Under Pope Francis, American Catholics see the ‘pro-life’ label as broader than abortion

[LongingSoul]

Keep talking. These posts only reinforce the point of estesbob about the venom being thrown at the pro-life movement.

The ‘Right to Life’ movement in the 1990’s did do us all a disservice by the behaviour of some of the adherents. I can remember the backlash in Australia of the attacks and murders on abortion clinics and the workers in the US. That inconsistent ethic of life caused a lot of problem for the prolife agenda of Right to Life. I was a paid up member back then and I remember it clearly.

 

[Suudy]

The ‘Right to Life’ movement in the 1990’s did do us all a disservice by the behaviour of some of the adherents. I can remember the backlash in Australia of the attacks and murders on abortion clinics and the workers in the US. That inconsistent ethic of life caused a lot of problem for the prolife agenda of Right to Life. I was a paid up member back then and I remember it clearly.

The mistake those folk made was taking upon themselves a function reserved to the state (read: government). Their actions were inconsistent only with the proper exercise of the death penalty (edit: i.e. the legislative process to outlaw abortion, the legal process, and the carrying out of executions), not the death penalty itself.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Keep talking. These posts only reinforce the point of estesbob about the venom being thrown at the pro-life movement.

I was there. I discussed these things with them. I helped them write their press releases, and crafted an article that got published in the paper myself, denouncing the act.

You weren’t there. You don’t know what you’re talking about but you accuse me of lying about things I know about and you can’t possibly know about.

Keep calling me a liar if you want, but I cannot agree with you because then we would both be wrong.

You are becoming an increasingly excellent example of why we can’t seem to make any progress on “pro-life.” You claim to know things you don’t, including my thoughts and motives. Apparently you have yet to comprehend the purpose of this thread, other than to bash someone who happens to be very pleased with what the Holy Father is doing.

Do you think it’s “bad” to expand the “pro-life” label to issues other than “anti-abortion” or not? Maybe you can answer that simple question – but I’m not holding my breath.

 

[SWolf]

The ‘Right to Life’ movement in the 1990’s did do us all a disservice by the behaviour of some of the adherents. I can remember the backlash in Australia of the attacks and murders on abortion clinics and the workers in the US. That inconsistent ethic of life caused a lot of problem for the prolife agenda of Right to Life. I was a paid up member back then and I remember it clearly.

He stated the people in the right to life movement were secretly cheering when an abortionist was murdered. That’s a heinous accusation.

Please show me a leader in the right to Life movement who condoned those murderers. I’ll wait.

Crazy pro-choicers NEVER resort to violence:
hotair.com/archives/2009/09/11/pro-life-demonstrator-murdered-at-michigan-high-school/

 

[Path_Finder]

The mistake those folk made was taking upon themselves a function reserved to the state (read: government). Their actions were inconsistent only with the proper exercise of the death penalty, not the death penalty itself.

One hears the argument about abortion doctors being shot quite often and since the Roe v. Wade decision, I’d place the amount of abortion doctors killed at about 7, maybe 9 in 42 years.

Good luck finding stories in the mainstream media about Doctors such as Gosnell who was convicted of killing babies after they were born. I think he was convicted again, of something like 7 murders but it may well have been much higher and he is probably not the only doctor accused of these things.

Of course, Pro-Choicers rarely will acknowledge this.

 

[LongingSoul]

He stated the people in the right to life movement were secretly cheering when an abortionist was murdered. That’s a heinous accusation.

Please show me a leader in the right to Life movement who condoned those murderers. I’ll wait.

Could you link me to that post. I’ll wait.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Ender already answered this. All lives are sacred, but not all lives are inviolate. This is explored more in this article by Avery Cardinal Dulles.

Further, the pro-life discussion is about innocent human life, which is very different from those convicted of capital offenses. The Catechism points again to this (emphasis mine):

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.”

The sacred nature of human life is not the primary argument against abortion and other pro-life positions. It is the fact that innocent human is to be held inviolate. It an unspoken tenet, but the innocence of the victims of abortion is primary.

Thank you. That does address what I was getting at.

God alone is the Lord of life until its end, and we may not destroy an “innocent” human life.

As a society, we may choose death penalty as a remedy for possible greater harm done by those who we kill or those who might be deterred by it.

But as Christians, who are we to say “this person is innocent” or “this one is guilty?”

As a society, we must stone the adulteress.

As a Christian, we must allow her to live.

 

[SWolf]

I was there. I discussed these things with them. I helped them write their press releases, and crafted an article that got published in the paper myself, denouncing the act.

You weren’t there. You don’t know what you’re talking about but you accuse me of lying about things I know about and you can’t possibly know about.

Keep calling me a liar if you want, but I cannot agree with you because then we would both be wrong.

You are becoming an increasingly excellent example of why we can’t seem to make any progress on “pro-life.” You claim to know things you don’t, including my thoughts and motives. Apparently you have yet to comprehend the purpose of this thread, other than to bash someone who happens to be very pleased with what the Holy Father is doing.

Do you think it’s “bad” to expand the “pro-life” label to issues other than “anti-abortion” or not? Maybe you can answer that simple question – but I’m not holding my breath.

This is making it personal. Please follow forum rules.

 

[LongingSoul]

One hears the argument about abortion doctors being shot quite often and since the Roe v. Wade decision, I’d place the amount of abortion doctors killed at about 7, maybe 9 in 42 years.

Good luck finding stories in the mainstream media about Doctors such as Gosnell who was convicted of killing babies after they were born. I think he was convicted again, of something like 7 murders but it may well have been much higher and he is probably not the only doctor accused of these things.

Of course, Pro-Choicers rarely will acknowledge this.

Just to be clear here. There are NO ‘pro-choicers’ on this thread. We are all anti abortion. Some just don’t agree with the Church stance that opposing the death penalty is also a pro-life issue.

 

[SWolf]

Could you link me to that post. I’ll wait.

117:

We did get rid of one really infamous elective late-term abortionist in our state. Some “nutcase” blew his head off because he thought that he was killing a murderer – his personal form of “capital punishment” for the abortion provider. Of course all the “pro-lifers” had to say how tragic that was and how it isn’t justified. Pullleeze… behind the scenes they were overjoyed.

 

[LongingSoul]

This is making it personal. Please follow forum rules.

It would help a lot if you posted reasoned arguments rather than injecting sarcastic one liners and huge graphics of people clapping. Those are just unnecessary and irritating.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Are you kidding me? I’d shoot the guy in a heartbeat.

I’m talking about a guy they’ve had in a cage for years, not one who is about to commit a crime. This is a good example, but not relevant to the “death penalty” question.

I agree with them.

I also agree with them that it should not be employed if there is any other means to keep the person from causing further damage. And I also agree that with today’s technology that is almost never the case, if ever. Do you agree with the Church on that or not?

I do not agree. Rapes, maimings and killings are not uncommon in prisons. I am aware too that some gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood order killings from inside prisons to people on the outside. Also, there have been some killers who declare that they would kill again if provided the chance.

So, while in theory modern technology (“supermax prisons” one supposes) might keep a dedicated killer from killing again, I do not for a minute believe that technology is being employed on any kind of broad scale.

But neither am I persuaded that the Church truly teaches that today’s technology almost always prevents murders by prisoners. It manifestly doesn’t, even in the U.S. In the second and third worlds, it’s a long way from being true.

I oppose the death penalty because JPII did, and for no other reason. I do not personally believe it is immoral.

 

[LongingSoul]

117:

We did get rid of one really infamous elective late-term abortionist in our state. Some “nutcase” blew his head off because he thought that he was killing a murderer – his personal form of “capital punishment” for the abortion provider. Of course all the “pro-lifers” had to say how tragic that was and how it isn’t justified. Pullleeze… behind the scenes they were overjoyed.

That was certainly the impression that we had in Australia about the US prolifers. Financial contributors withdraw in large numbers here. It wasn’t just the one ‘nutcase’ who killed and bombed. It was the language and attitude of all the protestors. There were real problems in the organisation then.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

I do not agree. Rapes, maimings and killings are not uncommon in prisons. I am aware too that some gangs like the Aryan Brotherhood order killings from inside prisons to people on the outside. Also, there have been some killers who declare that they would kill again if provided the chance.

So, while in theory modern technology (“supermax prisons” one supposes) might keep a dedicated killer from killing again, I do not for a minute believe that technology is being employed on any kind of broad scale.

But neither am I persuaded that the Church truly teaches that today’s technology almost always prevents murders by prisoners. It manifestly doesn’t, even in the U.S. In the second and third worlds, it’s a long way from being true.

I oppose the death penalty because JPII did, and for no other reason. I do not personally believe it is immoral.

I completely respect your position on this, and your reasoning.

I also respect that despite your own opinion of it not being immoral, you oppose the death penalty because JPII did; that speaks to a “higher level” of obedience than I personally believe I adhere to.

 

[SWolf]

That was certainly the impression that we had in Australia about the US prolifers. Financial contributors withdraw in large numbers here. It wasn’t just the one ‘nutcase’ who killed and bombed. It was the language and attitude of all the protestors. There were real problems in the organisation then.

Impressions are not reality, especially when issues are framed by standard media sources.

Please back this up with real quotes from prominent individuals in the movement.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

He stated the people in the right to life movement were secretly cheering when an abortionist was murdered. That’s a heinous accusation.

Call it what you want. It’s an accurate reporting of fact.

Please show me a leader in the right to Life movement who condoned those murderers. I’ll wait.

No. These were from private conversations I had with local and state leaders. If I were to “out” them by name, they would lose political power for OUR side.

Crazy pro-choicers NEVER resort to violence:
hotair.com/archives/2009/09/11/pro-life-demonstrator-murdered-at-michigan-high-school/

They don’t? I thought at least some of them did, as evidenced by your linked article.

MS

 

[Path_Finder]

Just to be clear here. There are NO ‘pro-choicers’ on this thread. We are all anti abortion. Some just don’t agree with the Church stance that opposing the death penalty is also a pro-life issue.

Perhaps not, all the same, the arguments that Pro-Choicers use could be seen in this thread.

Donations withdrawn from Pro-Life charities in Australia because they could look here and see protesters attitudes about the murder of a pro-life doctor and/or bombing.

But a realistic view as well is to say in 42 years since the decision on abortion on demand, 7 doctors or so have been killed. This is unacceptable but I’d always point to pro-choicers, the likes of Doctor Gosnell and others.

 

[Ender]

Is there even a single poster who identifies as “pro-lifer” on this thread, and who thinks “all human life is sacred” but still supports the death penalty?

Yes, me.

Either way, if you support the death penalty, then I trust you will never support the slogan “all human life is sacred.” Either that or you are a hypocrite or liar if you understand me, and an ignorant fool if you don’t despite my efforts to make it clear and simple. In “my” logical opinion, that is.

Your opinion is merely offensive; there is nothing logical about it. I addressed this point before, but I’ll try again.
How do we know all life is sacred? Because God himself has told us this.
Where did he say this? In Genesis, in a passage the church continuously cites.
What was the context?* It was the reason God gave for the propriety of capital punishment.*

Understand this point. God was not merely saying that man’s life was sacred, he was saying that precisely because of that sacredness, the penalty for murder was the life of the murderer. I’m simply taking God at his word, so unless you believe God to be a hypocrite, a liar, or a fool it would seem to be quite reasonable to assert both that all human life is sacred and the just punishment for murder is death.

Who needs pro-aborts to undermine the “pro-life” cause when we can undermine it all by ourselves by repeatedly asserting that, well, really only “certain humans” have the “right to life.”

Again, your assumption about what is being implied is invalid. At least according to Pius XII.
Even when it is a question of the execution of a condemned man, the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. In this case it is reserved to the public power to deprive the condemned person of the enjoyment of life in expiation of his crime when, by his crime, he has already disposed himself of his right to live.
Ender

 

[Suudy]

Do you think it’s “bad” to expand the “pro-life” label to issues other than “anti-abortion” or not? Maybe you can answer that simple question – but I’m not holding my breath.

For my part, yes, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

First, there is a distinction between right to life and quality of life. Pulling the latter into the pro-life label dilutes the emphasis on the sanctity of life. Myself and others have provided quotes from Church leaders–including some far lefties–that support the position that the quality of life derives from the right to life, and is subordinate to it. Only when the right to life is secure can the quality of life be secured.

Second, there are other issues besides abortion. Usually rolled into the pro-life label is euthanasia as well. (Other issues, such as embryonic stem cells derive from these issues.)

Finally, the emphasis is on protecting the lives of those who have not forfeited their own right to life. Perhaps “right-to-life” is a better term, and “pro-life” is too generic. But the emphasis, as I understand it, is on protecting the individual’s right to life. In ordinary circumstances, I think there are only 2 valid authorities to take a life: God and the state. Individuals do not have that right.

 

[LongingSoul]

Perhaps not, all the same, the arguments that Pro-Choicers use could be seen in this thread.

Donations withdrawn from Pro-Life charities in Australia because they could look here and see protesters attitudes about the murder of a pro-life doctor and/or bombing.

But a realistic view as well is to say in 42 years since the decision on abortion on demand, 7 doctors or so have been killed. This is unacceptable but I’d always point to pro-choicers, the likes of Doctor Gosnell and others.

It’s not a war that will be won by using a statistic like that. Our side… the anti abortion side… is relying on the fact of the sacredness of mans life, his innate dignity in the eyes of God and that no exceptions negate his inviolability outside of legitimate defense (as per natural law and common sense).

In a culture where the death penalty is promoted as the god given ‘exception’ to the fifth commandment abortion philosophy gets a jemmy to allow its legitimacy. That is what the Church is trying to say. So while the dam might be solidly packed with anti abortion theology, philosophy etc… that one little hole allowing for the death penalty, represents a serious weakness that undermines the whole pro-life argument.