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

[SoCalRC]

There were not 500,000 illegal abortions in the US before Roe v Wade. The physician who testified for Roe v Wade said there were approximately 100,000 abortions. He has admitted that this was a made up number. They figured they needed a number that seemed significant enough to get attention and this was the number they settled on.

The actual numbers were very low…but hard to determine. I have read some estimates of wrounf 10,000 per year…far less than the 100,000 that sold the people of the US on a mother’s right to kill a child.

I will research and see if I can find a link…

Thank you for the links. However, I am going just based on research from public health groups. As Mary bobo notes, these things can often be hard to detect because of secrecy and stigma (a good example would be marital status among certain parts of the population in the 50’s and 60’s - the number of self proclaimed ‘widows’ with children cannot be reconciled to death rates).

It is critically important to the ‘law solution’ to believe that prohibition was effective. However, we do not have much strong evidence that is so. For example, in 1999, researchers at UC Davis tried tabulating just maternal death certificates where an abortion was noted and were suprised to find over 5,800 in a single year in the mid 40’s (they specifically looked in the WWII era because the widespread use of antibiotics dropped abortion related deaths dramatically after that).

One thing that always suprises me is how little we seem to think of people and how much we suddenly seem to think of law. Remember, before Roe v. Wade, 4 states had repealed abortion laws, and legal abortions were tabulated by the CDC at 600,000. It seems to me that something that has been done since long before Christ, and what people want bad enough to travel across the country for, is going to get procurred rather it is legal or not.

However, if it would make everyone happy, I’ll accept any value except zero for the purposes of discussion. If our goal is zero abortions and a truly pro-life society, two questions still remain relevant. What happens ‘after’ Roe v. Wade is overturned? And, after 30+ years our major triumph has been to get a ban that only was upheld by the Supreme Court with an opinion that argued that none of the 2000 abortions effected each would be stopped and reaffirmed Roe v. Wade - is it really a good idea to put all our eggs in one basket?

 

[estesbob]

You don’t recall your logic about “sideline” Catholics? I noted that 60% of all abortions in this country involve the poor (per the CDC and NIH), so I was reassured that Christ’s teachings about social justice were still relevant to the problem at hand. I then cited several Gospel passages.

You indicated that was typical pro-abortion garbage. All good progress in the fight on abortion stemed from ‘Catholics like us’. In this thread I have repeated my same argument, but you have revised your statement from all positive progress being attributed to folks like you to ‘the GOP’.

Look at your language, ‘pro life ministry’, conspiring with your enemies… You’ve argued that nothing trumps abortion in the Catholic faith, but your one ‘evidence’ of that specifically notes otherwise…

When asked to explain himself, Jesus pointed to Jonah (Matt 12:39). We normally draw a relationship between things like 3 days, the whale and death, etc. But it is also interesting to look at how many Jewish scholars view Jonah. To them, a relevant message is that Jonah first ran from God. Next, he ran to God. Finally, he ran ahead of God. As Geraurd, the biblical scholar once wryly noted, when we are running ahead of God it still behooves us to periodically look over our shoulder and make sure we are going the right way…

I think you have several different people mixed in the above .If you want to link where I said any of this ill be glad to respond.

I also think you have difficulty distinguishing between following the teachings of Christ and following your interpretation of Christs teachings. We are required to do the former-believing the the latter alllows you to justify just about anything you want to do-as we have seen in this thread.

Way too many catholics jusify their support of abortion enablers under the banner of “supporting social jusice”. The dead enjoy no jusitce at all-social or otherwise.

 

[dmelosi]

Before Roe vs Wade there were fewer abortions. When it became legal it was the start of the more and more people thinking that it is ok. Most people know that it is not ok, which is evidenced by very few bragging about having one. No one goes out and says “I had an abortion”. But as long as it is legal it will become more and more acceptable, especially if their friends, politicians, etc keep saying that it is not the only issue or that they are not a one issue voter.

No matter what anyone thinks about President Bush, he has been more pro-life than any president I remember.

Pro-life is the opposite of pro-abortion, so no need to muddy the argument by throwing other issues in this.

Everyone here has to agree that if a democrat is in power that they will certainly appoint a pro-abortion supreme court nominee if given the chance.

 

[SoCalRC]

Why are so obsessed with ascribing uncharitable motives to others?

Wellll, if I called you a “pro abortionist” or a “worthless” “sideline Catholic” whose own efforts are “evil”, could any neuron in your brain be convinced to consider the remarks remotely charitable?

Please present evidence that I am enraged. Please present evidence that I am sneering.

Well, you’ve continued to respond without actually taking a position while I’ve tried to answer any direct questions. One hypothesis is that you are emotional distraught. The other is that you seek confrantation and abusive exhanges for their own sake. I’m giving your Christianity the benefit of the doubt and going with emotion.

 

[estesbob]

You clamed I said that-(whiua

Well, you’ve continued to respond without actually taking a position while I’ve tried to answer any direct questions. One hypothesis is that you are emotional distraught. The other is that you seek confrantation and abusive exhanges for their own sake. I’m giving your Christianity the benefit of the doubt and going with emotion.

The other alternative is nobody really knows what your postion is.

 

[SoCalRC]

I think you have several different people mixed in the above .If you want to link where I said any of this ill be glad to respond.

I also think you have difficulty distinguishing between following the teachings of Christ and following your interpretation of Christs teachings. We are required to do the former-believing the the latter alllows you to justify just about anything you want to do-as we have seen in this thread.

Way too many catholics jusify their support of abortion enablers under the banner of “supporting social jusice”. The dead enjoy no jusitce at all-social or otherwise.

Wow - How many times have you called me pro abortionist or an abortionist enabler now? On what evidence?

More importantly, what interpretations? I generally just put the passages out there. You are the one who rejected them immediately as “pro abortion”…

This brings up another point. You only seem able to interact with me as some type of stereotype. You actually seem to be unable to even view me as a fellow human being, let alone a Catholic. If you cannot interact with me, someone who only questions tactics and effectiveness, how can you ever hope to convince secular society of anything?

 

[YADA]

In the 1960’s we had the advent of the pill [roughly a decade before Roe V Wade]. The pill [leaving aside the abortion aspects and other aspects] was promoted as the end of un-planned pregancy…

Now, the statistics about illegal abortions from pre Roe V Wade days…ie the 1040’s we have been discussing…should have been impacted by the use of the pill in preventing pregancy before the need for “abortion”

You see there in is the lie …there was not wide spread use of abortion to hide unplanned pregnancy before the legalization of abortion by Roe V Wade…

Yes, there have always been illegal abortions, un-planned pregnacies, adoption and your “widowed mothers” [note that these *widowed mothers had their children and not an abortion] and the people who married for the sake of the children [the *shotgun wedding].

It is a fact that the advent of the pill and the legalization of abortion** did not** reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancy, children born out of wedlock, child abuse or abuse of women. Women ar more objectified now than ever. More women live in poverty with children who have no married parents, adoptions are down, fewer people are getting married and more children are being killed by abortion…

Many women do not “choose” to procure an abortion…they are coerced into the decision by the men who do not want to face the consequences of their sexual activity and family who for a host of reasons prefer to end the childs life than deal with the reality of this new life.

Planned Parenthood was formed by Margret Sanger, the person who thought Hitler’s solution was a wonderful thing, preached the Gospel of Eugenics and wanted Eugenics used on “those who should not pollute society by reproducing” Look to the source, the root of the practice…Abortion is an absolute evil

Satistic may not lie but liers use statistics !

 

[mlchance]

Wellll, if I called you a “pro abortionist” or a “worthless” “sideline Catholic” whose own efforts are “evil”, could any neuron in your brain be convinced to consider the remarks remotely charitable?

Please quote me using any of those terms in specific reference to you. More specifically, what does any of that have to do with your continuing to malign my motives and character?

Well, you’ve continued to respond without actually taking a position while I’ve tried to answer any direct questions.

My position on abortion is in doubt? Interesting. Perhaps if I were asked direct questions without you being either pedantic or insulting, you might get more answers.

One hypothesis is that you are emotional distraught. The other is that you seek confrantation and abusive exhanges for their own sake. I’m giving your Christianity the benefit of the doubt and going with emotion.

Another much stronger possibility is that you’re wrong. Doesn’t that enter your mind when your ascribing uncharitable motives to others (now under the cover of giving my “Christianity the benefit of doubt,” thus attempting to add a veneer of respectability to your persistent misrepresentations)?

Since I’ve repeatedly said I’m neither insulting your nor enraged, I can only read your continued assertions to the contrary to mean that in addition to being vicious and ruled by one of the seven deadly sins that I am also a liar.

How does this sort of rhetoric on your part further discussion?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[YADA]

I’ve seen the reports in the papers about abortion being safer than carrying a child to birth. But again that was a lie see here:

abortiontv.com/Glitch/AbortionMoreDangerous.htm

Abortion is a grave evil that de-values the lives of everyone.

 

[goofyjim]

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned it yet but the problem with the conservatives is they don’t put their money where their mouth is. They say abortion is wrong, which it is, but cut back fuunding for programs that would otherwise keep the children from engaging in behavior that leads to abortion circumstances. They are all talk but don’t provide alternatives because they are too busy fudning other wasteful things that I won’t mention here.

 

[dmelosi]

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned it yet but the problem with the conservatives is they don’t put their money where their mouth is. They say abortion is wrong, which it is, but cut back fuunding for programs that would otherwise keep the children from engaging in behavior that leads to abortion circumstances. They are all talk but don’t provide alternatives because they are too busy fudning other wasteful things that I won’t mention here.

Yep been addressed in this post many many times to disprove exactly what you just said. All you need to do is look back rather than try to stir it.

 

[valient_Lucy]

I’m in NY and I can tell you without a doubt Republicans are not Pro-Life. I left the party when they decided to make a baby killer the govenor of the State. So called Prolife other Republicans in elected positions supported this.

It’s important to remember that being “anti Roe vs. Wade” is NOT the same thing as being pro-life. Overturning Roe vs. Wade will NOT ban abortions in the United States. It will simply give the states the power to ban abortions. It is entirely possible for someone to oppose Roe vs. Wade on the power that it violates states’ rights, and that the state should be the entity to regulate abortion, not the Federal government. Considering that many Republicans are in favor of giving more power to states and less to the the Federal government, it is entirely possible that many of them would support overturning Roe vs. Wade but would not support a constitutional amendment (Federal or otherwise) to ban abortion.

 

[dmelosi]

It’s important to remember that being “anti Roe vs. Wade” is NOT the same thing as being pro-life. Overturning Roe vs. Wade will NOT ban abortions in the United States. It will simply give the states the power to ban abortions. It is entirely possible for someone to oppose Roe vs. Wade on the power that it violates states’ rights, and that the state should be the entity to regulate abortion, not the Federal government. Considering that many Republicans are in favor of giving more power to states and less to the the Federal government, it is entirely possible that many of them would support overturning Roe vs. Wade but would not support a constitutional amendment (Federal or otherwise) to ban abortion.

Yes, but even more important to remember that being for Roe vs Wade certainly makes you pro choice.

 

[YADA]

I don’t know if anyone has mentioned it yet but the problem with the conservatives is they don’t put their money where their mouth is. They say abortion is wrong, which it is, but cut back fuunding for programs that would otherwise keep the children from engaging in behavior that leads to abortion circumstances. They are all talk but don’t provide alternatives because they are too busy fudning other wasteful things that I won’t mention here.

Conservatives do care and they do “put their money where their mouth is”…With exceptions [there always are] one coud say that it is ‘liberals’ who want to “put other people’s money where their mouths are”

Here is a link to real statistics…not just an unsupported statement:

hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html

From th link:

Note that neither political ideology nor income is responsible for much of the charitable differences between secular and religious people. For example, religious liberals are 19 points more likely than secular liberals to give to charity, while religious conservatives are 28 points more likely than secular conservatives to do so. In other words, religious conservatives (who give and volunteer at rates of 91 percent and 67 percent) appear to differ from secular liberals (who give and volunteer at rates of 72 percent and 52 percent) more due to religion than to politics. Similarly, giving differences do not disappear when income is neutralized. This should not be particularly surprising, however, because the sccbs data show practically no income differences between the groups. Furthermore, research on philanthropy has consistently shown that the poor tend to give more frequently — and a higher percentage of their incomes — than the middle class. For example, economist Charles Clotfelter and others have shown that the poor tend to give a proportion of their income to charity that is comparable to the giving proportion of the very wealthy — and nearly twice that of the middle class.2 (This seems to be true only for the working poor, however. Welfare support appears to depress giving substantially.3)

Conservatives are more likely to contribute than liberals and religious conservatives give even more…

 

[YADA]

I just love those “Conservatives are Evil, mean people” posts and run away hit jobs…like goofyjim’s

Originally Posted by goofyjim forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I don’t know if anyone has mentioned it yet but the problem with the conservatives is they don’t put their money where their mouth is. They say abortion is wrong, which it is, but cut back fuunding for programs that would otherwise keep the children from engaging in behavior that leads to abortion circumstances. They are all talk but don’t provide alternatives because they are too busy fudning other wasteful things that I won’t mention here.

Funny, I was at a fund raiser for Father Taaffe’s Homes for Unwed Mothers and Children last Sunday…lots of ‘christians’ there supporting mothers and their children [and I personnally know many were conservatives]…not many liberals [though there were a few]…

Here’s the thing is we weren’t checking political affiliations at the door…we were just working for a cause…

 

[SoCalRC]

Conservatives do care and they do “put their money where their mouth is”…With exceptions [there always are] one coud say that it is ‘liberals’ who want to “put other people’s money where their mouths are”

Here is a link to real statistics…not just an unsupported statement:

hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3447051.html

From th link:

Conservatives are more likely to contribute than liberals and religious conservatives give even more…

I think you need to read your reference more closely. Look at part of the quote you not only included, but highlighted:

"more due to religion than to politics."

To understand how this conclussion was reached, look at the math in the quote as well:

Secular Liberal 72%
Religious Liberal 91% (“19 points more likely”)

Secular Conservative 63%
Religious Conservative 91% (“28 points more likely”)

This would appear to make your first and last statements false. Among the secular population, liberals are 9% more likely to give, even when normalized for differences in socioeconomic giving patterns. But among people who describe themselves as religious, the gap is apparently 0%. Hence the explicit statement, religion is a larger factor in giving than political beliefs.

You appear to be arguing the opposite conclussion and also asserting that 63 is larger than 72. Personally, I couldn’t say rather the research is sound or not, the essay’s author does not include links to the original statistical data. But it is the usual custom to include citations that confirm one’s point of view, not refute it…

 

[valient_Lucy]

Yes, but even more important to remember that being for Roe vs Wade certainly makes you pro choice.

I never attempted to deny that. I just want to remind people that when a person votes for a Republican, it’s possible that, instead of voting for a pro-life candidate, they are voting for a “less pro-choice” candidate. That’s important to remember.

I am NOT saying that Democrats are pro-life (they aren’t) or that a person should vote Democrat or not vote Republican. I just get a little uncomfortable when people say that Republicans are a pro-life party. We can certainly use them to put restrictions on abortion, and to work towards ending abortion, but it’s foolish to believe unquestioningly that they are on our side.

No one seems to forget that being for Roe vs. Wade makes you pro-choice. But many people allow their allegiance to a political party to come before their loyalties to God or the unborn child, or worse, to assume they’re one in the same.

 

[mary_bobo]

I never attempted to deny that. I just want to remind people that when a person votes for a Republican, it’s possible that, instead of voting for a pro-life candidate, they are voting for a “less pro-choice” candidate. That’s important to remember.

I am NOT saying that Democrats are pro-life (they aren’t) or that a person should vote Democrat or not vote Republican. I just get a little uncomfortable when people say that Republicans are a pro-life party. We can certainly use them to put restrictions on abortion, and to work towards ending abortion, but it’s foolish to believe unquestioningly that they are on our side.

No one seems to forget that being for Roe vs. Wade makes you pro-choice. But many people allow their allegiance to a political party to come before their loyalties to God or the unborn child, or worse, to assume they’re one in the same.

One thing to keep in mind is that we have several SCJ who are just waiting to retire when a Democrat president comes along. We can’t expect that a Dem will appoint anyone but a pro-choice judge.

 

[valient_Lucy]

One thing to keep in mind is that we have several SCJ who are just waiting to retire when a Democrat president comes along. We can’t expect that a Dem will appoint anyone but a pro-choice judge.

I never said we could expect a Democrat to appoint anyone but a pro-choice judge. I just refuse to trust the Republicans when they try to portray themselves as pro-life. To me, it’s not Pro-Choice Democrats vs. Pro-Life Republicans, it’s Blatantly Pro-Choice Democrats vs. Somewhat Less Pro-Choice Republicans. It’s not Good vs. Evil, it’s More Evil vs. Less Evil.

 

[goofyjim]

It’s not good enough to be prolife in speech only. I’m looking for the Republicans to stop worrying about a balanced budget for now and spend some on afterschool programs to keep the children from risky behavior. Otherwise, as I said, they are talk and no action.