W
- Status
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
This article is about sodomy. How does it tie in to the Pro-Life movement?
L
ljubim
Guest
I don’t get it… the title is provocative, yet unrelated. What is your problem with pro-life?
L
lil_flower_luv
Guest
The Problem with the Pro-life Movement is that not every Christian and Catholic in this country is pro-life. IF people lived the way they believed, we wouldn’t even have abortion!
^That^ is in regard to the title of this thread.
I do not understand anything else.
God Bless!
^That^ is in regard to the title of this thread.
I do not understand anything else.
God Bless!
W
whatevergirl
Guest
*I’m confused, too…can you explain the correlation between your thread title and this article, OP? *
M
magic_stick
Guest
I think you probably copied and pasted the wrong link. 
J
jwashu
Guest
THE PROBLEM with the Pro-Life movement is that most of the members aren’t Pro-Life!
They are merely Anti-Abortion.
A person who is Pro-Life understands that universal health care isn’t a Political or Financial issue - it’s a MORAL issue.
A person who is Pro-Life believes in the sacredness of life from conception to the grave.
A person who is Pro-Life studies to understand that thousands of American’s die from curable diseases just because they don’t have enough money.
They are outraged that our great Nation ranks 31st in Infant mortality rates.
A person who is Pro-Life is sickened at the number of children who can’t get a good education because they are in need of basic medical, dental or vision care.
A person who is Pro-Life dosen’t just take the talking points of a few angry people to base all their beliefs on.
The Pro-Life movement needs to get a grip and realize that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are truly their friends. The Republicans tout anti-abortion but do little or nothing to change it while their policies hurt every other aspect and most of the Democrats are so caught up in their “choices” they can’t see the truth before their face…
Perhaps it’s time for a new party…
Joe
PS - LOL, not sure I really want to know what all that link is about though…
They are merely Anti-Abortion.
A person who is Pro-Life understands that universal health care isn’t a Political or Financial issue - it’s a MORAL issue.
A person who is Pro-Life believes in the sacredness of life from conception to the grave.
A person who is Pro-Life studies to understand that thousands of American’s die from curable diseases just because they don’t have enough money.
They are outraged that our great Nation ranks 31st in Infant mortality rates.
A person who is Pro-Life is sickened at the number of children who can’t get a good education because they are in need of basic medical, dental or vision care.
A person who is Pro-Life dosen’t just take the talking points of a few angry people to base all their beliefs on.
The Pro-Life movement needs to get a grip and realize that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are truly their friends. The Republicans tout anti-abortion but do little or nothing to change it while their policies hurt every other aspect and most of the Democrats are so caught up in their “choices” they can’t see the truth before their face…
Perhaps it’s time for a new party…
Joe
PS - LOL, not sure I really want to know what all that link is about though…
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
So how does one reconcile that with an administration that is hell bent on forcing tax payers to pay for abortions and rationing care for the most vulnerable individuals at the end of life under the guise of correcting all those wrongs you just listed? Or does being “anti-abortion” the one aspect of being pro-life that’s compromisable? (sorry if that’s not a word, couldn’t think of anything else).
And I totally agree that the only thing that’s going to help is getting a new party. Unfortunately, that won’t happend until we get rid of the old parties, which won’t happen until we impose term limits (no one should be in Congress as long as Kennedy, Byrd, or Thurman were! It’s not supposed to be a career!
).In Christ,
Ellen
M
Matrix_Refugee
Guest
I admit to sometimes – among family and friends who understand – referring to some pro-lifers as “pro-baby-ers”. I get disgusted with pro-lifers who get bent out of shape over abortion or euthanasia, but who don’t seem to recognize the high rate of suicide among teenagers, the elderly, and the disabled. I’ve wrestled with suicidal thoughts for most of my life, since I was thirteen, and it anNOYs me to no end to listen to people who seem to be “OMG SAV TEH UNBRON BEH-BEHZ!1111”, but if you bring up the issue of suicide, they seem to space out or try to hijack the conversation. I don’t expect people to hold my hand all the time, but I wish some of them could be more sensitive to the emotional sufferings of others. Maybe we need to take care of the people that are on this earth already and not be so worried about having more kids.
C
ChosenAndCalled
Guest
I have been pro-life my entire life. I have stood in silent picket lines, support pro-life causes with time and money, helped with a shelter through my local chuch and other such activities - things we all do in general.
I now believe that I was pro-life in attitude, but I failed to do all I could. I didn’t go far enough in the daily walk. Several years ago my wife and I started fostering children of drug/mental health parents. It was a calling we both felt as pro-life people we had to follow. We’ve adopted one and are in the process of adopting two more. That’s all the state will let us have until some of our “home made” kids turn 18.
I’m not saying that everyone needs to adopt un-wanted children. I’m not saying everyone needs to be fostering, even. I do believe that we need to do more than the comfortable infrequent protest and monetary support. If we believe that pro-life means that every life has value, then it seems we have to be willing to get uncomfortable ourselves. It’s too easy right now to say we’re pro-life, after all we have the single most pro-death administration in our history. They control the game right now and we can’t do much about policy. We can, however, affect people where they are: unwed mothers, children from drug environments, dirty, smell people who make us afraid.
I think we suffer from the easy situation we find ourselves in and we don’t act like people (babies) are dying out there. All of us; I personally need to find ways to do more.
I now believe that I was pro-life in attitude, but I failed to do all I could. I didn’t go far enough in the daily walk. Several years ago my wife and I started fostering children of drug/mental health parents. It was a calling we both felt as pro-life people we had to follow. We’ve adopted one and are in the process of adopting two more. That’s all the state will let us have until some of our “home made” kids turn 18.
I’m not saying that everyone needs to adopt un-wanted children. I’m not saying everyone needs to be fostering, even. I do believe that we need to do more than the comfortable infrequent protest and monetary support. If we believe that pro-life means that every life has value, then it seems we have to be willing to get uncomfortable ourselves. It’s too easy right now to say we’re pro-life, after all we have the single most pro-death administration in our history. They control the game right now and we can’t do much about policy. We can, however, affect people where they are: unwed mothers, children from drug environments, dirty, smell people who make us afraid.
I think we suffer from the easy situation we find ourselves in and we don’t act like people (babies) are dying out there. All of us; I personally need to find ways to do more.
K
kage_ar
Guest
I am very active in the Pro Life movement, and I’ve yet to meet a pro lifer who would not give anyone the shirt off his or her back. I’ve never met a selfish pro life person, not one.
T
tcm22
Guest
Unfortunately “universal health care” has become a euphemism for government-provided or government-directed health services. Hopefully that’s not what you implied, but given the terms of the current debate, I suspect it may be. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
No one of any conscience, nor any mainstream politician for that matter, would argue against a goal of universal health coverage – if that means the goal of ensuring everyone has access to adequate health care. The problem is how to get there and do it without sacrificing liberty. History shows that government-mandated health systems take an ever increasing amount of people’s hard earned income. It’s not a question of whether that’s moral or not, but what is given up by individuals and society by extracting ever greater amounts of wealth to provide a health services to people who have no reason to economize their use. Read up on the “Tragedy of the Commons.”
I certainly support universal health care, but also understand that “perfect is the enemy of good.” I would hate to see us destroy one of the greatest health care systems in the world in order to cover a some percentage of those not covered now. Equal access to vastly reduced services is not necessarily an improvement.
There are certainly things that can be done, and probably should be, to improve availability of health insurance before we all jump on board the wagon of full-fledged government involvement. Malpractice reform, and interstate competition of health insurance are two big ones.
I’m pro-life to the core, but that doesn’t mean I have to support government takeover of the health system. Remember, the “system” isn’t some impersonal, abstract process. Health care is provided by people – Doctors, nurses, technicians – all trying to earn a living to feed their families. That’s what an economy is all about. We can’t pretend that government directives or “cost controls” will guarantee those people will continue to provide services or make the commitments to years of study if they benefits aren’t there.
Look at Britain’s health service. I don’t know the exact figures, but a huge percentage of their medical providers are immigrants. That’s not necessarily bad, but indicates they have to import professionals because their own populace is not entering the health professions at sufficient rates to provide care. Government regulation can’t and won’t guarantee sufficient coverage, despite “universal coverage.”
Let’s be certain about what we’re asking for. One can certainly be pro-life, but be dead set against increased government involvement in the health care industry.
E
estesbob
Guest
Let me make a wild guess-your opinion on what it takes to be pro-life allows you to support pro-abortion canidates as long as they meet the other subjective criteria you have laid out. Correct?
E
estesbob
Guest
I am at a loss as to how being pro-life translates into not caring about suicide?
A
ALLGIRLS
Guest
That’s what always raises red flags for me when someone complains about “pro-life” people. I’ve never met one pro-life person who doesn’t care about the already born (and the Catholic Church does more to help the already born vulnerable than planned barrenhood and all the socialists governments in the world ever will), so what’s really the point behind this rant?
In Christ,
Ellen
C
Cominghome89
Guest
Nobody in the pro-life movement could have said it better. This is so true.
If only every Christian understood what it was to be a Christian…
E
estesbob
Guest
That has been experiecne also. People who complain about the pro-life moevment often follow it up with a lsit of what it really takes to be pro-life-a list that more often than not looks like it was lifted directly from the Democrat party platform.
J
jwashu
Guest
First of all there is no Pro-Abortion candidates unless you mean those who increase the abortion rate every time they are in office. So unless you are talking about Republicans, which I’m guessing you are not then perhaps you should chose your words more carefully.
Ahem, no I do note mean supporting Pro-choice candidates without other considerations.
What I mean though is that, and I have been arguing this for months, we don’t seem to be winning anymore with the Pro-Life movement in it’s current form.
Lets look at the 90s, abortions took the most drastic nosedive ever under a Pro-Choice President. (Clinton). Why? That is what we need to figure out. The Pro-Life movements loved both the Bushes and Reagan but abortions went up more under Reagan than anyone… again, why?
Part of it HAS to be economics… Clinton didn’t make people decided not to have an abortion but they did? If you read why women have one and who most of those women are, they are mothers who feel that can’t support another child. Why do they feel this way?
Why did the big drops in the 90s flatline by 2001? why did it take 6 months to year to get abortion statistics back in the 90s but by 2003 they were 3 years behind? I saw groups in 2004 campaigning for Bush with Clinton era abortion data not Bush’s.
With the better economic times a few things happen in my opinion. First of all people had more hope for the future, secondly, there were more programs to help them… thirdly - they had time to think, reason and learn.
It’s that time to think, reason and learn that is our key IMHO. I’m sorry but sick, hungry people who don’t know if they can feed their family aren’t going to listen to why abortion is murder. They would rather just put it out of their mind and listen to the excuses that say otherwise.
Think of the number of people who sit in their Church pew every Sunday and often hear messages that contradict different parts of the Bible! If you question half of them on it they state that is what their pastor told them. They don’t want to learn more… they don’t want to make the choice for themselves they want it to be easy.
The Pro-Life movement grew by leaps and bounds in the 90s due to a myriad of factors, many of which don’t exist right now. It is possible they will in the next 4 years? Maybe, if so then we need to use that time to take advantage of the situation. I believe the USCCB is working with our current administration to, hopefully to show what we will and will not support as Catholics. In their statement they made it clear that we would like medical care for everyone but aren’t going to pay for abortions. I think that is a good stance. But we need to be open to ideas on how they could separate the money until we can reverse RvW.
Or do the children who are already born not deserve the best we can give them as a nation? what about the uninsured mothers who want their children but lose them because they have no pre-natal care? those are easy saves while we fight to end abortion. To me a life is a life, born or not, old or young, they all have the same value - regardless of what “sins” or shortcomings I might perceive from them.
Joe
J
jwashu
Guest
The issue is that there are a lot of “Christians” who don’t believe life begins at conception. Obama being one of them and probably 60% of my old Church. A great group of people who help the community and actually provide free daycare for teens who get pregnant so they can finish school… they just don’t believe that is when life begins so to them, abortion isn’t an issue.
Don’t get me wrong I don’t agree… frankly I’m not sure how anyone can believe that but they do.
However, and I’m still trying to find proof on this, many groups didn’t believe life began at conception because until recently… they didn’t know when that was, right? In many cases up until the past 100 years or so a baby wasn’t considered “alive” until the quickening (when the mother could feel the baby move).
So the problem arise in that I personally know a lot of “good Christians” who do everything a good Protestant Christian should do but are pro-choice.
Then we also have Catholic Theologians who will argue the point. Why do you think the Kennedy’s supported choice? Because they has some very well educated, yet possibly not very devout, theologians tell them how it could be supported under Catholic doctrine. I’m not sure how and frankly don’t want to know but apparently it was good enough for them back in the late 60s. (good article linked from New Advent on this last week)
Maybe it goes back to the teachings of the Church. If everyone followed what the Church founded by Christ taught it mean to be a good Christian, then it wouldn’t be an issue. I could definitely agree with that
E
estesbob
Guest
Barrack Obama supports unrestricted taxpayer funded abortion on demand. That is pro-abortiojn no matter how you want to ppsrase it
Translation-“I support pro-abortion canidates”
We most certainly wont win with those who say they are pro-life supporting pro-abortion canidates.
Abortions hit their lowest level since Roe V Wade under Bush.
What other social issues do you believe he solution to is kiling the recipients?
There was no flatline in 2001. And of course you are being very provincal. Both Clinton and Obama allowed US funds to pay for overseas abortions. Both Bushes and Ronald Reagan prohibited this funding. Do your statistics include the additional overaseas abortions this funding caused?
At what level of undemployment and GDP do you believe it becomes acceptable for one to kill their children? Does your rationalization for this slaughter include the born or just those who have not yet fully exited the womb?
So perhaps we whould follow the advice of Swifts “A Modest Proposal”?
Gratuitous slap at those who attend Mass duly noted.
Should we be open to the idea that the solution entails empowering those who want to not only keep abortion legal but have the taxpayers pay for it?
False dichotomy-there is no reason we cant prohibit abortion and care for the poor.
- Status