The abortion memo

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think there has been seismic shift when the NYT will run a piece like this.

David Brooks is positioning himself be on the winning side when things change. He has seen the reality that change is coming and wants to be ahead of it.

Although he mentions science and demographics in favor of ending late term abortion he fails to mention Trump will have several more SCOTUS nominations before he is done. Yes RBG could live to 100. Getting past the denial and rose colored glasses of her supporters the reality is she probably won’t. Sotomayor is 63 with type one diabetes. Stephen Breyer is 79. Yes, I know, they could live to 100. They could. Trump has at least 3 more years and very good chance at 7. Its much more likely a Republican president will nominate a replacement for one of them. David Brooks does mention the one issue voters who wanted SCOTUS change. Looks like that is about to happen. God bless those people knew what number one issue was and were able to sacrifices to get it.

I was 3 years old in 1973. A teenager in the 80’s. My parents were Reagan Democrats. They were blue collar people who looked past the unions, wages, collect bargaining, workers rights to vote for Republicans who voted pro life because they believed JP II and that the culture of death is number one problem the world faces. I laughed at them then. That is my position now.

Yes, I used pro life to describe Republicans. You can reply all you want that there is more to pro life than ending abortion. My preemptive reply to that is: Trump won.
 
Last edited:
Hereiam said:
Sad commentary if “Trump won” is your view of the what defines the difference between pro-life and just pro-birth…but there ya go!
Click to expand...
Yes isn’t it sad the Democrats have sacrificed so much of what they believe in in exchange to protect late term abortion?

I think that was David Brooks point.
 
Last edited:
Keeping abortion a political instead of a moral issues is a liability rather than an asset, and is contrary to the cause of our Catholic faith.
 
Pro-life is a term coined by those who believe that laws permitting the direct killing of innocent human beings is wrong. That is what we needed a term for, and that is the term we got.

To try to streeetch it out to include a lot of other issues is a semantic trick and logical fallacy to confuse the unwary.

What pro-life is about is not murdering innocent people.
 
I wasnt aware the Lord has a hierarchy of sanctity of life. Im glad he unlike some sees the value of all human life.
 
Last edited:
Hereiam said:
I wasnt aware the Lord has a hierarchy of sanctity of life. Im glad he unlike some sees the value of all human life.
Click to expand...
Which compromisingly INCLUDES the pre-born. There is no tradeoff to be had.

And attempting to make it such that to support the pre-born entails no support for those who have been born, is creating a myth in the worst sense of the word.

It is simply a false dichotomy concocted to refocus the discussion away from the pre-born – as if one must choose between the born and pre-born and never the twain shall meet.

It is a rhetorical trick, born from the notion that the pre-born are not fully human.
 
Hereiam said:
Keeping abortion a political instead of a moral issues is a liability rather than an asset, and is contrary to the cause of our Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
The most important political issues are inherently moral issues because they get at the root of right and wrong, good and bad, and ultimately the meaning of life.

To divorce politics from morality is insanity because the ground for politics has to shift from what is essentially human and moral to some other foundation. What would that foundation be, in your estimation? Power? Utility? Economy? Preservation of the human species irrespective of what the nature of ‘being human’ is?
 
Hereiam said:
Keeping abortion a political instead of a moral issues is a liability rather than an asset, and is contrary to the cause of our Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Abortion is one of only a handful of political issues that is also a moral issue. It is therefore one of the few issues for which the involvement of the bishops is appropriate, which makes their reluctance to publicly admonish even the politicians who support its most grotesque forms so terribly disappointing.

The Senate just voted down a bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks when, it appears, a fetus can feel pain. There were 14 Catholic senators among those who opposed the bill, but you wouldn’t know anything about them from the silence of the bishops.
 
HarryStotle said:
To divorce politics from morality is insanity because the ground for politics has to shift from what is essentially human and moral to some other foundation.
Click to expand...
I am very wary of associating political issues with morality. There is only one moral choice involved in most issues: do we want to honestly solve the problem or not? Once that choice is made, there are virtually no moral questions left for the vast majority of political concerns.
 
Hereiam said:
Keeping abortion a political instead of a moral issues is a liability rather than an asset, and is contrary to the cause of our Catholic faith.
Click to expand...
Yes exactly!!!

We know it’s morally to kill the unborn. Yet people will accept it because they get a large $$$ payoff for it. They come come up with all kinds of convoluted justification. You want a higher minimum wage? OK, but late term abortion comes with it. You want universal healthcare? Ok, but planned parenthood come with it. You want collect bargaining? OK, but RU486 comes with it.

I think you just made David Brooks point. Again.
 
Last edited:
robertmidwest said:
David Brooks is positioning himself …
Click to expand...
Huh? From Wiki:
Ideologically, Brooks has been described as a moderate,[31] a centrist,[32] a conservative,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39] and a moderate conservative.[40][41] Brooks has described himself as a “moderate,”[42] and said in a 2017 interview that “[one] of [his] callings is to represent a certain moderate Republican Whig political philosophy.”[43]
Click to expand...
I think Brooks is where he has been.
 
Ender said:
The Senate just voted down a bill that would have banned abortions after 20 weeks when, it appears, a fetus can feel pain.
Click to expand...
This kind of incremental movement of the law is all that can realistically be expected and if you say the entire topic attracted not a murmur from the US bishops, that is truly remarkable. Certainly it warrants s “please explain”.

The question of how (Catholic) politicians should vote is awkward if they are expected to reflect the view of their constituency on the matter.
 
Rau said:
The question of how (Catholic) politicians should vote is awkward if they are expected to reflect the view of their constituency on the matter.
Click to expand...
I don’t really think a politician is expected to abandon his principles when he becomes elected, nor do I think he is there only to vote as his constituency would have it. His position on this issue should have been made known prior to his election.

As for Catholics, they should be held accountable for their actions, and the bishops should make that point publicly.
 
Ender said:
I don’t really think a politician is expected to abandon his principles when he becomes elected, nor do I think he is there only to vote as his constituency would have it. His position on this issue should have been made known prior to his election.
Click to expand...
Hardly a case in support of politicians voting personal views rather than those of their constituents! But I agree that a politician intending to vote personal positions regardless of constituents’ is obligated to make that known at election time. There is then no question about his freedom to vote as he sees fit. Of course, many do, and may choose pro-choice at that time (as it may the only course to get elected). Others prevaricate or may have expressed no clear position. They place themselves in a “daed if you do, daed if you don’t” situation.
 
Good article. I agree with him. I believe that when future generations look back they will see abortion as the sin of our times just like we look back at slavery.

We are denying rights to a subset of humans based on age/level of development. The only way to justify it is to dehumanize the embryo/fetus.
 
Ender said:
I am very wary of associating political issues with morality. There is only one moral choice involved in most issues: do we want to honestly solve the problem or not? Once that choice is made, there are virtually no moral questions left for the vast majority of political concerns.
Click to expand...
You say “vast majority” as if it does not cover absolutely every political concern. Can you give an example of a political concern for which there are still more moral questions left after the question “do we want to honestly solve the problem or not?” has been answered? It seems your statement applies to every political concern, not just “the vast majority.” It does not provide a distinction between the abortion question and other questions.
 
But what happens is the prochoice crowd brings up rare scenarios about the health of the mother.

Health as been defined by Doe v Bolton as including mental health.

Many late abortions don’t have to do with the physical health of the mother. It has to do with the mental health of the mother when the find out the baby they are carrying is in someway not in perfect health.

Over 95 percent of babies with Down Syndrome for example are aborted. These abortions are usually after 20 weeks.

Late term abortions are normally a two day procedure. One to begin dilation, the next to complete the abortion. An emergency scenario wouldn’t call for a two day out patient procedure.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top