"Old" vs. "New" Pro-Life Movement

  • Thread starter Thread starter gracepoole
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Funny, I’ve never heard of a distinction between old and new 'till now. I don’t really think it matters, honestly.
 
Being pro-life or pro-choice is not a political issue. It’s a moral issue. In America, it has become massively political, to the point where some people who abhor everything the GOP stand for will vote for them just because of that one issue.

Since I am not American I am not in touch with the youth of America, but I would be surprised if there were not more democrat youths. Many of these youths will see things like poverty issues, gun issues and the death penalty as anti-life. This is why so many people brand politicians as “pro-birth” rather than “pro-life”.

Any pro-life work is good pro-life work. But young people certainly should not be criticised for not affiliating themselves to a party that they only agree with on one issue.

The author in the first link seems out of touch with the youth of today. The GOP does not have a monopoly on being pro-life.
 
ShrodingersCat said:
The GOP does not have a monopoly on being pro-life.
Click to expand...
It is the only major party which has a pro-life platform, however. The Democrats are rabidly anti-life, and none of the other parties are large enough to make any significant difference pro-life or not.
 
Okay, here is what I got from the first article. The author makes the common mistake of viewing the Catholic Church with a political lens. “Liberal” is not a word that applies to Catholic social teaching.

A few decades ago, I grew rather frustrated with the phrases “pro-life” and “pro-choice” as too wishy-washy. I heard some news commentator even use the label “anti-choice”. All these labels dance around the issue of abortion. There is nothing prohibiting the “old” movement from fighting abortion instead of complaining that life is about more than abortion. There is no need to promote this false dichotomy. For example, the first article complains about charity being used for human development. Fighting poverty does not mean abortion can not be opposed. It is a sloppy logic.

Second, the article is self-hypocritical. By insulting and belittling other Catholics that oppose abortion because the also support “liberal” Catholic teaching they become an opponent to pro-life groups.

Likewise, many groups that use a pro-life label spend more time in politics or religious issues that have nothing to do with abortion.
 
gracepoole said:
I’m wondering what others make of these two arguments related to the “old” pro-life movement and the “new”…
Click to expand...
This is the first I’ve heard of it. I suspect it’s an oversimplification. The variation of individual attitudes is a continuum and doesn’t lend itself to binary sorting, Old vs. New, Us vs. Them, Star-Belly Sneetches vs. Plain-Belly Sneetches.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
dshix said:
It is the only major party which has a pro-life platform, however. The Democrats are rabidly anti-life, and none of the other parties are large enough to make any significant difference pro-life or not.
Click to expand...
And so pro-life youths therefore must support the GOP? I think not; both major parties are incredibly flawed. If the youth can manage to bring some other parties to the table, they would do America a great service.
 
There is no “old” and “new”. Life is constant. Life begins at conception and ends at natural death. Defending that is neither new or old–it is completely traditional and totally Pro-Life. PERIOD.
 
The ‘old’ pro-life movement has been pretty successful. It’s flaw, according to the ‘new’ pro-life movement is that it aligned itself with the GOP. But for numerous election cycles, the other party has moved more and more rabidly to the pro-abortion position, so aligning with those candidates was not an option.
 
ShrodingersCat said:
And so pro-life youths therefore must support the GOP? I think not; both major parties are incredibly flawed. If the youth can manage to bring some other parties to the table, they would do America a great service.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, considering the structure of American politics, it will be very hard for a third party to take a major position in politics. Not that I wouldn’t like that to happen, but it is highly unlikely.
 
dshix said:
Unfortunately, considering the structure of American politics, it will be very hard for a third party to take a major position in politics. Not that I wouldn’t like that to happen, but it is highly unlikely.
Click to expand...
I’m really hoping that the young generation of today will change things, The American Solidarity Party is starting to make headway and I think it’s because of young Catholics.
 
dshix said:
Funny, I’ve never heard of a distinction between old and new 'till now. I don’t really think it matters, honestly.
Click to expand...
I hadn’t heard of it either. But I’m kind of thinking it might matter.
JimG said:
The ‘old’ pro-life movement has been pretty successful. It’s flaw, according to the ‘new’ pro-life movement is that it aligned itself with the GOP. But for numerous election cycles, the other party has moved more and more rabidly to the pro-abortion position, so aligning with those candidates was not an option.
Click to expand...
What you’re describing here is precisely the problem noted by those who claim to be part of the “new” pro-life movement, at least as I assess their claims. When the GOP said it was against abortion, pro-lifers moved to that party. Yet many actions supported by the GOP are antithetical to a true (aka not just abortion) pro-life position. And so while pro-lifers were GOP followers because the party is against abortion, this choice wasn’t reflecting support of life from conception to natural death.
 
gracepoole said:
I hadn’t heard of it either. But I’m kind of thinking it might matter.

What you’re describing here is precisely the problem noted by those who claim to be part of the “new” pro-life movement, at least as I assess their claims. When the GOP said it was against abortion, pro-lifers moved to that party. Yet many actions supported by the GOP are antithetical to a true (aka not just abortion) pro-life position. And so while pro-lifers were GOP followers because the party is against abortion, this choice wasn’t reflecting support of life from conception to natural death.
Click to expand...
I think the problem was not so much that pro-life people adopted the GOP, but that they were essentially tossed out by the Dems, with unacceptably ardent pro-abortion policies. There is really no reason that both parties could not welcome those who are pro-life. If that had been the case, HRC might be president-elect today. But her position on abortion was even more radical than the party.
 
JimG said:
I think the problem was not so much that pro-life people adopted the GOP, but that they were essentially tossed out by the Dems, with unacceptably ardent pro-abortion policies. There is really no reason that both parties could not welcome those who are pro-life. If that had been the case, HRC might be president-elect today. But her position on abortion was even more radical than the party.
Click to expand...
I think this is part of the puzzle – but you’d have to learn more about Karl Rove’s attempts to bring Catholics into the GOP to have the complete picture.
 
Operalan said:
There is no “old” and “new”. Life is constant. Life begins at conception and ends at natural death. Defending that is neither new or old–it is completely traditional and totally Pro-Life. PERIOD.
Click to expand...
That pretty much sums it up. Since Adam and Eve every human being has been created in God’s image. God is eternally the same.
 
gracepoole said:
I’m wondering what others make of these two arguments related to the “old” pro-life movement and the “new”.

Out to Destroy the Pro-Life Movement

OR

Why the New Pro-Life Movement Actually Exists

The Real Goal of the New Pro-Life Movement: A Response to Austin Ruse
Click to expand...
I mostly vote for Democrats because of environmental issues, which are also really big pro-life issues.

It’s a little irksome to me that anti-abortionists (I’m also against abortion and have been since early childhood, even before becoming a Catholic) have commandeered the name “pro-life,” but pretty much ignore climate change and many other serious problems that harm and kill people and threaten life on a massive scale.

Having said that, I also tend to be more toward the Democrat side because of its “bleeding heart.”

So what I’m thinking now is that I’d be more likely to vote for candidates who are for the “stick approach” of making abortion illegal (which alone mainly pushes women into illegal abortions), IF there were plenty of “carrot approach” programs in place:
  • paid maternity leave, without losing one’s job
  • higher minimum wage (most people earning minimum wages are women)
  • free or very cheap professional childcare (not the babysitter from Hell)
  • free health care for children (and for all)
  • free or very cheap college education for all
Basically a system as they have in France, where my niece lives. She had a difficult pregnancy and medical complications with her 3rd child and even got an extra 3 months leave, plus all her medical expense from gov, plus free, professional childcare for other other children and for her new baby once she returned to work.

I’d be willing to pay more taxes for that.

Once the “carrot approach” were in place, I’d feel a lot more comfortable threatening women and abortionists with prison – the “stick approach.” I’d feel much more comfortable striving to bring the Democratic Party around to being more fully pro-life.

Right now I consider the Republican Party to be much more pro-death than the Democratic Party, despite the abortion issue. Simply making it illegal does not solve the problem, neither does haphazard help from charities. We need the gov to really help reduce abortions by making child-bearing more hardship-free.
 
gracepoole said:
I’m wondering what others make of these two arguments related to the “old” pro-life movement and the “new”.

Out to Destroy the Pro-Life Movement

OR

Why the New Pro-Life Movement Actually Exists

The Real Goal of the New Pro-Life Movement: A Response to Austin Ruse
Click to expand...
I skimmed

The ‘old pro-life’ movement has not brought us closer to ending abortion in the US.
The accomplishment has been in bringing us closer to ending late term abortions.

It doesn’t read like the new movement wan’t to end abortion completely
 
ShrodingersCat said:
And so pro-life youths therefore must support the GOP? I think not; both major parties are incredibly flawed. If the youth can manage to bring some other parties to the table, they would do America a great service.
Click to expand...
If we could figure out how to work around the insanity that is the American two-party system, that is.

The question is, how do we make voting systems that don’t lock candidates into one of two parties politically valid (meaning how do we sell it to state legislatures)?
 
gracepoole said:
I’m wondering what others make of these two arguments related to the “old” pro-life movement and the “new”.

Out to Destroy the Pro-Life Movement

OR

Why the New Pro-Life Movement Actually Exists

The Real Goal of the New Pro-Life Movement: A Response to Austin Ruse
Click to expand...
From Facebook: Scott Eric Alt gives a pithy summary:

"One reason NPLM exists is because too many people use the expression ‘pro-life movement’ to mean ‘Republicans who voted for Trump, dislike abortion, and want Roe overturned.’ "
 
PRmerger said:
From Facebook: Scott Eric Alt gives a pithy summary:

"One reason NPLM exists is because too many people use the expression ‘pro-life movement’ to mean ‘Republicans who voted for Trump, dislike abortion, and want Roe overturned.’ "
Click to expand...
And this:

“One reason NPLM exists is because pro-life means more than abortion, more than Roe, finds a dubious ally in the Republican Party, and has become the victim of myopia.”

I agree wholeheartedly. The OPLM has become myopic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top