Need to do both. The exact same argument was used by those who opposed the abolotionists in the 1800s Pick up Millers "Arguing About Slavery and youll see what I mean.The problem is that not everyone thinks that abortion is immoral, unlike everyone thinks that murder is immoral. We have to deal with the other half of the country, we’re divided on the issue, unfortunatly. Thus, I don’t think striving to make it illegal should be the first thing we do. I think striving to reduce it is the first step.
Which happened because the Obama apologists arrived and starter tell him he could support pro-abortion canidates and still be in line with Catholic teaching. It is not proper to try to convince someone to join the Church under false pretenses.Did we succeed in scaring this fellow away from Catholicism?
At the very least we succeeded in turning the thread into a discussion on abortion.
Second this - this book is well worth reading!!Need to do both. The exact same argument was used by those who opposed the abolotionists in the 1800s Pick up Millers "Arguing About Slavery and youll see what I mean.
I don’t think it’s too dificult to understand my position, really. I would gladly vote for a candidate who wants to do all the necessary things to reduce the desire for abortion (better health care for moms and babies, better sex education, combating poverty, etc.) AND wants to enact more legal restrictions on abortions. Unfortunately I feel that neither of the candidates, at least in this past election, were both a.) wanting to do things that in the end would reduce the desire for abortion and b.) standing for pro-life laws. I felt like one candidate would do “a” (Obama) and the other candidate would do “b” (McCain). In regards to Obama, what I mean specifically is not that I think that he himself wants to reduce abortions - he might and he might not, frankly I’m not sure…what I mean is that the kinds of things he does want to do (better sex education, better health care, fight poverty) are things that I feel would better reduce abortions, and I don’t think that McCain was very interested in doing those kinds of things, although to his credit, he claimed to be pro-life. But being pro-life would mean he wants to pass laws to restrict abortion and I don’t think that laws change the hearts of people and people who are desperate are still going to continue having abortions. I rather change the perceived need for abortions than just make them illegal. Simply put I feel that one method will be better at reducing abortions than the other method. I WISH that in one candidate we would find both methods being employed! That would be a true pro-life stance! Unfortunately it’s not the case. I would love it if there were a pro-life democrat…and truly part of me feels that people like myself better serve the innocent by remaining within the liberal party but speaking out about how we disagree with this topic.Second this - this book is well worth reading!!
No issues or combination of issues trumps abortion for Catholics. As to the assumption that Obama being better for pro-life the idea that the cause of life is better served by empowering a man who has stated he wants to implement unrestircted taxpayer funded abortions on demand both here and abroad defies all logic. Heres how Archbishop Chaput adressed it:I don’t think it’s too dificult to understand my position, really. I would gladly vote for a candidate who wants to do all the necessary things to reduce the desire for abortion (better health care for moms and babies, better sex education, combating poverty, etc.) AND wants to enact more legal restrictions on abortions. Unfortunately I feel that neither of the candidates, at least in this past election, were both a.) wanting to do things that in the end would reduce the desire for abortion and b.) standing for pro-life laws. I felt like one candidate would do “a” (Obama) and the other candidate would do “b” (McCain). In regards to Obama, what I mean specifically is not that I think that he himself wants to reduce abortions - he might and he might not, frankly I’m not sure…what I mean is that the kinds of things he does want to do (better sex education, better health care, fight poverty) are things that I feel would better reduce abortions, and I don’t think that McCain was very interested in doing those kinds of things, although to his credit, he claimed to be pro-life. But being pro-life would mean he wants to pass laws to restrict abortion and I don’t think that laws change the hearts of people and people who are desperate are still going to continue having abortions. I rather change the perceived need for abortions than just make them illegal. Simply put I feel that one method will be better at reducing abortions than the other method. I WISH that in one candidate we would find both methods being employed! That would be a true pro-life stance! Unfortunately it’s not the case. I would love it if there were a pro-life democrat…and truly part of me feels that people like myself better serve the innocent by remaining within the liberal party but speaking out about how we disagree with this topic.
So the Churxh should reject the truth as a marketing ploy., all the energy should go towards helping others and loving them, not towards pegging Obama’ites as automatically evil. If we keep this up Catholicism will shrink and… well I am afraid to consider what that future looks like.
N
You make a lot of sense.Ok - let me post my three cents worth. These liberal vs. conservative discussions in the context of Catholicism frustrate me. It presents a very narrow world view. The world is not the US of A. There are 192 countries represented in the UN, 194 recognized by the state department. It is probably fair to state that God created thinking beings in His image in other life-supporting planets as well, with ability to think and free will - so there may be Brothers in Jesus all over the universe. So here we are debating whether knowingly killing human beings is ok with God. It is clearly not. I am sure poverty, lack of education, drugs - etc. are also not ok with him. So I don’t see the point of bickering about this with people that fall under the label of ‘liberal’. This is a worldwide issue, an issue of death triggered by many factors that I am sure as Catholics we should work together to solve - because that is what the Father expects of us. IMO, all the energy should go towards helping others and loving them, not towards pegging Obama’ites as automatically evil. If we keep this up Catholicism will shrink and… well I am afraid to consider what that future looks like.
N
You are right BUT that Guttmacher report does say overwhelmingly that the number one reason a woman has an abortion is economic issues. Overwhelmingly women in areas of high poverty and unemployment have the abortions.For the OP, have you looked at the studies done by Planned Parenthood on why women HAVE abortions?
Women do not have abortions because they cannot find healthcare, that does not even make the list! Reason - every state in the union gives free medical care to uninsured pregnant women who cannot afford insurance and health care for children when parents cannot afford it.
Another that does not make the list - that women did not know that sex caused babies, so, more sex education will not reduce abortions.
This is a slanted study, done by the largest abortion provider - read it for yourself.
guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
A very misleading figure. Its one of those "no the good deed goes unpunished " situations. In the first place we are now the 7 highest. In the second place the low rating is due entirely to the united states agressive treatment of Premature babies. 2/3 of the infant deaths were for premature babies and 50% of those with gestation of under 23 weeks(over 3 months premature). In other countries the majority of these are considered stillborn and not counted in the statistics. The United states is far and above the number one country in saving premature babies.You are right BUT that Guttmacher report does say overwhelmingly that the number one reason a woman has an abortion is economic issues. Overwhelmingly women in areas of high poverty and unemployment have the abortions.
However I would say this pregnant women do recieve some healthcare but there has been reports that most women do not receive adequate healtcare. Afterall we have the second highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized nations. Pretty sad.
cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/index.htmlA very misleading figure. Its one of those "no the good deed goes unpunished " situations. In the first place we are now the 7 highest. In the second place the low rating is due entirely to the united states agressive treatment of Premature babies. 2/3 of the infant deaths were for premature babies and 50% of those with gestation of under 23 weeks(over 3 months premature). In other countries the majority of these are considered stillborn and not counted in the statistics. The United states is far and above the number one country in saving premature babies.
The articles you post the stateing we were the second highest were two years old and also,verifies that this is mainly a “problem” of United States aggressive treatment of premature babies. Heres the rankings as of October 2008.
It is a fundamental obligation of a just state that abortion be illegal and we have a positive duty to work to achieve that end.I don’t think striving to make {abortion} illegal should be the first thing we do. I think striving to reduce it is the first step.
Which proves that ALL life is to be protected. Not just one group.It is a fundamental obligation of a just state that abortion be illegal and we have a positive duty to work to achieve that end.
2273 *The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: …
*
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined…
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”
The idea that we can ignore this obligation while we focus on our own subjective social solutions to what we perceive to be the incentives to abortion is misguided. This is not work we can put off to a more convenient time: justice delayed is justice denied.
Ender
I’m not sure which groups you might be referring to that I (others?) would exclude but I will point out to you that the actual phrase is “the right to life of every **innocent **human …”. That’s not an irrelevant distinction nor something to be ignored.Which proves that ALL life is to be protected. Not just one group.
I meant that one is to be pro-life he/she must be defend all life and their equality from womb to tomb.I’m not sure which groups you might be referring to that I (others?) would exclude but I will point out to you that the actual phrase is *“the right to life of every **innocent ***human …”. That’s not an irrelevant distinction nor something to be ignored.
Ender
Yet in this country it permissable to kill one group.Which proves that ALL life is to be protected. Not just one group.
Sadly it is. And it is sad that this country favors wealth for the few over the well being of all it’s citizens.Yet in this country it permissable to kill one group.
Nonsense.Basically you are eqauating the death of 1.2 milion children a year with political differences of how to best handle social issues. The idea that republicans do not value life out of he womb is absurd.Sadly it is. And it is sad that this country favors wealth for the few over the well being of all it’s citizens.
As I put it to a Democrat friend of mine. I can not take Democrats seriously overall if they can not defend life in the womb. As I said to a Republican friend of mine same but I can not take seriously Republicans if they do not value life out of the womb.