Beck: Help us restore traditional American values

[Darryl1958]

Still not seeing where you “got me” on anything.

That right. You are still not getting it.
For** I** didn’t ‘getcha’ you.

But I don’t think that Olberman was all that ‘disappointed’ when he got Beck with the “GOTCHA” issue that he raised here.

Not me then, but “his”.

What was Olberman’s probable intent here? It is a legitimate concern to try to discern things like these.

My own opinion on Beck is that he is above all a showman and more than a bit of a muckraker. His motto for his radio show is along the lines of being the’fusion of entertainment and enlightenment’. He won’t disappoint his audience with these rhetorical flourishes then. He advertises himself to be no more nor less. To make a big deal of the difference between ‘in hand’ and ‘at hand’ thus smacks of nitpicking. It is the stuff of ‘gotcha’ for the Olbermans of the world, much like Obamas slip of tongue about “his Muslim faith” is the Gotcha Politics on the other side.

Misinformation and outright lying on the other hand are less forgiveable.Not so much for Beck’s political enemies, but for those who consider Beck a source of ‘enlightenment’ or simply good information, poor research, or outright muckraking as in the Van Jones case may indeed become very disappointing.

I guess for myself, the feelings I have when the other side thwart the facts is not disappointment, but outright repugnance. I expect so little from the liberal blogosphere anyways that being disappointed is no longer an issue for me.
As for the rhetorical flourishes, such as Obama’s 'this is the day when the oceans began to recede", I feel neither disappointment nor repugnance, but amusement. Light-hearted mocking seems to be in order from the other side in these instances.It was a good line on his part, but also a good caricature of his own ego inflation.

For me, disappointment comes when people who otherwise share my values, such as a ‘restoration of honor to America’, engage in outright sleazy behavior.

It is like when a pro-life website, say Lifesite News, for example, cannot be relied on for accurate information.

Or like when discovering that the mainstream journalists are not as objective as they claim to be, but are firmly in the leftist camp. This, to me was disappointing to the highest degree.

These are the kinds of things that are disappointing to me. Beck’s behavior, less so. Everybody already knows he is a muckraker and a showman. That is the kind of game that he and the Olbermans and the Huffington Posts play against each other. They all throw lit bags of poo on each other’s doorsteps and laugh at how the mess is dealt with.

Beck is who he is. Nobody has great expectations of him, and really no one ought be disappointed when his muckraking goes over the line.

But this rally of his to restore God to the spheres of our life, public private and familial—now that is something that we can all get behind not because of Beck being who he is, but because this is a good thing to do.

 

[seekerz]

Absolutely not.

Further up this thread I posted a picture of Beck with the Rev John Hagee seated prominently behind him. Now, Rev Hagee isn’t exactly a fan of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, we Catholics are always being urged to get behind efforts such as the Beck project.

What’s wrong with being ecumenical?..we’re asked.

*As long as Beck is promoting values we can more or less agree on, why not get behind what he’s doing? What’s the harm?..*we’re told

Because the Catholics ALWAYS seem to get the short end of the stick in these things. The agenda Beck promotes is not always in line with the Magesterium, especially in economic and foreign affairs.

I agree. It’s one thing to talk about turning to God, but one needs to look at exactly what beliefs about God are being promoted. I can think of at least half a dozen of my friends whom I wouldn’t follow ‘back to God’, not because I lack faith or desire to follow God but because of who and what is involved in their version of following God! Respect for another’s faith is quite a different kettle of fish from participating (especially in an uninformed way) in it.

 

[gnjsdad]

Specifics?

Beck is an outspoken proponent of the false creed of American exceptionalism.

Beck also opposed the government’s attempt to fix the healthcare system, which was obviously broken and which was obviously drifting away from the Catholic principle of the common good. According to the Church, healthcare is a right of every citizen, inseparable from the right to life. Profit ought to play only a secondary role in the delivery of healthcare. Now, I’m not at all sure the fix we got is adequate, but if it were up to Glen Beck, what we had in place would’ve been just hunky dory.

Beck also is a proponent of capitalism, which, rightly understood, is a system whereby the strong are allowed to dominate the weak. Beck’s economics, like Protestant-based Enlightenment economics, downplays the common good and promotes stronger individuals at the expense of the vast majority of weaker individuals.
This is at odds with Catholic teaching that economics comes under the purview of the moral law and the common good.

Beck vigorously supports a strong interventionist American foreign policy, and regularly ridiculed anyone who opposed the unjust occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. When the Popes spoke out against these unjust occupations, I didn’t hear Beck ageee.

Beck’s agenda is clearly based on Protestant/Enlightenment ideology. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Mormon, because Mormonism grew out of the Second Great Awakening, definitely a Protestant phenomenon.

Why a Catholic would want to support any of this is beyond me.

 

[bbarrick8383]

I agree. It’s one thing to talk about turning to God, but one needs to look at exactly what beliefs about God are being promoted. I can think of at least half a dozen of my friends whom I wouldn’t follow ‘back to God’, not because I lack faith or desire to follow God but because of who and what is involved in their version of following God! Respect for another’s faith is quite a different kettle of fish from participating (especially in an uninformed way) in it.

First of all, Beck hasn’t been teaching anyone anything about his mormon belief.

Second of all, please tell, of the values on faith that he is talking about…which do you disagree with?

Lastly, Beck is not asking people to follow him. Politically or spiritually. Just that they find a way back to God, if we want this country to get off the path of more and more sin. Then we must start getting as many individuals on the path to God as possible. Yes, it would be nice if they all converted to Catholicism, but if Catholics are going to be divisive about this instead of joining them to preach the gospel of God and hope people find the right way then they are in the wrong. They cant go it alone,.

 

[Julianna]

Beck is an outspoken proponent of the false creed of American exceptionalism.

Beck also opposed the government’s attempt to fix the healthcare system, which was obviously broken and which was obviously drifting away from the Catholic principle of the common good. According to the Church, healthcare is a right of every citizen, inseparable from the right to life. Profit ought to play only a secondary role in the delivery of healthcare. Now, I’m not at all sure the fix we got is adequate, but if it were up to Glen Beck, what we had in place would’ve been just hunky dory.

Beck also is a proponent of capitalism, which, rightly understood, is a system whereby the strong are allowed to dominate the weak. Beck’s economics, like Protestant-based Enlightenment economics, downplays the common good and promotes stronger individuals at the expense of the vast majority of weaker individuals.
This is at odds with Catholic teaching that economics comes under the purview of the moral law and the common good.

Beck vigorously supports a strong interventionist American foreign policy, and regularly ridiculed anyone who opposed the unjust occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. When the Popes spoke out against these unjust occupations, I didn’t hear Beck ageee.

Beck’s agenda is clearly based on Protestant/Enlightenment ideology. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Mormon, because Mormonism grew out of the Second Great Awakening, definitely a Protestant phenomenon.

Why a Catholic would want to support any of this is beyond me.

You explained this well. Please help me add on to this as to why Catholics need to be cautious about climbing on this bandwagon. Where do Catholics fit in this equation? I have said that the bus of religious unity, God and country (aka politics) will eventually seat the Catholics at the back of the bus, quietly waving the Vatican flag. Beck’s Enlightment movement stops at the Papacy.

 

[Darryl1958]

Beck is an outspoken proponent of the false creed of American exceptionalism.

American exceptionalism is not so much creed as historic fact.
What makes America exceptional in human history is that a semblance of freedom for the people has come to the world through America, and is being sustained even now through American influence.
The ‘creed’ involves whether you believe that this is worthwhile, or not. I am one of those who so believes it is, has been and yet will be in the future. So is Beck.
I really, really appreciate what America has done for the world. Compared to any other country, it has been really, really exceptional.

Beck also opposed the government’s attempt to fix the healthcare system, which was obviously broken and which was obviously drifting away from the Catholic principle of the common good. According to the Church, healthcare is a right of every citizen, inseparable from the right to life. Profit ought to play only a secondary role in the delivery of healthcare. Now, I’m not at all sure the fix we got is adequate, but if it were up to Glen Beck, what we had in place would’ve been just hunky dory.

Glen is a libertarian for sure. That is not part of this rally though.

Beck also is a proponent of capitalism, which, rightly understood, is a system whereby the strong are allowed to dominate the weak. Beck’s economics, like Protestant-based Enlightenment economics, downplays the common good and promotes stronger individuals at the expense of the vast majority of weaker individuals.
This is at odds with Catholic teaching that economics comes under the purview of the moral law and the common good.

Less so than socialism, but again not part of the rally.

Beck vigorously supports a strong interventionist American foreign policy, and regularly ridiculed anyone who opposed the unjust occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. When the Popes spoke out against these unjust occupations, I didn’t hear Beck ageee.

If that is how it went down, then Beck was not alone there.
Both wars were entered into with bipartisan support from both Dems and Repubs. Even now, Obama and Democrats are for the Afghanistan campaign and are engaged in Iraq, without protest from anybody.
For JPII, as far as I recall, the criticism was about entering the campaign, not leaving the Iraqis and AFghanis to a brutal end by turning tail and leaving with the job half done.
Entering the countries was controversial. Leaving the countries to the evil of Islamists while the job was half done is not the pope’s message, I don’t think.

Beck’s agenda is clearly based on Protestant/Enlightenment ideology. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Mormon, because Mormonism grew out of the Second Great Awakening, definitely a Protestant phenomenon.

Catholics need not reject either the contributions of the enlightenment nor Protestants to our own well-being. We are assured of salvation through the Church, but that doesn’t mean God himself is esclusive to the Church.
That is Catholic teaching too.

Why a Catholic would want to support any of this is beyond me.

It is all about God being honored in all aspects of our life. That is why.

 

[bbarrick8383]

You explained this well. Please help me add on to this as to why Catholics need to be cautious about climbing on this bandwagon. Where do Catholics fit in this equation? I have said that the bus of religious unity, God and country (aka politics) will eventually seat the Catholics at the back of the bus, quietly waving the Vatican flag. Beck’s Enlightment movement stops at the Papacy.

Goodnees, thank God, that Beck whose religion is obviously in greater minority is brave enough regardless of the scrutiny to get up and say these things.

Cry me a river. I thought the inter religious conflict between protestants was bad. The inter religion conflict of the Catholic Church is much worse than I thought.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

What I have learned from “listening to the other side” is that pro-choice catholics get very wobbly when you push them to explain their stand on the issue of abortion

To your credit, you have listened to the other side, which does not expect you to change your position the way some on the Forum expect those to get in line with them…

Though you can’t be accused of this because you have been a “listener,” it seems to me that there’s quite a bit of covering one’s ears with one’s hands and saying, “I can’t hear you. I’m not listening.” Give and take ought not to be we give, you take.

The truth is, she ***couldn’***t answer the questions.

Regardless what she’d say, she wouldn’t satisfy her opponents. I’m sorry she didn’t reply in any case.

 

[ishii]

To your credit, you have listened to the other side, which does not expect you to change your position the way some on the Forum expect those to get in line with them…

I have truly been trying to understand the other side. In an abortion debate, when pro-choice catholics say things such as “we need to provide care and support for women who give birth”, I answer, of course we should, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have laws that protect the baby before its born. But in spite of my acknowlegement that there should be a safety net and all, the conversation doesn’t move forward in any way - there is no common ground or mutual agreement achieved. Instead, the other side (and you can go back and read previous posts to see what I mean by “the other side”) merely repeats their mantra: “pro-choice” “freedom” “women’s rights” “pluralism” “you’re trying to force your views on us” etc. The only ones having something forced upon them is the unborn that are aborted every day.

Though you can’t be accused of this because you have been a “listener,” it seems to me that there’s quite a bit of covering one’s ears with one’s hands and saying, “I can’t hear you. I’m not listening.” Give and take ought not to be we give, you take.

Well, I will concede some. Government help for poor mothers, families, etc (to a point - if its counterproductive and exacerbates the problem, then we need to look at reforms). However, I can’t concede such a central issue as the right to life of human beings from conception to natural death. The questions of what a government should do to help the poor are good ones, but they proceed from the right to life of the unborn. As some of us poster said before, “what good is housing if you have already been aborted?”

*Regardless what she’d say, she wouldn’t satisfy her opponents. I’m sorry she didn’t reply in any case. *

Rich, can you sense my frustration here? If the Democrat party was the pro-life party and the Republicans were the pro-choice party then I would gladly vote Democrat - even if I agreed with the Republicans on economic and foreign policy issues. What I seem to get from a lot of pro-choice catholics here are lots of excuses for voting for Democrats like Boxer and Obama (in spite of their votes to legalize partial birth abortion). What I don’t get are legitimate reasons. Boxer didn’t want to answer Rick Santorum, because he was going to expose her position for what it is: morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Ishii

 

[Christopher68]

Glen is a libertarian for sure.

This is incorrect. Beck has claimed to be a libertarian, but in reality he has supported positions that are directly opposed to libertarian philosophy - such as supporting the prodigal bank bailout and the poorly-named ‘patriot act’. To me he is clearly a republican - not a libertarian.

 

[ishii]

Beck is an outspoken proponent of the false creed of American exceptionalism.

False according to who? Has the Church come out with a specific condemnation of “American exceptionalism”? American exceptionalism has different roots, among them the Puritans to be sure, but also other roots: Alexis d’Tocqueville who viewed America as “special” because it was a successful representative democracy. When you sing “American the Beautiful” do you not believe the “God shed his grace on thee” part? I do.

Beck also opposed the government’s attempt to fix the healthcare system, which was obviously broken and which was obviously drifting away from the Catholic principle of the common good. According to the Church, healthcare is a right of every citizen, inseparable from the right to life. Profit ought to play only a secondary role in the delivery of healthcare. Now, I’m not at all sure the fix we got is adequate, but if it were up to Glen Beck, what we had in place would’ve been just hunky dory.

The Church has a specific teaching as to how our healthcare system should work? That’s news to me. Also, you have no basis at all in saying that Beck thinks what we’ve had up to now is just “hunky dory” so you should retract that statement. In fact, Beck would likely be in favor of reforms which cut healthcare costs - tort reform, etc. I don’t know too many people on either side of the debate who think our healthcare system doesn’t need reforms. (That extension of the Democrat party known as the trial lawyers probably don’t want legal reforms though).

Beck also is a proponent of capitalism, which, rightly understood, is a system whereby the strong are allowed to dominate the weak. Beck’s economics, like Protestant-based Enlightenment economics, downplays the common good and promotes stronger individuals at the expense of the vast majority of weaker individuals.
This is at odds with Catholic teaching that economics comes under the purview of the moral law and the common good.

The “rightly understood” part is your problem. The Church has not condemned the free market has it? Its my understanding that there are lots of good capitalists around - I happen to work for one who employs thousands and pays them well. Perhaps you’d like to go back to feudalism where peasants worked for their masters? Or perhaps you’d like to work in a socialist paradise where everyone is subservient to the state?

Beck vigorously supports a strong interventionist American foreign policy, and regularly ridiculed anyone who opposed the unjust occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. When the Popes spoke out against these unjust occupations, I didn’t hear Beck ageee.

I probably disagree a bit with Beck on foreign policy. You’re right, he may have views at variance with what the popes have said about the recent wars in the middeast so I will grant you that.

Beck’s agenda is clearly based on Protestant/Enlightenment ideology. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Mormon, because Mormonism grew out of the Second Great Awakening, definitely a Protestant phenomenon.

Other than the foreign policy part (which is debatable) you have done a poor job of explaining why a Catholic should not support what Beck is doing. His message goes beyone Mormonism and protestantism. Keep trying, though.
Why a Catholic would want to support any of this is beyond me.*

I believe Beck is pro-life. That alone would be a great reason to support him, as he is very much in line with what the Catholic Church teaches - more so than a lot of “catholic” politicians and commentators. And more in line with Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life than some of the posters on this forum.

Ishii

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Beck also is a proponent of capitalism, which, rightly understood, is a system whereby the strong are allowed to dominate the weak. Beck’s economics, like Protestant-based Enlightenment economics, downplays the common good and promotes stronger individuals at the expense of the vast majority of weaker individuals.
This is at odds with Catholic teaching that economics comes under the purview of the moral law and the common good.

The “rightly understood” part is your problem. The Church has not condemned the free market has it? Its my understanding that there are lots of good capitalists around - I happen to work for one who employs thousands and pays them well. Perhaps you’d like to go back to feudalism where peasants worked for their masters? Or perhaps you’d like to work in a socialist paradise where everyone is subservient to the state?

One doesn’t have to go back to feudalism or look at modern totalitarian systems to find injustice. One needs only look at the 19th century capitalism that motivated Pope Leo XIII to write De Rerum Novarum. He was not addressing the benevolent capitalism you describe.

 

[Julianna]

Beck is an outspoken proponent of the false creed of American exceptionalism.

False according to who? Has the Church come out with a specific condemnation of “American exceptionalism”? American exceptionalism has different roots, among them the Puritans to be sure, but also other roots: Alexis d’Tocqueville who viewed America as “special” because it was a successful representative democracy. When you sing “American the Beautiful” do you not believe the “God shed his grace on thee” part? I do.

Beck also opposed the government’s attempt to fix the healthcare system, which was obviously broken and which was obviously drifting away from the Catholic principle of the common good. According to the Church, healthcare is a right of every citizen, inseparable from the right to life. Profit ought to play only a secondary role in the delivery of healthcare. Now, I’m not at all sure the fix we got is adequate, but if it were up to Glen Beck, what we had in place would’ve been just hunky dory.

The Church has a specific teaching as to how our healthcare system should work? That’s news to me. Also, you have no basis at all in saying that Beck thinks what we’ve had up to now is just “hunky dory” so you should retract that statement. In fact, Beck would likely be in favor of reforms which cut healthcare costs - tort reform, etc. I don’t know too many people on either side of the debate who think our healthcare system doesn’t need reforms. (That extension of the Democrat party known as the trial lawyers probably don’t want legal reforms though).

Beck also is a proponent of capitalism, which, rightly understood, is a system whereby the strong are allowed to dominate the weak. Beck’s economics, like Protestant-based Enlightenment economics, downplays the common good and promotes stronger individuals at the expense of the vast majority of weaker individuals.
This is at odds with Catholic teaching that economics comes under the purview of the moral law and the common good.

The “rightly understood” part is your problem. The Church has not condemned the free market has it? Its my understanding that there are lots of good capitalists around - I happen to work for one who employs thousands and pays them well. Perhaps you’d like to go back to feudalism where peasants worked for their masters? Or perhaps you’d like to work in a socialist paradise where everyone is subservient to the state?

Beck vigorously supports a strong interventionist American foreign policy, and regularly ridiculed anyone who opposed the unjust occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. When the Popes spoke out against these unjust occupations, I didn’t hear Beck ageee.

I probably disagree a bit with Beck on foreign policy. You’re right, he may have views at variance with what the popes have said about the recent wars in the middeast so I will grant you that.

Beck’s agenda is clearly based on Protestant/Enlightenment ideology. It doesn’t matter that he’s a Mormon, because Mormonism grew out of the Second Great Awakening, definitely a Protestant phenomenon.

Other than the foreign policy part (which is debatable) you have done a poor job of explaining why a Catholic should not support what Beck is doing. His message goes beyone Mormonism and protestantism. Keep trying, though.
Why a Catholic would want to support any of this is beyond me.*

I believe Beck is pro-life. That alone would be a great reason to support him, as he is very much in line with what the Catholic Church teaches - more so than a lot of “catholic” politicians and commentators. And more in line with Catholic teaching on the sanctity of life than some of the posters on this forum.

Ishii

So he wins some sort of prize because he is pro-life? I think you have missed the “why a Catholic would want to support any of this is beyond me” statement.

What it is…“is”…the mixing of politics and religion according to gospel of Beck and his evangelical supporters.

Now…taking the above…answers the question… “Why would a Catholic want to support any of this is beyond me.”

And in addition…do you want a “government” based on the faith value system of the Christian Right that Beck has wrapped himself into?

Do Catholics really believe that politics and religion mix is a good idea?

The Christian Coalition…The Moral Majority…if you remember…started with Ronald Reagan…who promised to end abortion as did Bush sr and Bush jr. They rode the waves with Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, et al. And after all their efforts…the distribution of all their voter guides…abortion is still legal.

However…the Beck helping restore American values isn’t really about abortion…is it?

Think about it.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

This is incorrect. Beck has claimed to be a libertarian, but in reality he has supported positions that are directly opposed to libertarian philosophy - such as supporting the prodigal bank bailout and the poorly-named ‘patriot act’. To me he is clearly a republican - not a libertarian.

Glen Beck is a line toeing “Neo-Conservative”, not a libertarian. Andrew Napolitano is a libertarian, as is John Stossel.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Think about it.

Without religion in politics.

Abortion will always be legal.

My state, which I’m going to presume is mostly protestant, tries to pass laws to limit the number of abortions.

After which we are bombarded with lawsuites to stop those laws.

 

[gnjsdad]

One doesn’t have to go back to feudalism or look at modern totalitarian systems to find injustice. One needs only look at the 19th century capitalism that motivated Pope Leo XIII to write De Rerum Novarum. He was not addressing the benevolent capitalism you describe.

Yes! The greatest flaw in libertarian ideology is that it ignores the history that forces governments to take the actions that regulate market activity which they don’t like. The fact is that markets are NOT self regulating, as the free marketeers would have us believe. The financial meltdown of 2008 is only the latest example.

*Rerum *Novarum was written, as you say, as a response to the excesses of captialism. In fact, capitalism precedes socialism. If there were no capitalism, there would be no socialism.

Juliana, what I would say in response to your question is that the Catholic Church has always tried to perform a delicate balance between the excesses of unbridled capitalism and socialism. The Church upholds private ownership as an essential human right and, for that reason, condemns socialism as an abridgement of that right. The socialist would take property from its rightful owner(s) and give it to someone to whom it isn’t entitled. On the other hand, the property owner has certain moral obligations to his neighbor (fellow citizen) as to the use of his property. Thus, there is both a public and a private dimension to property ownership which people like Glen Beck don’t acknowledge.

 

[Christopher68]

That human life begins at conception is not an opinion, but a scientifically and theologically established fact that is incontrovertable. You may choose not to believe it. You may also choose to believe that the Earth is flat and that the Sun rotates around it.

Scott,

I do not know whose post you are replying to, so I do not know the context that precipitated your reply.

A brief observation to your comments: I don’t think there is any argument that a human life begins at conception. The difference in belief is when ‘personhood’ is conferred. As a society, personhood is generally conferred upon birth. I’ll provide a few examples. First, if a baby is stillborn, society issues both a birth cirtificate and a death certificate. However, if a woman has a miscarriage, neither a birth certificate nor a death certificate is issued (although the loss is just as real for those involved). Another example, if a pregnant woman is riding in a carpool lane for ‘2 or more people’ she will get pulled over and will receive a ticket. And yet another example, if a pregnant woman is a smoker or a heavy drinker, and her baby has health issues after being born, is the woman charged with battery or any other crime? I don’t believe that is the case. So I don’t think there is much argument to the point you made. However, I’m curious what you would do to encourage society to confer personhood upon conception as opposed to birth.

 

[bbarrick8383]

Yes! The greatest flaw in libertarian ideology is that it ignores the history that forces governments to take the actions that regulate market activity which they don’t like. The fact is that markets are NOT self regulating, as the free marketeers would have us believe. The financial meltdown of 2008 is only the latest example.

The financial meltdown of 2008 is hardly a direct result of an unregulated free market. It’s mostly a result of people living beyond their means, with a link to liberal democrats promoting the idea of home ownership to those who could not afford to buy a home. There is a quote, I’m not sure who said it but it’s true. “If you live above your means to day, by necessity, you will have to live below your means tomorrow.”

Novarum was written, as you say, as a response to the excesses of captialism. In fact, capitalism precedes socialism. If there were no capitalism, there would be no socialism.

Capitalism can exist without socialism though, capitalism can be regulated with common sense to protect the people as well. The problem is finding the people with the common sense to come up with that regulation without having an impact on the people as well.

Thus, there is both a public and a private dimension to property ownership which people like Glen Beck don’t acknowledge.

Wrong, Beck does acknowledge it. What liberals do not acknowledge is that the public dimension should not be regulated through some sort of “soft socialism”. It should be through personal charity and personal charity alone.

[/QUOTE]

 

[bbarrick8383]

Scott,

I do not know whose post you are replying to, so I do not know the context that precipitated your reply.

A brief observation to your comments: I don’t think there is any argument that a human life begins at conception. The difference in belief is when ‘personhood’ is conferred. As a society, personhood is generally conferred upon birth. I’ll provide a few examples. First, if a baby is stillborn, society issues both a birth cirtificate and a death certificate. However, if a woman has a miscarriage, neither a birth certificate nor a death certificate is issued (although the loss is just as real for those involved). Another example, if a pregnant woman is riding in a carpool lane for ‘2 or more people’ she will get pulled over and will receive a ticket. And yet another example, if a pregnant woman is a smoker or a heavy drinker, and her baby has health issues after being born, is the woman charged with battery or any other crime? I don’t believe that is the case. So I don’t think there is much argument to the point you made. However, I’m curious what you would do to encourage society to confer personhood upon conception as opposed to birth.

If I’m not mistaken, have there not been instances where a pregnant woman was murdered and the murderer was charge with two counts of murder?

 

[Julianna]

Without religion in politics.

Abortion will always be legal.

My state, which I’m going to presume is mostly protestant, tries to pass laws to limit the number of abortions.

After which we are bombarded with lawsuites to stop those laws.

And I would answer…“What religion?” “Who’s faith?” “What denomination?” “Who decides?” “Which faith doctrine, values, traditions will be chosen?” This is why we have separation of church and state. Abortion cannot be solved from the outside in…if that were true…Roe V Wade would have been over years ago. Now it is time for grass roots and work within. In a country where many faiths abound, the only agreement that can be reached is at the grass roots level. I have suggested small things…building within or next too a Planned Parenthood Clinic…a home for unwed mothers…a med clinic that serves poor pregnant women…with pre-natal care…vitamins…shelter in case of abuse…adoption alternatives. You all want “in your face” to Planned Parenthood…how can you be more “in your face” than across the street, down the block, or next door. Every life saved is worth it…is it not? Word spreads…women don’t feel alone…lost…without hope for themselves or their unborn child. Small steps…“from within” and spread outward. Outlawing abortion will kill more babies and more women than you think. Abortion will not end…laws or no laws. Less shouting and more doing…abortion mills will close up shop…due to lack of business. Instead of our tax dollars going to end life…maybe just maybe…they can be used to promote life.