What does it actually mean to be pro-life?

[PassingSoul]

I really encourage you stop calling it the party of death. Even if warranted, it is just antagonizing and counterproductive to having conversations. Would you be willing to listen to what someone has to say while they are referring to you as anti-woman’s rights? It’s best to just use the labels people identify as so as not to distract them from your message.

I agree, It’s okay to be a single issue voter for a party, but Republicans can just as easy be called Half Christians in their lack of support for immigrants, women rights, and Health Care for the most vulnerable.

 

[dmelosi]

I agree, It’s okay to be a single issue voter for a party, but Republicans can just as easy be called Half Christians in their lack of support for immigrants, women rights, and Health Care for the most vulnerable.

Your belief that there is lack of support for any of this is simply false. Unless you are including abortion in womens rights. Are you/

 

[PassingSoul]

Your belief that there is lack of support for any of this is simply false. Unless you are including abortion in womens rights. Are you/

A Republican Health Care Bill that knocks 60 million people off of Health Care Insurance is not Christian. A Health Care Bill that cuts Medicaid to the most vulnerable is not Christian. A party that rejects equal pay for women is not Christian. A party that is obsessed in being anti immigrant and building walls is not Christian.
This is not true for all Republicans like Rubio and McCain and others but their voices are silenced. My point being Republicans are not Lilly White Christians either.

 

[dmelosi]

A Republican Health Care Bill that knocks 60 million people off of Health Care Insurance is not Christian. A Health Care Bill that cuts Medicaid to the most vulnerable is not Christian. A party that rejects equal pay for women is not Christian. A party that is obsessed in being anti immigrant and building walls is not Christian.
This is not true for all Republicans like Rubio and McCain and others but their voices are silenced. My point being Republicans are not Lilly White Christians either.

At first you say they are not Christian, then you say they are not lily white. You are making many false claims about knocking people off of health care. I completely agree that cutting medicaid is not correct.

Democrats conveniently leave the illegal part out of immigration to make it some other than what it is.

Take a look at the women’s pay/roles in the campaigns and I think you will which party rejects equal pay for women?

There is a difference between the color of lily white and blood red though.

 

[porthos11]

I’ve always been under the impression that the Catholic Church supported the pro-life movement, which supposedly includes several stances: anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-death penalty. It’s always bothered me that republican candidates will be opposed to abortion, but not the death penalty. However, I recently learned that Catholic Church is not completely opposed to the death penalty either, though the Catechism would suggest that it’s use is almost never justified in the United States. How does all of this fit together?

Pro-life includes means battling abortion and euthanasia.

The death penalty is another beast altogether that does not fit squarely under pro-life, in that can can still be pro-life and support the death penalty (one cannot be pro-life and support either abortion or euthanasia).

The main difference is because the death penalty is not an intrinsic moral evil. The historic, unchangeable teaching of the Church is that the death penalty is one case where it is morally legitimate to take a human life, as a redress of a crime so heinous that the demands of justice allow the deprivation of a person’s greatest temporal good.

Whether or not it should be applied in any given circumstance is in the area of prudence. Is it wise for a state to apply the death penalty? Here, the Church lays out its prudential principles: identity of the offender is certain, nature of the crime, protection of society are factors. There can be a moral aspect to it. If a prosecutor is keen on executing a defendant just up his stats, and intentionally disregards exonerating evidence, then justice is not served, and there could be sin in executing this person.

But in terms of principles, a Catholic can still in good conscience support the death penalty, and not be deemed unworthy to receive Holy Communion.

 

[PassingSoul]

At first you say they are not Christian, then you say they are not lily white. You are making many false claims about knocking people off of health care. I completely agree that cutting medicaid is not correct.

Democrats conveniently leave the illegal part out of immigration to make it some other than what it is.

Take a look at the women’s pay/roles in the campaigns and I think you will which party rejects equal pay for women?

There is a difference between the color of lily white and blood red though.

Well I would think to be a good Christian it wouldn’t matter if an immigrant was legal or illegal.
Msgr. Charles Pope Community
Is the Catholic Church Republican? Democrat? And what are you? As for me:

• I’m against abortion, and they call me a Republican
• I want greater justice for immigrants, and they call me a Democrat
• I stand against “Gay” “Marriage,” and they call me a Republican
• I work for affordable housing, and stand with unemployed in DC, and they call me a Democrat
• I talk of subsidiarity and they say: “Republican, for sure.”
• I mention the common good, and solidarity and they say, “Not only a Democrat, but a Socialist for sure.”
• Embryonic Stem cell research should end, “See, he’s Republican!”
• Not a supporter of the death penalty, standing with the Bishops and the Popes against it…”Ah, told you! He’s really a Democrat!…Dye in the wool and Yellow Dog to boot!”
  Hmm, and all this time I just thought I was trying to be a Catholic Christian. I just don’t seem to fit in. And, frankly, no Catholic should. We cannot be encompassed by any Party.
  True Catholicism cannot be tamed by any political party or interest group. True Catholicism will comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It will annoy both the right and the left, and will also affirm them, it has no permanent allies or opponents. As it was with Christ, most every one will have reason to hate the Church, and some will come to love her. We are destined to be, with Christ, a sign of contradiction (Luke 2:34) that will often be opposed, for we do not simply fit into any on world agenda or party.

 

[dmelosi]

Well I would think to be a good Christian it wouldn’t matter if an immigrant was legal or illegal.
Msgr. Charles Pope Community
Is the Catholic Church Republican? Democrat? And what are you? As for me:

• I’m against abortion, and they call me a Republican
• I want greater justice for immigrants, and they call me a Democrat
• I stand against “Gay” “Marriage,” and they call me a Republican
• I work for affordable housing, and stand with unemployed in DC, and they call me a Democrat
• I talk of subsidiarity and they say: “Republican, for sure.”
• I mention the common good, and solidarity and they say, “Not only a Democrat, but a Socialist for sure.”
• Embryonic Stem cell research should end, “See, he’s Republican!”
• Not a supporter of the death penalty, standing with the Bishops and the Popes against it…”Ah, told you! He’s really a Democrat!…Dye in the wool and Yellow Dog to boot!”
  Hmm, and all this time I just thought I was trying to be a Catholic Christian. I just don’t seem to fit in. And, frankly, no Catholic should. We cannot be encompassed by any Party.
  True Catholicism cannot be tamed by any political party or interest group. True Catholicism will comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It will annoy both the right and the left, and will also affirm them, it has no permanent allies or opponents. As it was with Christ, most every one will have reason to hate the Church, and some will come to love her. We are destined to be, with Christ, a sign of contradiction (Luke 2:34) that will often be opposed, for we do not simply fit into any on world agenda or party.

I agree with what you have said. But for you to think that the party of death does anything but try to control how people think is wrong. I am sure there are some truly compassionate people in the democratic party, but think about it, you are following the beliefs of a party that have zero regard for the life of the most innocent.

 

[Muzhik]

I want to put my two kopeks in and relate something that happened to me about a year and a half ago. I was listening the Iowa Public Radio coverage of the tele-med abortion bills being considered in the Iowa Legislature. I was sick and tired of hearing people opposed to the expansion of tele-med abortions being referred to as “anti-abortion”, simply because that is not how the movement characterizes itself. As other commenters have pointed out, we do not refer to one party as the “Tax and Spend Party” or the “Pro-Death” party; nor do we refer to the opposite side as the “Pro-Rich Party” or “Anti-Poor Party”. We refer to them by the labels they give themselves.

When I wrote to the person who had produced those segments and pointed out this discrepancy (that by consistently adopting the labels that one side apply to themselves AND the labels that one side applies to the opposition, you have not-so-subtly identified the support in your coverage), and asked why they didn’t refer to the people opposed to abortion as “pro-life”, the reporter promised to bring it up with management. A few days later I recv’d a reply that, among fluff, stated (and I quote): “We don’t want to confuse our listeners.”

Well, thank you ma’am. That’s mighty white of you. ***Mighty ***white of you, to make sure we folks don’t start thinking wrong thoughts.

 

[dmelosi]

I want to put my two kopeks in and relate something that happened to me about a year and a half ago. I was listening the Iowa Public Radio coverage of the tele-med abortion bills being considered in the Iowa Legislature. I was sick and tired of hearing people opposed to the expansion of tele-med abortions being referred to as “anti-abortion”, simply because that is not how the movement characterizes itself. As other commenters have pointed out, we do not refer to one party as the “Tax and Spend Party” or the “Pro-Death” party; nor do we refer to the opposite side as the “Pro-Rich Party” or “Anti-Poor Party”. We refer to them by the labels they give themselves.

When I wrote to the person who had produced those segments and pointed out this discrepancy (that by consistently adopting the labels that one side apply to themselves AND the labels that one side applies to the opposition, you have not-so-subtly identified the support in your coverage), and asked why they didn’t refer to the people opposed to abortion as “pro-life”, the reporter promised to bring it up with management. A few days later I recv’d a reply that, among fluff, stated (and I quote): “We don’t want to confuse our listeners.”

Well, thank you ma’am. That’s mighty white of you. ***Mighty ***white of you, to make sure we folks don’t start thinking wrong thoughts.

The problem with the argument on calling people what they label themselves as, is that it would be easy to switch their labels depending on the discussion they are in.

 

[YADA]

I agree, It’s okay to be a single issue voter for a party, but Republicans can just as easy be called Half Christians in their lack of support for immigrants, women rights, and Health Care for the most vulnerable.

Who says Republicans don’t care for or support immigrants, women’s rights and health care for the most vulnerable? …I care about all of those things …what I do not support is blindly throwing money without limits at these issues nor ignoring existing laws …

Allowing illegal immigration is bad for the Country, the immigrants, legal residents, the economy and our safety. It enables human trafficking, illicit drug trade, and impacts the economy by driving down wages, increasing unemployment, etc.

Women’s rights is basically the right to abortion and what else in your mind … We have laws that cover employment issues and civil court systems to insure that …

Forced health insurance ala the ACA is not health care …people do have access to health care …even if unable to pay …the ACA is failing, was designed to fail and. the same people who have angst against big business seem ready to throw money at big insurance companies …

 

[Della]

Well the way to vote has never been an issue for me when weighing 60 million deaths to abortion vs a few thousand to capital punishment. I just don’t understand why republican candidates, even Catholic ones, never seem to have the same stance as the Church on the death penalty. The way I understand the Catechism, the death penalty is meant to only be used as a last resort to protect society, in rare cases like maybe where a criminal can’t adequately be detained and has the clear intent to harm others. Otherwise, it seems people should be given the opportunity to repent and seek redemption.

In the U.S. I can’t think of time when the death penalty is appropriate by the Catechism standards. Executing someone that has already been imprisoned for so long, and therefore successfully prevented from posing a threat to society, is cold blooded murder. There have even been a couple cases where people on death row have show a clear change of heart, full of regret, and willing repentance, that are still executed. Why don’t even the Catholic candidates like Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum speak on the death penalty in this way?

The Church has no power to tell governments who to execute, when or why–nor do our politicians have to hew to your or my interpretation of the Catechism. Others can and do disagree with your interpretation–just stating fact, not negating your ideas on the topic.

No politician is required to interpret Church teachings according to anyone person’s ideas. He has to make the best prudential judgment he can and go with that.

And again, the death penalty is NOT intrinsically evil. Therefore, it doesn’t have the same weight of importance as abortion or euthanasia, which are intrinsically evil, so IMHO, it’s not a pro-life issue at all, but rather a political one.

 

[phil19034]

A Republican Health Care Bill that knocks 60 million people off of Health Care Insurance is not Christian. A Health Care Bill that cuts Medicaid to the most vulnerable is not Christian. A party that rejects equal pay for women is not Christian. A party that is obsessed in being anti immigrant and building walls is not Christian.
This is not true for all Republicans like Rubio and McCain and others but their voices are silenced. My point being Republicans are not Lilly White Christians either.

where does the Republican Party reject equal pay for equal work? I was speaking about this with one of the managers at my work (a woman).

She says the “equal pay for women” cry is a myth. The starting salaries for both men and women are typically the same. The reason why women are paid less on average is because there is still a large percentage of women who take a significant amount of time off to raise kids. ESPECIALLY among the high wage earners.

I work for a large law firm, which is pretty liberal and supports women (our firm chair is even a woman). Except in situations where the wife is the main financial provider of the family, MANY of our female associates take 6 months to a year off when they have a baby. Some take 3-4 months off, point is, the firm allows them to take up to a year off for each child. And many do it, esp if they can survive on their husband’s pay check while on unpaid leave.

However, that time off does have one negative result. They typically do not receive the raise they would have received if they didn’t take the time off. And they may not receive a bonus that year, or receive a smaller one if they worked part of the year.

Furthermore, there are many female associates who also decide to be removed from partner track after they have kids and accept a lower salary in exchange for a lower billable requirement.

At my firm, I’m aware of many female associates who elected to switch from the partner track to the non-partner track; but I’m not aware of any male associates doing the same (that doesn’t mean they don’t exist, but I’m not aware of any).

I’m also aware of many female attorneys who work 4 days a week, in order to spend one day at home with their children.

Same thing with doctors and teachers. My uncle and his wife are both doctors. After they closed the office, my aunt would go home to be with my cousins while my uncle did all the rounds at the hospital. He worked the OT so my aunt could be home. This happens a lot in marriages where both husband & wife work. When the family needs OT, it’s often the husband who works it, allowing the mother to come home.

Now there are exceptions: but it’s still typical that mothers are the ones who work less to be with the kids, while dad is the one who works more.

In my personal situation, my wife left her teaching career 6 years ago to stay home with my children. She has a master’s degree and was making a decent salary (even if we needed to pay for daycare). But we didn’t want to have our kids raised in daycare, and her career and salary took a serious blow. We know it will be hard for her to find another good teaching job. And we know that her time away from work will result in her making far less money over the length of her career.

Women also have a tendency to retire (end their careers) at a younger age than men do.

These examples, which happen A LOT among women with good paying jobs is the main contributor to why (on average) women make less than men.

God Bless.

 

[PassingSoul]

I agree with what you have said. But for you to think that the party of death does anything but try to control how people think is wrong. I am sure there are some truly compassionate people in the democratic party, but think about it, you are following the beliefs of a party that have zero regard for the life of the most innocent.

I understand Catholics who are single issue voters on abortion and respect that. But if you really believe Republican Politicians like Trump, Romney, and Giuliano are Pro Life in their hearts you are kidding yourself. All these men were Pro Choice in Blue States and out of the blue they get an epiphany when they decide to run as a Republican President.
That all Democrats have zero regard for the most innocent is not true. Most Democratic Politicians, will tell you they don’t personally believe in abortion but believe in a woman’s right to choose. I agree with you that the Democratic Party is supporting a 1960 issue when the debate was " When does Life Begin ". With modern Technology this debate is over that life begins at Conception. Republicans have successfully labeled Democrats as Baby
Killers. Democrats need to rethink this issue if they expect to win future elections.
But let’s say Republicans make Abortion Illegal, will Republican Politicians raise taxes to support the onslaught of unwanted babies ? Higher taxes will be needed for Health Care for Mothers and Children, Foster Care, Child Care, Food Assistance, Special Education, Social Services, Orphanages and oh yes Welfare. You know where Republicans stand on these issues now. There are thousands of unwanted kids now in foster homes waiting for adoption.
You never hear Republican Politicians say this is what we need to do when we end abortion.

 

[phil19034]

In regards to the org post: I’m personally a proponent that we Republicans need to limit the death penalty more because it’s often used against us in regards to abortion and euthanasia.

HOWEVER, unlike abortion and euthanasia, the Church and Catechism does not teach that the death penalty is objectively immoral. In the past, we didn’t have prisons with conditions like we have today. Sentencing a person to life in prison during the 18th century was usually a cruel punishment. So in many ways, the death penalty was “merciful” and allowed the criminal to make peace with God. But today, prisons are more humane, so life in prison isn’t as extreme as the death penalty.

However, we Americans do tend to use the death penalty a lot compared to other nations - so we should be looking at that. I also think we tend to give the death penalty for the wrong crimes or wrong types of criminals.

Issuing the death penalty to a serial killer who is mentally deranged is not necessary when that person can spend the rest of his/her life in jail.

But giving multiple life sentences to some to a gang/mob leader who has killed other inmates, recruits & initiates gang members in prison, and orders hits on people on the outside from prison is insane. These criminals are still a real danger to society while in prison. To me, these are the kinds of criminals who should be considered for the death penalty.

In my opinion, the Death Penalty should be limited to criminals who are still a danger to society when behind bars.

The church teaches that death penalty should be use sparingly and only when warranted. I agree with this 100%, but I also think that just because a republican politician isn’t against the death penalty doesn’t mean they in violation of church teaching. Typically, discussions regarding the death penalty do not go into what kinds of situations warrant the death penalty vs what situations don’t.

The other issue in the US is that each state has different definitions what constitutes a capital crime - hence there are many different situations regarding when the death penalty would be used.

God bless.

 

[dmelosi]

I understand Catholics who are single issue voters on abortion and respect that. But if you really believe Republican Politicians like Trump, Romney, and Giuliano are Pro Life in their hearts you are kidding yourself. All these men were Pro Choice in Blue States and out of the blue they get an epiphany when they decide to run as a Republican President.
That all Democrats have zero regard for the most innocent is not true. Most Democratic Politicians, will tell you they don’t personally believe in abortion but believe in a woman’s right to choose. I agree with you that the Democratic Party is supporting a 1960 issue when the debate was " When does Life Begin ". With modern Technology this debate is over that life begins at Conception. Republicans have successfully labeled Democrats as Baby
Killers. Democrats need to rethink this issue if they expect to win future elections.
But let’s say Republicans make Abortion Illegal, will Republican Politicians raise taxes to support the onslaught of unwanted babies ? Higher taxes will be needed for Health Care for Mothers and Children, Foster Care, Child Care, Food Assistance, Special Education, Social Services, Orphanages and oh yes Welfare. You know where Republicans stand on these issues now. There are thousands of unwanted kids now in foster homes waiting for adoption.
You never hear Republican Politicians say this is what we need to do when we end abortion.

I don’t believe Romney or Giuliano are pro-life and would have called them out if they were president. Everything that Trump has done and said shows that he is pro-life. You have no reason to think otherwise. I don’t see where anyone said that all Democrats have zero regard for the most innocent, why did you say that to make everyone think someone did say that?

I didn’t do the research on number of unwanted kids now in foster homes, but they are alive and have a chance, what kind of chance the millions slaughtered each year have.

As you what you say that modern technology has ended the debate, wouldn’t you think the democratic platform deserves the baby killer identity?

Please tell me where republicans stand on those issues you mention above…

 

[Joe_5859]

I want to put my two kopeks in and relate something that happened to me about a year and a half ago. I was listening the Iowa Public Radio coverage of the tele-med abortion bills being considered in the Iowa Legislature. I was sick and tired of hearing people opposed to the expansion of tele-med abortions being referred to as “anti-abortion”, simply because that is not how the movement characterizes itself. As other commenters have pointed out, we do not refer to one party as the “Tax and Spend Party” or the “Pro-Death” party; nor do we refer to the opposite side as the “Pro-Rich Party” or “Anti-Poor Party”. We refer to them by the labels they give themselves.

When I wrote to the person who had produced those segments and pointed out this discrepancy (that by consistently adopting the labels that one side apply to themselves AND the labels that one side applies to the opposition, you have not-so-subtly identified the support in your coverage), and asked why they didn’t refer to the people opposed to abortion as “pro-life”, the reporter promised to bring it up with management. A few days later I recv’d a reply that, among fluff, stated (and I quote): “We don’t want to confuse our listeners.”

Well, thank you ma’am. That’s mighty white of you. ***Mighty ***white of you, to make sure we folks don’t start thinking wrong thoughts.

What gets me is when the same people that insist on using “anti-abortion” will correct you if you try to use the word “pro-abortion” to describe the pro-choice side. I’d be inclined to adopt the term “anti-abortion” over “pro-life” if everyone then referred to the other point of view as being “pro-abortion.” But that doesn’t happen. One side gets to keep their chosen label while the other side does not.

It really illustrates the fact that both sides (at least in the political realm) frequently just talk past each other. One side is talking about life and death while the other is talking about personal choices. It’s no wonder that agreement is hard to come by.

 

[phil19034]

I understand Catholics who are single issue voters on abortion and respect that. But if you really believe Republican Politicians like Trump, Romney, and Giuliano are Pro Life in their hearts you are kidding yourself. All these men were Pro Choice in Blue States and out of the blue they get an epiphany when they decide to run as a Republican President.
That all Democrats have zero regard for the most innocent is not true. Most Democratic Politicians, will tell you they don’t personally believe in abortion but believe in a woman’s right to choose. I agree with you that the Democratic Party is supporting a 1960 issue when the debate was " When does Life Begin ". With modern Technology this debate is over that life begins at Conception. Republicans have successfully labeled Democrats as Baby
Killers. Democrats need to rethink this issue if they expect to win future elections.
But let’s say Republicans make Abortion Illegal, will Republican Politicians raise taxes to support the onslaught of unwanted babies ? Higher taxes will be needed for Health Care for Mothers and Children, Foster Care, Child Care, Food Assistance, Special Education, Social Services, Orphanages and oh yes Welfare. You know where Republicans stand on these issues now. There are thousands of unwanted kids now in foster homes waiting for adoption.
You never hear Republican Politicians say this is what we need to do when we end abortion.

this is actually a pretty unfair statement. Republicans know these things are needed. We simply believe that the taxes used for such services should come from the local, county and state levels, not from the federal level.

We believe the larger the organization, the more waste. And that the larger the organization, the more removed the top is from the services they are tying to provide. As someone who has worked for two Fortune 300 companies and for a huge law firm, I know that our competition (which when working for the Fortune 300 companies) was often small to mid-size businesses were often able to bet us due to being flexible and able to respond quicker to market trends. When we won, it was typically due to having multiple locations and because we had enough insurance in case we screwed up (aka - they picked us because we could pay them more if we screwed up and got sued). At the law firm, we get business because we have people who practice all sorts of law… but it’s often the smaller firms that are very specialized that are considered the best in each practice areas.

In closing, we Republicans believe that private, local, county and state level organizations & agencies can best handle those issues because they are the ones who can more easily adapt to local conditions and can provide the best “customer service” due to their more nimble size and being closer to the “customer.”

The only Republicans you will often hear say that no level of govt should be involved are libertarians (and libertarians are actually in Republican and Democratic Parties)

God bless.

 

[PassingSoul]

I don’t believe Romney or Giuliano are pro-life and would have called them out if they were president. Everything that Trump has done and said shows that he is pro-life. You have no reason to think otherwise. I don’t see where anyone said that all Democrats have zero regard for the most innocent, why did you say that to make everyone think someone did say that?

I didn’t do the research on number of unwanted kids now in foster homes, but they are alive and have a chance, what kind of chance the millions slaughtered each year have.

As you what you say that modern technology has ended the debate, wouldn’t you think the democratic platform deserves the baby killer identity?

Please tell me where republicans stand on those issues you mention above…

I’m not sure where Republicans stand on the issues of raising taxes to support social services needed on ending abortion. I guess that’s a question for Grover Norquist to answer.

 

[dmelosi]

I’m not sure where Republicans stand on the issues of raising taxes to support social services needed on ending abortion. I guess that’s a question for Grover Norquist to answer.

Why in the world would you say that is a question for Grover Norquist when you know what his answer would be and he would have no role in that?

It sounds like you believe that raising taxes is your answer to every problem.

 

[PassingSoul]

Why in the world would you say that is a question for Grover Norquist when you know what his answer would be and he would have no role in that?

It sounds like you believe that raising taxes is your answer to every problem.

No you can substantially increase your annual contribution to the Catholic Bishops Appeal to the House of Charity.