Politically Trapped

[CaptFun]

Originally Posted by PaulfromIowa
the Democrat party has become*** violently*** anti-life

Only if you define “anti-life” as simply “pro-abortion”. Those of us who are pro-gun control and anti-capital punishment (both of which are also pro-life issues) get a much warmer welcome from Democrats.

*Those of us who are pro-gun control and anti-capital punishment (both of which are also pro-life issues) get a much warmer welcome from Democrats.
*

Ah. The all important warm welcomes! :hug1:

The reason I highlighted violently above in PaulfromIowa’s take
is because abortion is violent (AND unjust) in its very essence.

**“Pro-gun control?” – **As if there is a Republican Party Plank somewhere that the Second Amendment have NO restrictions on it (counterbalancing the Democratic Party’s radically abortion-on-demand for almost any (or no) reason)? Here’s a newsflash:

There are MANY “gun controls” already in place. And many Republicans agree with these (e.g. is there a GOP PUSH for machine guns to be sold OTC at Walmart to all citizens? :nope.

IMO you can be for MORE gun control in the GOP and get quite a bit warmer “welcome” than you can being a pro-life per abortion advocate … let alone candidate … in the Democratic Party.

Anti-capital punishment? – Abortions are capital punishment … without trial … perpetrated on innocent parties by the guilty. And to appeal to the emotions *(which some people seem to think with) in the language of the left - Abortion is the exploitation of the little people by the BIG! The helpless by the POWERFUL! Those who have NOTHING by those who have much more … and by GREEDY CAPITALISTS of the most EVIL INDUSTRY one can think of!

For the most part “capital punishment” in America isn’t even done: to the most egregious criminals, duly proven guilty and sentenced by courts of law after public trials … and often appeals. SO the moral equivalence couldn’t be more sorely lacking – as anyone NOT determined to be (of one party) at all costs can plainly see.

CAN one be in the GOP and oppose “capital punishment”? Again, much more easily than piping up against abortion (or being pro-life) in … another party I can think of … that I once belonged to but HAD to leave. *

Per **“Social Justice” – **For all the bluster of the left that they are the “party of the people” versus their opponents being “party of the rich AGAINST the poor” (this class warfare “reality” must always be acknowledged in some circles) – I don’t see the results.

In fact … the MORE the Democratic Party has unchallenged power … the worse things get. In California they have the Governship, the state senate, and the assembly (the latter two by such majorities that not even GOP filibusters can be a brake pedal) – and a Democratic President that seems to have been able to print money at will!

WHY are there people sleeping on the main streets of San Francisco? Why is there no hope of things getting better? Why were teachers like me laid off (when our ADA was high and our programs supported)? < No money?

The businesses that used to thrive here have fled (to stay alive), leaving in their wake unemployed “workers”. And California should NEVER have failed like this! BEST farmland. Good Fishing. Plentiful labor. Large University and State College system.
People from ALL over the world coming here spending money.

ALL of it got spent by the government? Teachers laid off … but Planned Parenthood gets more funding (some of it probably funnelled back to their benefactors … suspicious me)?

AND if the kids who live here can get IN to a University here … they often have to mortgage their futures on incredibly inflated “student loans” that indebt them like slaves at the time they are trying to break free of mom and dad and have something on their own - by getting … some of the JOBS that aren’t there now.

Except for governnent (this sector growing, business shrinking, leaving the state, taxed out of its operable profits). Which for all its posturing favors one class, sex, race, sexual preference, or foreign nationality over another (though most of these are not the fault of the person applying - except for sexual orientation) before it even gets down to considering an individual’s** application.

This idea of “trapped” is more like the person who says “I can’t get out of bed in the morning!” It’s more the case of an indulgent attitude toward what one knows they should not be doing. In my opinion (MOST cases).

On a more positive note (and not prettifying the problems there are with the “more pro-life” party): See if you can find a pro-life Republican anywhere who is** yet** ok with some additional “gun control” and not gung-ho on capital punishment. You MAY not have to look far – though some might tell you such is impossible.

Or … stay in the party you seem to be in now (?) and propose:

“We REALLY have to get rid of this abortion on demand …” .

And see if a warm reception still stands. I’m thinkin’ no.

 

[Vigilant]

Only if you define “anti-life” as simply “pro-abortion”. Those of us who are pro-gun control and anti-capital punishment (both of which are also pro-life issues) get a much warmer welcome from Democrats.

Pro-gun control is not a pro-life issue, genius. The criminals will not comply, and productive, law-abiding citizens will pay the price for drivel like this being spread, to support the sinister agenda of the majority of the democRATic party to disarm the public so they can not rebe3l against their agenda of tyranny and control.

Thanks for playing.

 

[CJECulver]

*Those of us who are pro-gun control and anti-capital punishment (both of which are also pro-life issues) get a much warmer welcome from Democrats.
*

Ah. The all important warm welcomes! :hug1:

I am not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican. I was merely pointing out that, for those of us wishing to be fully pro-life, neither the Republican right nor the Democratic left is a comfortable place. And I stand by that.

As to the rest of your comments, I’ll only say, “interesting”.

 

[CJECulver]

Pro-gun control is not a pro-life issue, genius.

It is.

Oh, and thanks for the condescension. Much appreciated.

 

[Vigilant]

It is.

Oh, and thanks for the condescension. Much appreciated.

Any time.

 

[Forkfoot]

Yah yah yah. Blame the left, blame the right, “It’s not our fault things suck, it’s those guys’ fault!” Let’s do much, much more of that, cuz it’s worked SO well in the past.

 

[aspirant]

It’s important to note that, while Republicans may hold points that aren’t prudent and Catholic probably shouldn’t hold today, they don’t support any intrinsic evils like Democrats.

Many Republicans do endorse and support intrinsic evils (unjustifiable in any circumstances), such as torture, abortion, and others; and many more Republicans support actions which are at least evil in the circumstances/manner in which they are actually performed, such as acts which threaten, wound, and kill indiscriminately (e.g. many drone assassinations as they are actually carried out). In the last American presidential election, for example, both the Democratic and Republican candidates supported intrinsic evils at least tacitly if not explicitly. It’s not at all difficult to understand why some Catholics, such as Mark Shea, refused to vote for either of these candidates.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

For the most part “capital punishment” in America isn’t even done: to the most egregious criminals, duly proven guilty and sentenced by courts of law after public trials … and often appeals. SO the moral equivalence couldn’t be more sorely lacking – as anyone NOT determined to be (of one party) at all costs can plainly see.

I used to be a pro-life Republican but pro-death penalty. Then I realized that in the US there is no moral rationale that can simultaneous prohibit first month abortions and allow for the death penalty.

If the point to the pro-life argument is that a baby suffers, then the morning after pill shouldn’t be a problem because by the time the embryo is discharged, it is too primitive to feel pain. The brain starts to form after three weeks, at which time it’s like a lizard with a head and tail but no brain, as it recapitulates its phylogeny during its ontogeny. Only after this, is there even an argument about feeling pain.

Same thing with IUD; it aborts a baby that is too young to feel pain, so it can’t “suffer” in the way we know physical suffering.

So if we want to protect babies within the first three weeks of fertilization, which as I understand Church teaching is when it gains a soul, we had better raise the bar to a higher standard. That standard is that all human life is precious, even if it feels no pain yet, and should be protected.

So if all human life is precious, but we judge some to be innocent and others to be disposable, then we are in fact, playing God over precious human life, period.

Moreover, capitol punishment, as you observed, is rare in the US; meanwhile those on death row or who have equivalent severity of convictions, are quite reliably kept in prisons, using today’s prison technology, unable to inflict harm on society. This negates the only reason the CCC allows for the use of the death penalty.

So in addition to being obvious from a logical standpoint, the CCC states that capital punishment should only be used when there is no other means to protect the public. And we have other means, so there is no moral excuse left.

You’re either pro-life, or you’re playing God, period. That goes for all killing of human life, regardless of how civil courts or scientific wannabes have judged them. You can’t pick and choose, lest you become a house divided against yourself. This, IMO, is one of the reasons the pro-lifers have such a difficult problem. Most of them are not really going according to a “life is precious” standard, but an arbitrary standard that life is precious until a political judge says it isn’t. That’s the type of reasoning that upholds Roe v. Wade. They say they are against Roe v. Wade but they concede that a judge and jury can determine whether any given human life is disposable? Hello? Anybody home? :newidea:

CCC 2258
“Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.”

OK, but what about “not-so-innocent” life?

CCC 2267
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

And you don’t want to get me started about false convictions.

Alan

 

[CaptFun]

I am not a Democrat. Nor am I a Republican. I was merely pointing out that, for those of us wishing to be fully pro-life, neither the Republican right nor the Democratic left is a comfortable place. And I stand by that.

As to the rest of your comments, I’ll only say, “interesting”.

We might be closer in some areas than our disagreement would indicate actually.

"We’re neither Democrat nor Republican" < My parents. I was their oldest and they tried to impart this “value” (POV?) to me. And with some sound reasons. ** “We vote for the best PERSON regardless of party!”** was the best of them.

Other gems from my determinedly neutral parents: **“The two parties are like hot and cold water … sometimes you need one, sometimes the other.” ** And

"The Democrats are for a strong centralized government … there’s a time when we need to be strong as a nation, so then they are better!"

"The Republicans are for less centralized more local government … there’s a time when having power closer to home than Washington gets things done better and without the taxes all flowing to Washington DC first."

Sounded good to me.

I’d be “neutral” per party, vote for the best person, be the SWING voter who decided ALL (!) - but then -

… if you didn’t declare a party (in California at the time I first started to vote) you couldn’t vote in the primaries. Your “best person” choices would be whittled down by others.

And actually, since THOSE days the parties have changed a lot.

Your ideal of “fully pro-life” is quite a good one CJE Culver. The most egregious sins against this (IMO) are the abortion laws and millions of babies killed (challenged by one party’s platform, enshrined by the other’s - not a close call to me). The fact that the pro-life party often runs people who are “pro-choice light” VERY often … puts me in the not "comfortable place" of voting for the lesser of two evils rather than who’d I’d prefer. In THIS way, I too feel “politically trapped” - though differing a bit on why per you and** 4givemeasinner, **the original poster.

I get angry that I don’t have two GOOD choices every time (like my parents in their optimism painted the picture). Good and better beats “bad and half-bad” every time.

I could go with gun control, (more of it) wisely done. If I were a pro-life rep at the negotiating table and were offered*** " … we’ll abort no more babies … if you will just promise not to execute any more criminals …"*** I’d have that treaty signed before they could finish their sentence.

Though I’d probably feel like Neville Chamberlain all the way home wondering
if I should have trusted people with such a track record to be trustworthy THIS time.

I appreciated your measured and classy response to my post, which was not so much about you personally - as it was an opportunity to express (what I saw as) the glaring distinctions that make a “pro-life” voter’s job a lot more clear than a stab in the dark.

In the company of others of “my party” I could chalk up quite a list of complaints (or improvements) in a similarly zealous demeanor. When abortion is being discussed in a place where some may adopt a stance close to the “moral relativity” Pope Francis just
warned so strongly against – I don’t want to risk further confusing brothers or sisters who
at present are still foggy on what they should do.

Meanwhile being “fully pro-life” is an ideal I must salute you for. May America, and all nations step closer to this high ideal – and away from the present anti-life MESS that now prevails. :sad_yes:

translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.zenit.org/fr/articles/le-cardinal-bergoglio-invite-a-defendre-la-culture-de-la-vie-avec-ardeur&prev=/search%3Fq%3DZenit%2B9/02/2009%2BBergoglio%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1297%26bih%3D792&sa=X&ei=g3prUdGSOqSQ2gXirID4Bw&sqi=2&ved=0CDEQ7gEwAA

“This is a battle to sustain against the many attacks on human life, against the dissemination of the culture of death.” A battle that must be supported also for the elderly, who are the “wisdom of life”, and when human life is near extinction. This, of course, requires sacrifice and devotion, continued the Primate of Argentina stating that if “life is beautiful” can not be provided “to eliminate the difficulties.” – Cardinal Bergoglio homily 9/02/2009

 

[Auntie_A]

I search for the “seamless garment” candidate, the one whose values are closest to Christ, closest to God-as-the-power-of-life on issues of abortion, euthanasia, death penalty. This post’s discussions and disagreements (on a Catholic post!) on the LIFE issues illustrates why it is hard to find the seamless garment candidates anywhere.

But I will vote for Alan from Wichita if he ever runs for a major political office (sorry, Alan, I wouldn’t wish politics on my worst enemy but you do have good, strong, enlightened critical reasoning.)

 

[CaptFun]

I used to be a pro-life Republican but pro-death penalty. Then I realized that in the US there is no moral rationale that can simultaneous prohibit first month abortions and allow for the death penalty.

If the point to the pro-life argument is that a baby suffers …

So if all human life is precious, but we judge some to be innocent and others to be disposable, then we are in fact, playing God over precious human life, period.

They say they are against Roe v. Wade but they concede that a judge and jury can determine whether any given human life is disposable? Hello? Anybody home? :newidea:

OK, but what about “not-so-innocent” life?

CCC 2267
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor …

… Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."

And you don’t want to get me started about false convictions. Alan

Hi Alan, thanks for responding to my take with one of almost equal length. I hope you are not now in a state of exhaustion.

You seem to me to be at pains to equate capital punishment and abortion (and in a way they are equally fatal to those receiving it … the latter being by the millions, the former hardly at all per the numbers). This parenthetical distinction settles the matter to me as per my ***priorities ***-- even if I agreed that capital punishment (on securely imprisoned people) is as the Church counsels, practically “not necessary” (though yet a state prerogative).

“If the point of the pro-life argument is that the baby suffers …” ?

It’s not a point I have heard - as if pro-life me would scamper to the abortion side if only they could kill painlessly.

And you didn’t make an equivalent counter-argument per capital punishment (i.e. change “baby” above to “prisoner” - then recount a number of termination options that might be used in that case). But you DID get to something better with your (personal) conclusion:

“So if all human life is precious, but we judge some to be innocent and others to be disposable, then we are in fact, playing God over precious human life, period”.

CCC 2267 that you posted (thank you) yet ***“does not exclude recourse to the death penalty …” *** though your highlighted qualifiers the Church counseled are a good piece of scholarship on your part.

I can agree with all of that. YET … I could serve on a Jury hearing a capital case (and declare “guilty” if that were the truth) with a knot in my stomach, but my conscience clear. Even should the state later impose the death penalty and actually execute the person. Thank God I have not had to serve on ANY Jury, though I’ve dutifully reported for Jury Duty several times.

They say they are against Roe v. Wade but they concede that a judge and jury can determine whether any given human life is disposable? Hello? Anybody home? :newidea:

Maybe you have met a self-righteous angry pro-life person who is really, really GUNG ho on the death penalty? Doesn’t match most pro-life folks I know. And the Church does acknowledge that judges and juries can determine even capital punishment (and then even DO it - which is another whole step, and rarely done). The Quakers and others may go farther in their prohibitions (though I don’t remember Nixon or Hoover pardoning all on death row).

I agree with you about the injustice of false convictions.

But I consider all deliberate abortions to BE false convictions and capital punishment. AND abortion has a whole industry in full rev up.

I don’t see even the NRA as pedal to the metal for “immediate establishment of firing squads” to equivalently (to abortion figures) execute criminals. Or any other Planned Parenthood-like entity “on the right” raking in millions as a “capital punishment lobby”.

The following does not*** contradict*** what you posted from the Catechism at all - but delineates the proper priorities for considering a number of “life” issues.

… if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father (i.e., the Pope) 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 Joseph Ratzinger, 2004** (Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - under Pope John Paul II at the time).

Often Church leaders take pains to point out that abortion (and euthanasia to a lesser extent) are much more important “life issues” than certain others. And while I agree all are important (and you may be that part of the body called to fight against unjust capital punishment God bless you …) to me - this is not a “close call” either. :nope:

 

[CaptFun]

… Finally, I startled the doctors by being healed (by the Holy Spirit – nothing is impossible with God ) but so far my doctor has ordered me not to find work that will jeopardize my disability. See, if I make a certain amount, then by definition I’m no longer disabled, and I lose my disability and will not be able to get it back. So basically I’m trapped.

First of all, getting a “real job” with actual benefits is pretty tough for a 53 year old engineer who has been out on medical disability for 12 years and does not know anything about the current software tools engineers use for designs. And if I did get such a job, it had better last me until retirement because I have no savings. So you can tell me I’m a coward, but until you’ve gone and pawned a power tool worth $70 for $15 to buy milk for the kids’ breakfast tomorrow and gas to get them to school – then the next day starting all over finding a way to make it one more day – then don’t even bother laying some kind of guilt trip on me.

You are not alone there. Your situation is like a close relative of mine (declared schizophrenic - on disability, then good medications returned him to “normal” but he and his “disabled from childhood” wife risk everything (though they have next to nothing)
if they try to improve themselves. :sad_yes:

He is 54. Very bright. Used to be a finish carpenter … but now not much construction going on. They used to live in an apartment, had a car, and scrimped by. Once they lost their apartment (owners probably get much more for the apartment now … they lived there for 14 years had a LOW rent compared to the way prices escalated in California) things got tougher.

Upon moving to a Motel (not a good place) the police ticketed them for expired tags … and before they could get another paycheck, the cops towed it away (which in California kept him from getting some of the per diem day labor he used to be able to drive to).

They were embarrassed to ask for family help, the tow bill was $322 - about a fourth of their monthly total. So “the wonderful benevolent state” got their $1700 car for free and probably resold it at auction without giving the hand to mouth owners a penny.

I’m in a similar employment problem to yours. I still have a teaching credential. But it’s an “industry” that is laying off people (just like my former districts were forced to do).

In a short period of time I went from a condo owner with equity … to upside down, owing
hundreds of thousands still, but now with just a teeny pension (forced retirement before it could vest into a livable wage) and a teacher’s resume while going for non-teaching jobs.

In California I wonder if some of these jobs are even real. Or if businesses are collecting resumes to hire people at reduced rates, or much later, or part time without benefits, or
short term as temps to meet deadlines after they’ve laid off higher paid, higher skilled folks. The private sector is being milked by a runaway state government that itself is laying people off.

It should be great out here. Firms used to move their headquarters to Southern California in droves. California was a rich state and buoyed America up as the rust belt declined.

Spiritually, maybe our former wealth (personally and otherwise) has to be purged from us for us to get through the “narrow door” Jesus spoke of. (Sudden reflection on personal salvation - sorry for the strange interlude )

Suffering seems to be the lot of the heroes of the Bible and the saints. And part of why they are heroic and faithful.

I may feel poor. But at the moment I have heat and air conditioning at my command. And my 18 year old “luxury van conversion” may worry me … but is better than anyone on earth owned 100 years ago. Or 70 for that matter. Cable TV with 100 stations. More music at my fingertips (per radio and the internet) than Kings years ago could have dreamed of.

Still, ones cross is one’s cross (and not easy to bear) without a “burden light/yoke sweet” attitude. On the street may be better than it used to be … but still pretty bad.

I wish you well Alan. The best. And I hope you take a moment to feel good about raising children under tough circumstances and feel God’s pleasure in you.

Per the government help … sometimes people pay INTO these systems and you probably have too. I get angry about the 401K thing for a variety of reasons … even though I never had one.

Politically … well. We live in a Democracy and so are more responsible for our leadership than people who live under dictatorships have to be. We do have to give an account of what we have done at the end of our lives. That’s all I think I’ll say at this point – but I hope I rambled back to thread relevance.

May the Holy Spirit guide us … may we agree with that guidance … and rest in it.

 

[CJECulver]

We might be closer in some areas than our disagreement would indicate actually.

Thanks for your reply.

Pragmatically, I certainly don’t rate capital punishment as high as abortion on the concern-o-meter. The roughly 50 executions carried out each year in the US pales in comparison to 1.3 million abortions.

But the principle is the same: life must be respected from conception through natural death. The Church allows for capital punishment in cases where it is necessary for the protection of society, but in the US it is always done for punitive or retributive purposes. There is no need in our modern society for resort to capital punishment for protection of society.

My point was that Republicans, who tend to be largely pro-life but pro-capital punishment, no more share the Catholic seamless-garment ethic than do Democrats, and the fact that Republicans tend to be closer to Catholic positions on a few key issues should never lull us into forgetting that that’s almost by accident. And the fact that more and more Republicans are turning pro-SSM demonstrates that Republicans are really only more conservative than Democrats in the sense that they’re ten years behind Democrats on the curve, not in the sense that they are operating under a fundamentally different set of morals.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Hi Alan, thanks for responding to my take with one of almost equal length. I hope you are not now in a state of exhaustion.

LOL. No, but sometimes after I spew all that much, I do feel a bit, ummm, dirty.

This parenthetical distinction settles the matter to me as per my ***priorities ***-- even if I agreed that capital punishment (on securely imprisoned people) is as the Church counsels, practically “not necessary” (though yet a state prerogative).

I can respect that.

But I no longer respect arguments that abortion is “worse” than capital punishment, on “sanctity of life” grounds. The only reason to kill IMO is self-defense, so if the political/judicial process finds a person should die, when 99+% of convicted murderers sentenced to life OR on death row are safely kept away from additional victims, then one can hardly use the “sanctity of life” argument at all. Who knows if the person would make an act of perfect contrition? If so, then what sins remain, other than original sin – the sin that person shares with the babies? I’m not talking about practicality in making the comparison, or priorities. I’m saying that “sanctity of life” is compromised with an elective execution, in much the same way that abortion is.

Another argument I’ve heard a lot is that what if Beethoven or Mozart or Einstein or George Washington were aborted? We wouldn’t have all the wonderful stuff they brought us. Again, this reasoning does not exclude capital punishment. All I have to do is ask, “what if St. Paul were executed for his crimes as Saul? Where would we have gotten the New testament?” Again, it’s about placing value on one life over another, based on human criteria.

It’s not a point I have heard - as if pro-life me would scamper to the abortion side if only they could kill painlessly.

I don’t hear the “suffering” argument so much now as in the past, like in the 80’s and 90’s. There was a very powerful 1984 video called Silent Scream, in which an ex-abortionist takes us through an actual 12-week suction abortion, first explaining the procedure with models, then showing actual ultrasound of the procedure. The video is highly informative but gruesome, so if you have a weak stomach, you might not want to watch it at all – or at least keep a box of Kleenex and maybe a bucket nearby. This film became quite well-known as anti-abortion material. Honestly, though, I think in Part 4 I could have done without the sound effects when they showed us the grotesque images, but oh well I guess that’s why I’m not a drama major.

Both the suffering of the child and the grotesque-ness of abortion became some of the primary messages of pro-lifers.

And all I’m saying is that at 12 weeks, there is no question about what’s going on, and the video makes a compelling case the child does suffer, but the suffering of the child cannot work as a logical argument within the first couple weeks. Even in Silent Scream, Dr. Nathanson explains that the 12-week-old has had brain waves for “at least six weeks” and heartbeat for 8 weeks. So the argument of suffering doesn’t really apply to very early abortions in the first few weeks, with abortifacients such as the pill, including the “morning after” pills, and IUD.

That’s why we need “sanctity of life” arguments, and like you say, if they could abort such that it feels no pain that would also thwart part of the effectiveness of this campaign.

Some groups took this to the extreme, such as Justice For All, “JFA.” I have a personal friend who worked for them, but I didn’t talk to her about it much. My most “meaningful” encounter was when they had set up a demonstration at Wichita State University, and I was pleased because I was pro-lifers, so I had a chat with one of the demonstrators and Oh … My … God. What a nasty, self-righteous person he was. He had a Bible with him (as did I ) and he knew all the pages to turn to (as I didn’t ) but he was so anti-Catholic I didn’t even tell him I was Catholic. I drew him out and let me tell you – if this was an example of what a pro-lifer is, then I would have wanted no part of it. I was pretty stunned – this was probably about 10 years ago – but I shook it off, hoping this person wasn’t representative of pro-lifers in general.

You’ve probably seen JFA in action, or references to it. They are the ones who hold gruesome poster-sized photos of aborted fetuses on the sides of the roads. They also have at least one truck with huge photos of aborted fetuses that they drive around. Honestly, even before I met that guy, I didn’t think it was the right approach to the problem, but I guess we all have our methods.

The important thing to note is that JFA, a VERY visible “pro-life” group, is also very pro-death penalty and even has a website prodeathpenalty.com/.

They are basing their arguments on “victim’s rights” such as the right to witness the execution. Obviously they cannot even entertain the “sanctity of life” discussion, or the Catholic teaching that the only reason for death penalty is to protect the living. They say it’s about justice. I say it’s about revenge. Those are two different things.

That said, they also point to a deterrent effect of the death penalty. I have no solid information about that, but honestly I can see that it might be a deterrent. I remember seeing on TV a woman on death row saying, “if I known I could get killed I wouldn’t have done it.” So FWIW there may be a point to the “deterrent” effect that is a form of self-defense (hence pro-life) argument. Maybe not, but I can’t rule it out based on what little I know.

(continued in next post)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued from last post)

I can agree with all of that. YET … I could serve on a Jury hearing a capital case (and declare “guilty” if that were the truth) with a knot in my stomach, but my conscience clear. Even should the state later impose the death penalty and actually execute the person. Thank God I have not had to serve on ANY Jury, though I’ve dutifully reported for Jury Duty several times.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall that in capital cases, the jury usually votes first for the conviction of the capital crime, then separately for the recommendation to execute – which the judge can accept or ignore. So unless that’s wrong, you won’t be in the position to acquit a person to save his (miserable but “precious” ) life.

Maybe you have met a self-righteous angry pro-life person who is really, really GUNG ho on the death penalty? Doesn’t match most pro-life folks I know.

You’re right. I have. Most of the members of Kansans for Life I met while I was one of them, are pro-death penalty, and of course I’ve already addressed “Justice For All” above.

I agree with you about the injustice of false convictions.

Thank you. :crying:

Yes, and from being on criminal juries myself, I know for a fact there is racism and other marginalizations of human beings going on in the jury rooms. In one case, the defendant was a gang member, accused of drive-by shooting toward an opposing gang member, and the mentality of the jury was, “who cares about the gaps in the evidence, this guy’s no good and he belongs in jail.” Yes, those words were actually spoken and hardly challenged. One loud and annoying old man, after less than 10 minutes of deliberation, just kept bitching, “let’s get this over with and convict this guy so we can all go home.” Funny it was 12 white males against a black gang member.

Oh yeah, and there were definitely gaps in the evidence, e.g. the gun was never found, no evidence to place the defendant at the scene of the crime, a vague reference taken out of context – even after a readback of the testimony by the court reporter – of a witness, the alleged victim, who testified in an orange jump suit because he failed to show up under subpoena so they arrested him and dragged him in to testify. I’ve been on two other juries which weren’t so bad, but that one scared the hell out of me.

Often Church leaders take pains to point out that abortion (and euthanasia to a lesser extent) are much more important “life issues” than certain others. And while I agree all are important (and you may be that part of the body called to fight against unjust capital punishment God bless you …) to me - this is not a “close call” either. :nope:

Fair enough. We all have different focus. One reason I get beaten up by pro-lifers is that instead of being loud and screechy like some I know, I am calling us to get our arguments in order and looking at the planks in our own eyes so we can see clearly to help others, as shrewd as serpents but gentle as doves. Plus I don’t like mixing religion and politics; obviously we vote our consciences, but I think the Church should spend more time bringing the sheep into the kingdom, where they will be more powerful and effective, compared to becoming loud and screechy like our adversaries.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Spiritually, maybe our former wealth (personally and otherwise) has to be purged from us for us to get through the “narrow door” Jesus spoke of. (Sudden reflection on personal salvation - sorry for the strange interlude )

Absolutely! It’s like the rich man who did everything right, but when Jesus asked him to detach of his possessions, he walked away sadly. I know for a fact I would not have chosen a life of poverty, as a successful engineer making almost six figures, so that’s why the Lord had to choose it for me. In retrospect, losing about $1.5 million in wages and benefits was chump change compared to the glory the Lord has shown me. It was the price of the field where the treasure lay buried. The Lord allowed me to understand that a year ago, after 12 years of disability, and as of six months ago, the Lord has given me full rights to the kingdom of which Jesus spoke. :dancing: :heaven:

Suffering seems to be the lot of the heroes of the Bible and the saints. And part of why they are heroic and faithful.

I like to twist things around to view them different ways. I used to challenge and sometimes infuriate other pro-lifers by casually referring to the late infamous elective late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller, whose practice was about three miles from my house and I have participated in demonstrations there, as a “saint pump.” I would say that every time Tiller kills a baby, it goes straight to heaven and increases our spiritual position. I was accused of being pro-abort for introducing those thoughts, by all but a select few who knew how to think critically rather than emotionally.

I may feel poor. But at the moment I have heat and air conditioning at my command. And my 18 year old “luxury van conversion” may worry me … but is better than anyone on earth owned 100 years ago. Or 70 for that matter. Cable TV with 100 stations. More music at my fingertips (per radio and the internet) than Kings years ago could have dreamed of.

Precisely!

Still, ones cross is one’s cross (and not easy to bear) without a “burden light/yoke sweet” attitude. On the street may be better than it used to be … but still pretty bad.

Yes, and I thank the Lord that through generosity of certain people, I never was without a place to live.

I wish you well Alan. The best. And I hope you take a moment to feel good about raising children under tough circumstances and feel God’s pleasure in you.

Absolutely. They all came out wonderfully. They know what it is to stick together with bonds of immense love, through thick and thin. They have already been tested and purified, before they even “got out into the world.” Not only are they academically successful, with straight A’s and two of them skipping fourth and fifth grades, respectively, but they have social skills. (Engineers with social skills? I wasn’t even sure they existed. ) Some of their rich little friends who live in what I call mansions, would rather come visit at our house where I’m lucky to keep at least one working bathroom, than hang at their own houses where they had lots of fancy “toys.” Some of them even asked if they could call me “dad” and Julie “mom.” My kids have even counseled other kids who were in trouble; for example in eighth grade my daughter told me a friend was cutting and suicidal, so as a former Youth Crisis Hotline counselor, I coached her in what to say and what not to say to a suicidal person. My daughter was successful in helping her open her eyes to a new view on life, and she quit cutting. Another one’s good friend dropped out of high school and became dependent on heroin. My son spent a lot of time helping and counseling his friend; the friend became clean and got a job, and now has a great wife, a cozy house, and two little darlings.

So yeah, pardon me for bragging on my kids, but they do give me something to brag about!

Per the government help … sometimes people pay INTO these systems and you probably have too. I get angry about the 401K thing for a variety of reasons … even though I never had one.

Yup. Definitely paid into Social Security.

May the Holy Spirit guide us … may we agree with that guidance … and rest in it.

 

[aspirant]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall that in capital cases, the jury usually votes first for the conviction of the capital crime, then separately for the recommendation to execute – which the judge can accept or ignore. So unless that’s wrong, you won’t be in the position to acquit a person to save his (miserable but “precious” ) life.

How a person expresses opposition to the death penalty may affect whether he will be allowed to sit on a death-qualified jury in the first place, though.

 

[CJECulver]

In what way is pro-gun control …pro-life?

Any time a gun is used, a life is taken. How can that be “pro-life”? Using a gun to defend your family – I won’t get into the morality of it – is not pro-life, it is simply giving you an edge in deciding which life is taken. “Pro-life” would be an outcome in which no life is lost.

And just FYI, as a general rule, I ignore any and all references to Hitler and/or Nazism in gun debates. Or any other.

 

[Vigilant]

Any time a gun is used, a life is taken. How can that be “pro-life”? Using a gun to defend your family – I won’t get into the morality of it – is not pro-life, it is simply giving you an edge in deciding which life is taken…

Good grief. This has to be the single most pitiful drivel I have seen in all my days on CAF.

Any time a gun is used, a life is taken. Baloney. For the very most part, guns are used for shooting targets and game, neither of which involve the taking of a human life. Guns are used by Law Enforcement and our military to protect the general public. And your statement about using a gun to defend one’s family is so absurd, it’s almost funny.

You don’t have to own firearms if you don’t want to. Try to tell me I can’t own firearms, and things may go down hill.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Many Republicans do endorse and support intrinsic evils (unjustifiable in any circumstances), such as torture, abortion, and others; and many more Republicans support actions which are at least evil in the circumstances/manner in which they are actually performed, such as acts which threaten, wound, and kill indiscriminately (e.g. many drone assassinations as they are actually carried out). In the last American presidential election, for example, both the Democratic and Republican candidates supported intrinsic evils at least tacitly if not explicitly. It’s not at all difficult to understand why some Catholics, such as Mark Shea, refused to vote for either of these candidates.

I was talking about the actual party, not individual candidates.

Here’s a quote from Bishop Ricken:

(After a couple paragraphs talking about abortion)

*Now, why am I mentioning these matters in the Democratic Party Platform? There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils. My job is not to tell you for whom you should vote. But I do have a duty to speak out on moral issues. I would be abdicating this duty if I remained silent out of fear of sounding “political” and didn’t say anything about the morality of these issues. People of faith object to these platform positions that promote serious sins. I know that the Democratic Party’s official “unequivocal” support for abortion is deeply troubling to pro-life Democrats.

So what about the Republicans? I have read the Republican Party Platform and there is nothing in it that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin. The Republican Party Platform does say that courts “should have the option of imposing the death penalty in capital murder cases.” But the Catechism of the Catholic Church says (in paragraph 2267)…
*