D
diggerdomer
Guest
Me too!
- Status
D
Debra_C
Guest
the answer varies depending on how you define the term liberal. For example: the bishops have said that access to quality health care (including affordability) is a basic human right. That is currently seen as a liberal position by most. In many ways, Catholic Social Justice teachings mirror the Democratic party’s ideals (though, not necessarily their proposed solutions). On the other hand, the Catholic Church is completely unwilling to accept any right or freedom trumping the right to life and the inviobale dignity of ANY person, especially the innocent, poor, disabled, and most helpless or a nontraditional definition of marriage and family. That is seen as a very conservative position in the current political climate. It has been my experience that neither party’s platform adequately conforms to Catholic social justice teaching, and as a general rule, I see myself as being fairly liberal in the political spectrum, though I am very much pro life and in favor of traditional marriage. It is hard to imagine this position in the current political climate due to the extreme level of polarization our society has reached, largely over these two issues. However, just 20 years ago, that was not at all the case. The parties were divided more along the lines of economic and foreign policy ideas, not abortion and gay rights legislation.Hi all~
I know that you cannot be both Catholic and pro-choice due to what we believe and practice as Catholics, but is it possible to be a liberal and still be a good Catholic? A lot of my extended family is left-wing, yet claim to be Catholic. My immediate family is fully conservative, however, and I have never doubted that. Is it that I don’t fully understand the term “liberal” and think that you must automatically be conservative if you’re Catholic?
Please help me understand and excuse my political ignorance…
~Therese
B
Bluegoat
Guest
The way the American media uses the terms Liberal and Conservative are so ridiculous, and so shallow, that they have become not much more than rude things to say about other people.
To the rest of the world, including good and faithful Catholics, the idea that a Catholic could not be liberal, or Liberal, would be laughable. When people speak using this current American usage, it makes me think they don’t know any politics outside of the US, and they don’t know any history either, from outside or inside their own country.
Liberalism is not really about a list of specific issues; there are liberals who are pro-life, for example. It is more like an approach to political life.
But I agree with pp which suggested that Christianity transcends the political, and it would be difficult for most Christians to define their views based on any one political stream, and even more by any one political party.
I think those who identify so closely with one political faction need to be very careful about what kinds of things they are making gods of.
To the rest of the world, including good and faithful Catholics, the idea that a Catholic could not be liberal, or Liberal, would be laughable. When people speak using this current American usage, it makes me think they don’t know any politics outside of the US, and they don’t know any history either, from outside or inside their own country.
Liberalism is not really about a list of specific issues; there are liberals who are pro-life, for example. It is more like an approach to political life.
But I agree with pp which suggested that Christianity transcends the political, and it would be difficult for most Christians to define their views based on any one political stream, and even more by any one political party.
I think those who identify so closely with one political faction need to be very careful about what kinds of things they are making gods of.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
isn’t that just a way to say Barack is not for abortion?
I know you do not understand this but you are contributing more to abortion than Obama. That is because he is trying to reduce the need for abortion and thus reducing abortion, while your approach requires complete control be granted to certain parties who could then make abortion illegal, of course they could also do anything else they feel. So the latter plan is doomed to failure even if performed, while the earlier plan is the only opportunity.
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
My thoughts exactly!
Texas Roofer:
Look it up and you tell me!
He is not reducing abortions. He may be hoping and praying he is, but he isn’t. By supporting it, he is telling the people of this country it is okay. Sure, we all have an equal chance at life…at change - all of us, except for the most vulnerable, the most defenseless.
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
if you look at the link you posted it acknowledges Obama is working to reduce abortion, if you listen to Obama you would hear him say that also.
wrong, the number of abortions are going down and will continue to drop if education goes up. That is the problem what you and Bush espouse which is to cut off the education, thus increasing unwanted pregnancies and probably increasing abortions
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Can you name one President that has reduced abortions? Please?
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
This is impossible to quantify statistically. The important thing to remember is that a President has the power to influence the collective stance of the Supreme Court – and lower courts – through his/her judicial appointments. A President who is pro-life is more likely to appoint judges who are; likewise, a President who is a strict constructionist (with regards to the Constitution) is more likely to appoint judges who are of a like mind. Either of these can tilt the Supreme Court in such a way that R v. W would get overturned.
The point is that a President could, potentially, create a situation (or at least contribute to one) in which abortion might someday be banned. Add to this the high profile that such a President gives to the pro-life movement, and the unlikelihood of tax dollars being spent to fund abortions, and the “vote pro-life” position gathers momentum.
I don’t know if anyone has linked this yet, but Jimmy Akin has a great article on the gravity of voting pro-life (which, of course, I attempted to paraphrase in my above comments). See it here.
Peace,
Dante
G
gearhead
Guest
It’s unclear what the impacts of the Presidents would have been, but according to the graph and stats on this site, here’s the general trend overlaid on presidential terms of office:
- abortion was legalized under Nixon
- abortion rates climed sharply under Nixon and Ford
- under Carter, the increase in abortions went from steeply upward to basically flat
- with only a few perturbations, abortion rates remained flat under Reagan
- under Bush Sr., abortion rates went from flat to slightly downward
- under Clinton and Bush Jr., abortion rates continued slightly downward
So… while attributing the responsibility for this to the specific presidents would be hard to do, here are some interesting points:
- legalization and the highest rates of increase occurred under Republican Presidents.
- the sharpest downward change in the abortion trend occurred under a Democrat (Carter).
- every time the Democrats have come to power, either fewer abortions were occurring or the slope of the curve was lower (i.e. the rate of increase was reduced) when they left office than when they took it.
- the overall trend in abortion rates only changed downward under one Republican President (Bush Sr.).
B
Bluegoat
Guest
My suspicion is that the Presidents themselves had little effect. And the initial rise after the change in the law is not very revealing.
It might be more interesting to look at economic climate and social programs.
G
gearhead
Guest
AHA! Give that man a cigar!
The stance on abortion of the President has negligible impact on actual abortion rates. Other social and economic factors play a much greater role in determining how many abortions happen.
With that in mind, here’s a question for the one-issue voters here: which matters more to you?
1. making a statement about your disapproval of abortion without necessarily reducing the number of abortions.
2. actually reducing the number of abortions.
If objective 1 is all you care about, then fine: vote for the candidate who shouts “pro-life!” the loudest. However, if you care about objective 2, then it might do you good to figure out what factors affect abortion rates and vote based on those. I’m not saying that this is easy - there are some very complex issues involved. However, if your intent is to actually reduce the number of abortions, then you can’t think that your objective is fulfilled just because you voted for someone who said he was “pro-life”.
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
I’m done trying to persuade you people that voting for a pro-choice, pro-abortion president* isn’t *going to reduce abortions! Just vote pro-life next time around. Put other issues aside and think about what the priorities are. Please. And remember the lives who are taken everyday through this form of murder - in your prayers. I’m praying for you all.
In Him,
Therese
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I always vote pro-life. Thanks anyway for your advice. Don’t worry about not being able to persuade us that voting for a president is unlikely to have a significant effect on reducing abortions, the facts that others have presented here (thanks to those who did!) seem to confirm that.
Just vote pro-life next time around. Put other issues aside and think about what the priorities are. Please. And remember the lives who are taken everyday through this form of murder - in your prayers. I’m praying for you all.
In Him,
Therese
B
Bluegoat
Guest
So, why is it that whichever party is dominant in the US, either in the presidency or the congress or senate, it seems to have little or no effect on abortion?
And please please please don’t give conspiracy theories! I am just thinking that without a clear understanding of why, not much is likely to change.
And please please please don’t give conspiracy theories! I am just thinking that without a clear understanding of why, not much is likely to change.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
My own take is that change needs to happen from the bottom up, i.e. locally. I just don’t think the federal government will be the deciding factor regarding abortion.
A
AHapka
Guest
Why is it that so many people try to keep abortion legal but say “were working to reduce the number of them?”???
By that same theory, we should keep drunk driving legal while trying to reduce the number of drunk drivers through “education.”
It’s the same concept, because “keep abortion safe and legal” is the same thing as saying “keep drunk driving safe and legal.”
Wait a minute, no it’s not…at least I have a far better chance of making it home drunk without killing anyone then an abortion.
J
jackinbox
Guest
Not necessarily. Our current pope did write this:
“A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”
R
rtconstant
Guest
Not to defend any particular politician as I find few enough I can in good conscience support, but I believe I can elaborate on the reasoning here. Abortion is an abomination, however it isn’t a causal abomination its a symptomatic one. It is symptomatic of poor education as most people who support rights for it do not actually believe that the child is a “person” yet. While no doctor makes that claim popular media has given that impression, and lets face it most people believe what they see on TV.
It is symptomatic of a general decline in concern for human life. For various reasons people have become hardened to many issues of human life. Liberals don’t really care about the death penalty any more, and conservatives are winking at war, and torture. This shows growing hard heartedness in the population. This requires a change of heart in individuals, a change of heart that must begin in the home, and in Church communities. The local Church in many places has not been strong in conveying the message of compassion and human justice and dignity, and I believe we’re seeing the fallout.
It can symptomatic of poverty, when you take the above two causes and combine it with poverty, a pregnancy that is scary for financial reasons, becomes easier (relatively) to terminate.
So yes education, moral and ethical instruction, and alleviation of the burdens of poverty are absolutely the keys to defeating abortion. Remember the goal is to end abortion not just make illegal (though certainly we want both). Abortion has been around since the beginning of time so just making it illegal really won’t stop it as long as people find it an acceptable alternative.
Ultimately no politician is taking the issue seriously until they acknowledge all of the above.
G
gearhead
Guest
That’s because every abortion represents an unwanted pregnancy. People are divided over abortion, but generally, both sides agree that unwanted pregnancy is something to be avoided.
Of course, the “how” of avoiding unwanted pregnancy is another contentious issue itself. But when a politician says that they’re working to reduce “the number of abortions” or “the occasion for abortion”, they’re trying to create a message that says to both sides “I’m with you - vote for me.”
B
Bluegoat
Guest
Yes, I think the above post is very true. Abortion is one example of a larger problem.
Sometimes people compare abortion to infanticide, and I think that can be usefully done in another way. Infanticide used to be quite common, and in some places still is. But it is really quite rare in the West now - and people are really horrified when it happens.
But why? It isn’t as simple as not thinking the baby is alive, or even a human being. In places where infanticide is common or has been, life is very harsh. Day to day survival, due to famine, or war, may be hard to depend on for anyone. People see death, horrible death, all around them and do become hardened to it, and to suffering. Often in such cases it is a desperate matter of putting limited resources to the best use, and the decision is made.
Abortion in the West does not exactly parallel this, but many of the elements are the same, and the fact that an unborn child often has no visible presence at the time an abortion is performed is an added difficulty. We are daily hardened to suffering and a kind of radical individualism. Many people feel insecure financially, or unsupported by family and society - they feel alone. And really, I think the two are connected.
To try to change that hard-hearted culture is absolutely essential if we are going to end abortion - there will never be enough people to vote against it if that is how we see the world. Politicians come out of the population, and also must be elected - we can’t expect that they will represent a radically different POV that the rest of us at the political level.
Since I work with pregnant women, I read a fair bit of connected literature. One “program” which I read about which I found moving was at The Farm, once Americas largest commune. They are well known for their midwifery services which are quite formidable. At one time they extended an invitation to any woman who was pregnant and didn’t want an abortion to come there and give birth. They could leave the child to be raised there and even come back at a later time when they had their lives more in order. Only a few did - the pre and post natal care and general support of that community was such that most felt capable of taking on the raising of their babies. Some stayed, having been rejected by their own families.
I suspect it would all be quite illegal now, but I think that is a really radical action that can show us what kind of things can really begin to change negative attitudes to unplanned babies, pregnancy and birth, and family and community.
Sometimes people compare abortion to infanticide, and I think that can be usefully done in another way. Infanticide used to be quite common, and in some places still is. But it is really quite rare in the West now - and people are really horrified when it happens.
But why? It isn’t as simple as not thinking the baby is alive, or even a human being. In places where infanticide is common or has been, life is very harsh. Day to day survival, due to famine, or war, may be hard to depend on for anyone. People see death, horrible death, all around them and do become hardened to it, and to suffering. Often in such cases it is a desperate matter of putting limited resources to the best use, and the decision is made.
Abortion in the West does not exactly parallel this, but many of the elements are the same, and the fact that an unborn child often has no visible presence at the time an abortion is performed is an added difficulty. We are daily hardened to suffering and a kind of radical individualism. Many people feel insecure financially, or unsupported by family and society - they feel alone. And really, I think the two are connected.
To try to change that hard-hearted culture is absolutely essential if we are going to end abortion - there will never be enough people to vote against it if that is how we see the world. Politicians come out of the population, and also must be elected - we can’t expect that they will represent a radically different POV that the rest of us at the political level.
Since I work with pregnant women, I read a fair bit of connected literature. One “program” which I read about which I found moving was at The Farm, once Americas largest commune. They are well known for their midwifery services which are quite formidable. At one time they extended an invitation to any woman who was pregnant and didn’t want an abortion to come there and give birth. They could leave the child to be raised there and even come back at a later time when they had their lives more in order. Only a few did - the pre and post natal care and general support of that community was such that most felt capable of taking on the raising of their babies. Some stayed, having been rejected by their own families.
I suspect it would all be quite illegal now, but I think that is a really radical action that can show us what kind of things can really begin to change negative attitudes to unplanned babies, pregnancy and birth, and family and community.
- Status