybeth]

I think we are currently losing the pro-life battle. Abortion, euthanasia, etc, are now regarded as part of our everyday life. However, we need to concentrate on winning the war.

When William Wilberforce first began to battle for the abolition of slavery, he was pitting himself against an institution that went back for many thousands of years, and was of huge commercial importance to people within both the UK and the USA. Despite losing battles, he carried on …and on…and on…until he won.

We must not lose heart. I have been involved. in the fight in the UK since 1987. It can be very disheartening. For what it is worth, I believe that for those who throw themselves heart and soul into the pro-life battle, it is easy to suffer “burn out”. Therefore, in order to be effective, I have learned to pace myself for the long haul. I need to be fit for a life long battle. We also need to beware those who try to scare us off by telling us it is a decision only for the woman and we are not to impose our views of morality upon others. Abortion is simply one element in a battle for the hearts and minds of our people…and ultimately our souls.

 

[bmadamsberry]

They have excommunicated themselves rather than being given a formal excommunication. This is the same as the pols. According to their public voting image, they are receiving the Eucharist sacriligeously. Some weak kneed hierarchy here in the states claim they cannot read minds; that we must not judge these folks: this is their excuse to avoid forbidding these pols the Sacraments. There was a day, long ago, when the sanctity of the Sacraments was primary. With many clergy today this is not so. And they wonder why the Church is losing ground.

A minority, but nevertheless loud, groupd of bishops signed a decree stating that priests are allowed to deny communion to politicians who are pro-choice. The reason this is not done widespread is the same reason why a priest normally should not deny communion to a person. It is entirely possible that the person has racanted of their ways and has gone to confession, or they have absolute contrition for what they have done (voted pro-choice, is the town prostitue, whatever it might be that the priest might know about and be able to refuse communion for the act). Therefore, under normal circumstances, if Speaker Nancy has been voting pro-choice, the priest under normal circumstances shouldn’t deny her the Eucharist because he doesn’t know if she has gone to confession or not, repented, etc.
With the decree signed by the bishops, however, priests are allowed to refuse it from politicians because politicians make public their opinions and so, if they have a changed of heart, must first make public their change (this refusal of communion only relates, according to the decree, to pro-choice and to politicians). I wish I could find the decree, but I can’t find it online though I have seen it before on paper.

There is a distinction between being refused communion and being excommunicated. Being refused communion, while a very grave thing, is only that, not recieving communion. However being excommunicated means being unable to recieve MANY things, like Last Rites, Marriage, etc. This was very important back when the Catholic Church was the only one around, and was what gave the Vatican so much power over the Kings and Queens, because there is no salvation outside the Church. Being excommunicated was, back then, almost the same feeling as being given a one-way ticket to Hell. Anyway, there are huge differences, and excommunication should not be taken lightly nor done often.

I think that it is a good thing to refuse the Eucharist to pro-choice politicians mainly because it’s for their own good. If they eat or drink unworthely, then they bring condemnation upon themselves. The bishops that are allowing priests to refuse communion to those certain politicians are not using the Eucharist to force politicians to vote a certain way, but because as their shephards they don’t want to further hurt the politicans’ soul.

God Bless!**

 

[Jason_Molitor]

I would just like to point out that for the 5th straight year Wisconsin the rate of abortions is falling.

I attribute it to the strength of the pro-life movement because our state and local governements have done nothing but make it easier to “make a choice…”

weau.com/home/headlines/49538217.html

It is all the Rosaries, Chaplets, and prayers from the 40 days for life campaign