Bush Isn't Pro-Life and I have the numbers to prove it

[estesbob]

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the Mother Church is correct. But I see little point in a seemingly ineffectual ban that only relates to 0.17% of the abortions each year in the US.

You need to read the decision in the context of what it does to the Doe vs Bolton precedent. As far as the procedure itself-it is never medically necessary and i would let a Dr who sucked the brains out of a child for whatever reason anywhere near someone i loved

 

[manualman]

We should be careful when making accusations. The original ‘bad’ statistic comes from an article in Sojourners, a Christian magazine, and was written by Glen Harold Stassen, a self described “pro life advocate” and ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. The article claimed to use data from 16 states and was given some exposure in the National media. Some politicians did point to it.

…

But, my main point is that blaming liberals for being dishonest when the falsehood started in a Christian magazine and was debunked by secular abortionists seems a bit dishonest and unfair.

I got Sojourners for a year and I would NOT describe it as a christian magazine. Rather, I would describe it as a social justice magazine that drapes itself in some of the rhetoric and infrastructure of christianity, but in fact has abandoned real christianity in favor of moral relativism and leftist politics. These are the same guys who put out a ‘voters guide’ in the last election which pointed out the death penalty, but was so cowardly as to call for a mere REDUCTION in abortions instead of elimination and was SILENT on embryonic stem cell research in a year when this was a CRUCIAL issue. Phonies.

In my opinion, this magazine is nothing more than a pile of rationalizing that tries to make christians lose track of moral priorities in a sea of equivocating. It tries to salve the conscience of those who have sold out on clear cut issues and placed all their political and personal focus on genuine, but less central moral and religious issues.

 

[SoCalRC]

I got Sojourners for a year and I would NOT describe it as a christian magazine. Rather, I would describe it as a social justice magazine that drapes itself in some of the rhetoric and infrastructure of christianity… Phonies.

Haven’t read the magazine, so I have no idea what it is like. But I am curious about one thing. Why is it, do you suppose, that Jesus spent his earthly ministry on ‘phony’ issues instead of the issues important to real Christians like yourself?

Seriously, if Jesus didn’t want people to falsely (?) get the idea that social justice is an ultra critical component of our faith, why did he report to John the Baptist as he did (Matt 11:4-5, Luke 7:22)? Why did Matthew list the six very liberal sounding criteria for judgment in Matt 25:31-49? Or, even more imporantly, why did Jesus use five of these same criteria as an example, and perhaps allude to the six, when specifically asked how to achieve salvation (Luke 10:25-37)?

I’ve long thought the two teachings were connected. About 70% of the human family still lives in life shortening poverty and about 60% of all procurred abortion in the US each year are among the poor. But estesbob and Enders have already assured me, in no uncertain terms, that is ‘phony’ Christianity as well.

Sincerely, I’m asking. Since Christ ignored what is ‘important’ and the Magesterium insists on spending time on ‘phony’ issues even today, how can we be sure that you ‘real’ Christianity isn’t just another false path like the Pharisee’s (Luke 18:9-14)?

 

[estesbob]

Haven’t read the magazine, so I have no idea what it is like. But I am curious about one thing. Why is it, do you suppose, that Jesus spent his earthly ministry on ‘phony’ issues instead of the issues important to real Christians like yourself?

Seriously, if Jesus didn’t want people to falsely (?) get the idea that social justice is an ultra critical component of our faith, why did he report to John the Baptist as he did (Matt 11:4-5, Luke 7:22)? Why did Matthew list the six very liberal sounding criteria for judgment in Matt 25:31-49? Or, even more imporantly, why did Jesus use five of these same criteria as an example, and perhaps allude to the six, when specifically asked how to achieve salvation (Luke 10:25-37)?

I’ve long thought the two teachings were connected. About 70% of the human family still lives in life shortening poverty and about 60% of all procurred abortion in the US each year are among the poor. But estesbob and Enders have already assured me, in no uncertain terms, that is ‘phony’ Christianity as well.

Sincerely, I’m asking. Since Christ ignored what is ‘important’ and the Magesterium insists on spending time on ‘phony’ issues even today, how can we be sure that you ‘real’ Christianity isn’t just another false path like the Pharisee’s (Luke 18:9-14)?

The Church says NOTHING trumps abortion. You may call that phony Chritianity-i do not. I see that you have reverted to the “better dead " than underfed argument for abortion”. Since they’re poor we might as well strangle them in the crib so to speak, correct? After all 60% of them are in poverty-kill the little buggers so others can have more to eat. Or perhaps you are of the Jonathan Swift schhool and we should allow them to be born so we could eat them.

I always amazes me to see people jusify killing our children under the guise of “compassion”

 

[manualman]

I have yet to read in the scriptures where Jesus lead a protest procession to Herod’s palace to demand government programs for the poor. Nor does the parable of the Sheep and the goats laud sheep for ‘advocating for increased aid to the disadvantaged.’

There is a REASON that every element of social justice jesus preached involved personal one-on-one loving assistance from one human being to another.

Leftists in general (with many exceptions, I grant you) and the kind of folk that write in Sojourners don’t do social justice like Jesus did or Mother Theresa did. They typically bleat loudly about how somebody ELSE oughtta do something about this horrible problem. It seems to make them feel better to note that it is a huge problem since that means only government can be responsible for it and THEY don’t have to get their own hands dirty.

Jesus never preached to the people that they ought to band together and ‘end’ poverty. He taught people to reach out and help individuals in poverty. It is a crucial difference.

BOTH political parties are phony about wanting to help the poor. The republicans are easy to target since they SAY they support private charitable giving, but the R leadership rarely has impressive records of walking the walk. The Dems generally don’t care either, but they are more devious. They create the PERCEPTION of caring about the poor and disadvantaged, but never seem to notice that most of their solutions are horribly inefficient and more often than not HARM the people served by creating dependency instead of advancement.

As christians, we should be revolted by BOTH political approaches and simply keep our eyes open for ways to provide genuine help for our fellow man - just the way Jesus instructed us.

 

[Ender]

I am sorry, but it is a tremendous stretch of the facts to imply that the Gonzales ruling changes the legal precedent set in Casey.

There is more involved than overturning Roe. If everything breaks right for Republicans in 2008 they will retain the presidency and retake control of the senate. Assume that one of the court liberals retires, the president nominates someone like Alito or Roberts, and the senate confirms him. Further assume that an abortion case is accepted by the court and they reverse Roe, Doe, Casey et al - where are we? In this best case scenario the question of the legality of abortion returns to the states. Is there any doubt about how California would vote? Or New York? Massachusetts?

In order to ultimately prevail in outlawing abortion US citizens have to make the determination that it is wrong. Issues like the partial birth abortion ban go a long way to counter the misinformation that is routinely presented; it describes the horror of abortion in a way that is difficult to ignore.

But estesbob and Enders have already assured me, in no uncertain terms, that {social justice} is ‘phony’ Christianity as well.

I did? Where?

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

So, after you overturn Roe v. Wade, then what? There were roughly 500,000 illegal abortions each year in the US in the 40s.

I did? Where?

Right in this thread, ‘these sort of arguments…’.

 

[SoCalRC]

There is a REASON that every element of social justice jesus preached involved personal one-on-one loving assistance from one human being to another.

Do you really think Jesus wasn’t challenging social structures? Read Mary’s song. In Latin America Catholics think she sounds like a communist.

And look closely at my Matthew reference above. Does it say judging individuals, or does it say nations?

 

[SoCalRC]

The Church says NOTHING trumps abortion.

Really? Can you point me to where? Our Pope used Easter to call on an end to the “evil” situation in Iraq. He used his last visit with the President to call for safe havens for displaced Iraqi Christians…

I always amazes me to see people jusify killing our children under the guise of “compassion”

What argument? I posted a a few stats and a lot of scripture. Are we arguing that Jesus is justifying killing children?

YOU claim that Jesus teachings are not relevant to abortion. Only your efforts help (another thread). I assume that since, in this thread, you claim all good stems from the GOP, you are using it as a synomym.

 

[Newbie2]

There is more involved than overturning Roe. If everything breaks right for Republicans in 2008 they will retain the presidency and retake control of the senate. Assume that one of the court liberals retires, the president nominates someone like Alito or Roberts, and the senate confirms him. Further assume that an abortion case is accepted by the court and they reverse Roe, Doe, Casey et al - where are we? In this best case scenario the question of the legality of abortion returns to the states. Is there any doubt about how California would vote? Or New York? Massachusetts?

That’s a good point. Overturning Roe v. Wade is a step, but won’t alone necessarily change how the individual states vote on abortion.

This thread is getting way to political anyway…

 

[Philothea53]

That’s a good point. Overturning Roe v. Wade is a step, but won’t alone necessarily change how the individual states vote on abortion.

This thread is getting way to political anyway…

We could dream of and pray for a constitutional amendment defining ‘person’ as a human being from the point of conception.

Hail Mary, full of Grace,…

 

[thegame]

Regardless of what people think of the result George W. Bush is the only modern politician to do exactly what he said he would:

He appointed two judges that passed the law against partial birth abortion.
Thats more than every march or lawsuit has ever done on this issue! EVER!

I spoke with a few lawyers, and some judges, regarding this and every one of them (all Catholics) said almost the same thing: "From a legal standpoint: "Roe v. Wade will never be overturned. What Bush did, getting partial birth banned is so huge. Thats how we have to do it, widdle down from the top. However, one Democratic President who gets a Supreme Court appointment could undue that!"

 

[estesbob]

Really? Can you point me to where? Our Pope used Easter to call on an end to the “evil” situation in Iraq. He used his last visit with the President to call for safe havens for displaced Iraqi Christians…

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia**. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. **While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Cardinal Ratzinger.

**

**

What argument? I posted a a few stats and a lot of scripture. Are we arguing that Jesus is justifying killing children?

YOU claim that Jesus teachings are not relevant to abortion. Only your efforts help (another thread). I assume that since, in this thread, you claim all good stems from the GOP, you are using it as a synomym.

I dont claim the GOP is all good-however they are not the party that has a platform that calls for taxpayer funded abortions up until the moment the head fully exits the womb. It not a question of should one always support the GOP-its a question of how anyone, catholic or not, could suppot a party or a canidate that calls for our dollars to be used to kill our children.

 

[mlchance]

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the Mother Church is correct. But I see little point in a seemingly ineffectual ban that only relates to 0.17% of the abortions each year in the US.

How many thousands of children does that small percentage translate into?

So, after you overturn Roe v. Wade, then what? There were roughly 500,000 illegal abortions each year in the US in the 40s.

Nonsense.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[estesbob]

How many thousands of children does that small percentage translate into?

Nonsense.

– Mark L. Chance.

It is indeed nonsnense. the best estimate in the years prior to Roe V wade was at the most their were 400,000 abortions a year in the US. Even puting that aside i am not sure what his was. Off hand it looks like the typical “women are going to kill their children anyway so we might as well keep it legal” defenses.

Have you ever noticed that only with child killing do pepole tell us we can,t make it illegal becuase people will break the law anyway?

 

[SoCalRC]

We could dream of and pray for a constitutional amendment defining ‘person’ as a human being from the point of conception.

My point remains, why is it so important to put all our faith in a secular law solution? I think anything that we embrace to the point of ignoring Christ’s specific teachings is highly suspect. Perhaps even meeting St. John’s definition of idolatry.

He appointed two judges that passed the law against partial birth abortion.

That is incorrect on a number of levels. Congress passed a law, the Supreme Court upheld it. However, Bush’s two appointees signed a majority opinion expressly upholding Roe v. Wade, something I consider a betrayal. Only Scalia and Thomas, in a concurring opinion, questioned the Constitutional basis of Roe v. Wade. However, they also said that they would not have upheld the ban if the Commerce Clause (!?) of the Constitution had been raised. Something else I consider a betrayal.

1. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia

This is an interesting quote on several levels. First, notice that it does not uphold your point. It gives two examples, abortion and euthanasia, as grievous. This is understandable. Abortion and Euthanasia are infallible teachings. But they are not our only infallible teachings (another example would be murder). No where does the document single out abortion as supreme, as you assert.

Second, notice that all four examples are teachings in which we have no express guidance from Jesus. We only know of a few choices Jesus made in specific cases. For example, he elected to not acuse and not cast the first stone. And, instead of invoking a ‘just war’ of vengence against those who tortured and murdered him, he responding by loving them and asking for their forgiveness. But on abortion and euthanasia, he nothing is recorded in the Gospels or the early epistles.

So, again, this does not seem to uphold your position. The Cardinal is stressing the distinction between infallible teachings and others on matters where we must look to the Magisterium. I don’t see him elevating such teachings above the express teachings of Christ.

Last, the letter itself has to be looked at in exact context, lest it actually create its own theological Catch 22. The letter was not addressed to the entire body of the Church, but to Bishops. So the exact context is important. Abortion and Euthanasia were declared infallible teachings via the Ordinary Magesterium. IE, that the teachings are infallible because all the Bishops hold them to be true. So, if ‘we’ is meant to imply the letter recipients, we would have the odd situation where Bishops are being told they must agree to something which is infallible because they universally hold it to be true. That’s why I cringe when people try to overreach with this citation.

How many thousands of children does that small percentage translate into?

Zero, at least according to the Supreme Court, several Catholic pro-life groups, and even a significant number of people at Focus on the Family, a large proponent of the bill. See the article I already linked to above.

About 2000 abortions were performed using the specific procedure each year before the ban. But, as the Supreme Court pointed out (kindly even providing something of a medical ‘blue print’), there are plenty of alternative, non banned procedures.

 

[SoCalRC]

Nonsense.

I understand why it is appealing to believe that secular law and prohibition works. It makes it easy to be a Catholic. You don’t have to worry about statistical connections between poverty and abortion (a tragic side effect of this is that with our exploding hispanic population, Catholics are now disproportionately represented in procurred abortions since the 1990s). But when we suspend reality it really hurts our cause.

In 1945 there were thousands of deaths where abortion is listed on the death certificate. The true total number is unknowable. However, we also saw a surge in ‘health related’ craniotomy’s and a distinct drop in the live birth rate, so we know the number of procurred abortions was large. This really should not surprise anyone. It is impossible to pick up a western newspaper from most of the 19th century and not find multiple ads for abortificants and abortion procedures. Even after abortion laws were put in place (the main concern appears to be for the large numbers of woman dying from abortions), ads continued to appear until about the 1870s - though like prostitution ads today, the language was ‘discrete’.

If abortion is truly the center of one’s faith and obligations as a Catholic, it seems to me quite reasonable to ask - What about after Roe v. Wade? We know that abortions will continue. In fact, some, like the post above, believe that Roe v. Wade cannot ever be over turned. If that is the thinking, why do I get so much resentment from Catholics when I suggest that we might need to look less to secular law and more to the teachings of God?

It is indeed nonsnense. the best estimate in the years prior to Roe V wade was at the most their were 400,000 abortions a year in the US.

I keep forgetting that you are filled with rage at the suggestion that people respond to certain social pressures by more frequently choosing death and self destruction. One need only look at the situation in the mid 1940s to understand why we saw a surge.

Have you ever noticed that only with child killing do pepole tell us we can,t make it illegal becuase people will break the law anyway?

I’ve noticed that you are very fond of straw men. Look carefully, I am arguing that we have to do more, a lot more - and the things we have to work on are spelled out, repeatedly, by Christ.

You have repeatedly argued that Christ is irrelevant. That the true path to ‘salvation’ on this issue is blind devotion to a political party and a secular solution via ‘law’. Further, you have now argued that, because the issue is supreme, only your political litmus test matters…

Since history seems to show that the secular law approach will never be completely successful (and may well never be achieved) and because I refuse to put any earthly political structure ahead of God, I, personally, must disagree with you.

I am called upon not to judge. So I am trying very hard not to infer what it means that you constantly label anyone who disagrees with your exact belief system is ‘pro abortion’, but I cannot help but think that there is some irony in the fact that yesterday’s Gospel concerned the inappropriateness of self rightousness. You have twice claimed absolute ‘credit’ in the ‘war’ on abortion. I’m asking, what results? The only numbers we have appear to be moving in the wrong direction. You’re welcome to label looking to Christ for guidance on important issues facing us as being a “sideline” Catholic, but it seems to me to be the core essence of being a Catholic. You either truly accept Jesus as God or you don’t.

 

[estesbob]

You have repeatedly argued that Christ is irrelevant

. That the true path to ‘salvation’ on this issue is blind devotion to a political party and a secular solution via ‘law’. Further, you have now argued that, because the issue is supreme, only your political litmus test matters…

.

You know i have preety much quit responding to you becuase no matter what evidence one posts you reply with long ,posts devoid of anything to back up your assertions and which do nothing but restate you position that your *personal *view of social justice trumps everthing.

I will address the part I bolded. Complete and utter nonsense. I have never said what Christ has said is irelevant. .I have also never said one should have blind devotion to a political party nor said salvation was obtained through that. I have even given examples of where I refused to vote for a republicans, even, pro-life ones.

I am not, BTW-one that said the issue is supreme-the Pope did.

 

[mlchance]

I’ve noticed that you are very fond of straw men.

Pot, meet Kettle:

I understand why it is appealing to believe that secular law and prohibition works.

I keep forgetting that you are filled with rage at the suggestion that people respond to certain social pressures by more frequently choosing death and self destruction.

You have repeatedly argued that Christ is irrelevant. That the true path to ‘salvation’ on this issue is blind devotion to a political party and a secular solution via ‘law’. Further, you have now argued that, because the issue is supreme, only your political litmus test matters…

In 1945 there were thousands of deaths where abortion is listed on the death certificate. The true total number is unknowable.

So, then, when you cited a number, you were just making stuff up.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[SoCalRC]

Pot, meet Kettle:

And this furthers discussion how? In the instance above, I gave a specific example. I have never, ever, posted a pro-abortion message on this site. In fact, I have been to the ‘right’ of a southern conservative on the matter. When I post scripture and someone keeps shouting ‘typical killer gibberish…’, I think that the phrase ‘straw man’ is worth bringing up.

If you want to argue that Jesus was a pro-abortionist in the Gospel, be my guest. But simply calling me, a person who not only accepts the Church’s teaching but has actually had close experience with choosing life even when doctors, insurance, and even family members are pushing in the oppoite direction, names simply proves my point - stretching the truth only weakens our position with secular society.

So, then, when you cited a number, you were just making stuff up.

No, I was going from the CDC and NIH. The only numbers that would appear to be completely made up are estesbob’s. Roe v. Wade was at the beginning of 1973. But in 1970, four states had already repealed their abortion laws and 11 more had reformed them. By 1972, the legal abortion rate in the US was already over 600,000, 50% higher than estesbob’s figure. You can see that here:

guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf

Though you can also go to the CDC’s own report ABORTION SURVEILLANCE, ANNUAL REPORT (1973). We can also see the transitional period in abortion related deaths. In the 1940’s abortion related maternal deaths ran in the thousands, by 1965 it was down to about 200 a year (and dropped to under 140 by 1969 - see National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) VITAL STATISTICS FOR THE UNITED STATES), but it is apples and oranges. Antibiotics caused this dramatic drop, and birth control usage and availability was also significantly different. So, to approximate illegal abortions, different indirect indicators are checked. The median of these calculated values places the mid 40’s surge at over 500,000 and the 1972 level at about 350,000 (which may be the source of estesbob’s number).

However, that is illegal abortions (remember, only 15 states had reformed or repealled at that time). This has to be added to the 600,000 legal abortions. These are terrifying numbers, 500,000 abortions a year for the ‘Greatest Generation’, 950,000 abortions a year as free love goes mainstream with leisure suits… But they make sense. In 1973 legal abortions surged to over 800,000 and by early '75 it was over 1,000,000…

Think about it, which is more likely - people suddenly ‘lose’ their values or laws change to reflect values already lost? It would be great if we could just say ‘illegal, stop it!’, but what possible evidence do we have to suggest that ever really works?

Again, be nasty to me as much as you want, but if you can’t get along with me how can you possible expect to be compelling to people who do not accept the concept of single cell human beings?