AmericanPapist Comments
Thomas, great site, I love getting your daily pics of His Holiness, and your corresponding tongue in cheek characterizations...
B. Hussein Obama is a pro-abortionist and pro-infanticide devotee, bar none.
I think he would even make that butcher, "Dr. Josef Mengele" Tiller,blush!!!
Thanks for posting this, Thomas!
That video is frightening....
(Why is this narrated by a robot? That's kind of annoying.)
Good video, but someone needs to dub in a REAL narrator -- I keep waiting for it to suggest that I enter my 16-digit account number!!!
Again, the issue of abortion rights does not rest solely on the shoulders of the president. For a bill like this to pass, it would require Congress to also do so. Rather than simply hold a president hostage on this one issue, we need to hold our local, state, and federal representatives responsible.
Frankly, I'm tired of this kind of one sided attempt at making abortion the one issue for Catholics. It's a tactic that's been abused. What progress has Bush made in his 8 years? Little if any forward movement. Abortion is a social issue and not simply a political one. We can't pass laws that will change people's hearts. That's not a Republic, that's tyranny under a cloak of virtue.
NT: "Again, the issue of abortion rights does not rest solely on the shoulders of the president. For a bill like this to pass, it would require Congress to also do so. Rather than simply hold a president hostage on this one issue, we need to hold our local, state, and federal representatives responsible."
You're right, but the next president is going to be appointing possibly several new justices to the Supreme Court. If Obama is the one appointing those justices, what do you think those justices are going to do?
Well, Abraham Lincoln can't really do anything about slavery, so let's just vote for Breckinridge.
NT,
While the president doesn't get to solely decide the issue, he sets the tone. This is especially true if the Congress is led by his party (e.g., Bush in 2001)
If Democrats maintain a Congressional majority in both the House and Senate (which, for some reason, is projected, despite abysmal approval ratings), it'd be very easy to get something like FOCA passed...especially during the first 100 days, when Congress is more lenient toward the President's proposals.
I don't mean to turn this into a debate, but the reason the pro-life movement has gained so little ground in society and in our culture, at least in my opinion, is due to the fact that it goes after the laws of the land. They want to change the 'freedom' of 'yes you can' to a tyranny of 'no you can't'. That's not a great way to get a following.
Christ doesn't call us to change laws, he calls us to change hearts. If you change the law without changing people's minds, then you're overthrowing the will of the people. That, in itself, is an affront to human dignity.
While Congress and the President do 'set the tone' I think that is a lot different than saying that they're going to make any change. Children will be saved through the love and compassion that their mothers are shown in their own towns and parishes, not by changing any law.
If the pro life movement would move towards installing Catholic adoption centers as their top priority, and to give up on this political partisan match, we might actually see something happen.
Until then, I'm afraid that the Republican Party has us all right where they want us. And fears the day we're smart enough to see through this.
Ps. If you think the Civil War was about slavery, you need to read a better history book.
It's amazing what slaves will fight for if you promise them freedom afterwards.
NT:
To call a decision made by seven unelected men "the law of the land" is an overstatement for sure. Anyway, the outstanding pro-life groups in our country are not angry, domineering people who just want to take away people's so-called freedoms. They offer women compassionate care to help them make the right decision for both themselves and their babies.
Also, "Christ doesn't call us to change laws, He calls us to change hearts." What if the law condones intrinsic evil? As above, abortion was brought on a national scale by the Supreme Court, hardly an example of the "will of the people." While education and moral training ARE desperately important in ending abortion, to call a law that would do so (before the "majority" of people are open to this idea) an "affront to human dignity" is an unbelievably stunning statement. Is not four thousand dead children a day a far greater affront to human dignity?
Finally, laws do make a difference. NRLC.org has some excellent documentation on the significant decrease of abortions in South Carolina, through the course of seven different laws being put on the books. If laws open support women in choosing life, they will be more likely to do so.
I understand what you're saying, but I think the problem is that you are relying on the laws to make abortion go away. It's not going to happen that way. The way abortion will end will be the same way other industries go out of business, people simply stop going.
As I see it, there are three approaches mostly used to end abortion: political, moral, and social.
Some say that the way to end it is politically by legislating that it be illegal to do so. With the debate still existing about who is and who isn't a citizen, legislation will continue to go around in circles. No president will be able to solve this dilemma either way.
Another tactic is the moral approach that tries to instill Catholic morality, or other morality, on another. Most often this is done with protests and bumper stickers. This tactic is more divisive than effective. Granted, there is the element of eduction, but this alone won't be enough.
Then there is the social tactic. To me, this is where things really happen. People don't 'want' to have children. This has nothing to do with laws, or faith, but instead has to deal with the culture we live in and the day to day decisions people make. If we want abortion to go away, we need to make the decision of aborting a baby the most unnecessary choice to make. There needs to be enough wanting parents out there to adopt, Churches willing to help expecting mothers, and hope in the future of America that their mom's couldn't wait to show them.
This kind of love can't be made known by a law, or by a Supreme Court Judge, or someone waving a sign. This is done by you and me. It's not the governments job to end abortion. It's our job. That's why Christ didn't run for office. He knew what had to be done to make change. Laws or no laws, we could end abortion tomorrow if we reached out personally to those in need. But instead many of us seem to think that casting a vote for a Pro-Life candidate is adequate.
Abortion is a battle of good vs. evil. The question is what side are you really on? The side of good or evil? There is no middle ground. Either your with God or you are against him.
See 'moral tactic' above.
NT,
I don't see it as an either/or proposition. We need to work on changing people's hearts and changing the laws. If we don't work on changing the laws how many innocents will die before the hearts are changed??
NT,
You have a point, but I think Kathy hit the nail on the head there: "If we don't work on changing the laws how many innocents will die before the hearts are changed??"
One doesn't waste time trying to reason with a serial killer, patiently urging him to give up his life of crime while leaving him free to take yet another life whenever he fancies it. One restrains him at the earliest opportunity (read: immediately), and then adopts an approach that, in time, will allow him to see the error of his ways and set his mind straight for good.
I agree that writs and decrees won't eliminate the problem entirely, which is why we should - as you suggest - adopt a compassionate social approach towards those seeking to procure or provide abortions. But keep in mind that for those who believe that abortion is nothing less than murder, every second that permissive laws remain on the books means that more innocent lives are lost in abortion clinics all over the country. Change hearts, by all means (I'm definitely with you on that one) - but we can't stop at that. We must change the laws and change them now.
Diego, I think you made an interesting point in your comparison of post abortive woman to serial killers. For many, abortion is murder.
But again, this argument, however well put or intentioned, will not put an end to abortion. This is a moral view in that it bases itself on when life begins, and political as it defers to our Constitution's understand of who is eligible to receive rights as a person.
My intention in entering into this conversation was simple: your vote will not end abortion. Period. Nor will it potentially save a single life. They are fruitless labors unless we understand the real battle we are in.
Every four years the same rhetoric is said, that the only way to vote is Pro Life as a Catholic. I used to believe that, until my Pro Life vote and Pro Life president never once introduced a bill to end abortion, nor did Congress. Even when they were lead by the same party.
You see, the Republicans don't want to put an end to abortion. They have all of us right where they want us. If abortion were to be illegal tomorrow, what other reason would we have to vote for a Republican? What other morally imperative issue do they have? Is gay marriage next? Why has the only response been to this issue to make a Constitutional Amendment? You guys have to be kidding if you think that that's the way the Republican Party is going to make change. Impossible.
I hate to be such a downer, but from where I stand, I see a lot of well intentioned, God fearing, and holy people in here who have been been blissfully led astray. Many have been fed the rationale that their vote will equal an end to abortion. Ladies and Gentlemen, that's politics. If they actually solved problems they'd all be out of jobs. Instead, they manipulate the good intentions of others to stay where they're at. And as I hear people talk here, I get the feeling that they're not going anywhere. We need to wise up, roll up our sleeves, and put faith in God and the Body of Christ to put an end to abortion, not in some political party. Anyone who thinks that being Christian is as simple as pulling the lever in the voting booth need only look to the cross to see what is really asked of us.
NT,
Overturning 'roe' isn't preventing abortion. It would just throw it to the states, where 'the will of the people' would control it. (but remember that we live in a democratic republic. That means we can't vote on things like murder.)
I think you are mistaken to believe that ignoring the government=the government staying out of it. Once again, "Roe" was the result of tyrannical interference which encouraged and caused the increase of abortion. The will of the people, at the time, was against abortion.
Saying that the Roe v. Wade is tyrannical is true, but only if your a fetus. And therein lies the problem. Until people feel they know when life begins, the issue of whether that's a person or not will be up for debate. Granted, for us Catholics, that issue has been solved, but not so for others.
Without a common understanding of when life begins, the idea of the government prohibiting the termination of a pregnancy, not a life, will be looked at as tyrannical interference in woman's reproductive lives.
Please understand that I don't necessarily agree with that point of view, but I take it to challenge you in your current thinking that laws will save the unborn. By trying to change laws without changing peoples hearts into believing that life begins at conception, you will become the very thing you appose.
I would like to suggest another point of view as well for consideration. Abortion is a business. It is not non-profit. They pay their doctors and employees, and they pay them well. It is an industry similar to cosmetic surgery, a dentist, and OBGYN. It's a business and it's run like one.
We live in a capitalistic society, a system that runs on self interest and personal freedom. Since this is the case, and the Pro Choice people have Planned Parenthood, what does the Pro Life movement have? What product or service to we have to offer the world as an alternative? What is our Big Mac to their Whopper?
I guess where I'm going with this is that if we hope to make headway against the Pro Choice movement, then why don't we get competitive? I know there are clinics out there that offer support and counseling, and maybe some money, but there is no national effort to provide housing and help to pregnant mothers the way Planned Parenthood has been able to market abortions.
I know of a couple places that do provide help, but half of their funding comes from the government and so faith based counseling is out. It used to be that convents took this on, but those days are gone. Why has this not been a focus? Is there no money in saving lives? I'm just curious. I may also be ignorant of programs that exist, but if it does, it needs to do a better job of advertising.
Just something I was pondering...
Ps. If you think the Civil War was about slavery, you need to read a better history book.
I don't think it was the only issue, but I believe it was primary. As does Dave Armstron here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...l-sin-
root.html
Whom I am sure would love discussing the issue amicably further.
NT,
You misunderstand.
Saying that the Roe v. Wade is tyrannical is true, but only if your a fetus.
So if it ain't happening to me, it ain't happening?
Roe v. Wade underturned laws enacted by the will of the people. That is tyranny. Damned tyranny.
Overturning R V. W will not stop abortion. It will respect to will of the people.
P.S. With the FOC act, BO will undo whatever the people have done. Do you believe that that is wrong?
I think it's worth mentioning that most governments which maintained morality did so without checking with the people. Pure democracy is organized anarchy. Recognizing that the founding documents acknowledge the right to life is not wrong, even if it contradicts the will of the people.
Both of your statements are somewhat true. We do not live in a democracy, we live under a representational republic. The basis of a republic is a form of government based on law, which in our case is the Constitution. Roe v. Wade, as most of us know, exists because of the loose interpretation of what a citizen is in the Constitution by the Supreme Court. The job of the Supreme Court is nothing more than interpreting the Constitution. If the will of the people is to change how the Court has ruled, than it is as simple as changing the Constitution.
Changing the Constitution must be done by not simply the will of the people, but, if I remember correctly, 2/3 or Congress, and 2/3 of the States. That is no easy accomplishment. And it is something that neither Bush, nor a Republican Congress even attempted to do. Or will ever attempt to do.
So if abortion is as you say it is, and is against the will of the people, then changing it should be easy. Simply introduce a bill to amend the Constitution, get Congress to pass it and the States ratify it. All it would take is a vote.
I think deep down though we know that's not the case. Even South Dakota, which came the closest to banning it, failed. We can sit and fight over Supreme Court judges who will interpret one way or another, but at the end of the day, the tyranny we live under may have been forced on us when it was passed in 1973, but it's a tyranny we have chosen to live with every year since.
NT,
You make valid points. However, "Roe" is not above re-examination by future (and present) courts. It is not the law of the land. Rulings have been reversed in the past, and the possibility of overturning "Roe" (as is so badly misinterprets the constitution) is very real.
In the end, Catholic pro-life groups are doing much good, and the battle on all fronts, whether political, social, or moral, to combat this cancer in our chest, must continue to be fought.
As Catholics, we can't support or vote for Obama without losing our salvation, but that doesn't mean we have to settle for the "lesser of two evils" either. The Church does tell us who we can't vote for, but is doesn't force us to support any candidate.
God Bless.
I take issue David, with your last point. Rather than debate whether voting for Obama is immoral or not, I'd like to question the contrary, that a vote for McCain is moral.
The Republican Party, which has promised every year since Roe v. Wade, to overturn the ruling, has done nothing of the sort. Partial Birth Abortion bills have tried to make their way out of Congress and fail, or get caught in lower courts as unconstitutional. My faith in this party, especially under the current neo-conservative administration, is weak.
It may surprise some of you to know that I attended the State Republican Convention in my state as a delegate from my area. I believe in what the Republican Party once stood for. The days of Barry Goldwater, and what I feel was a true understanding of conservatism. Alas, that is not the state of the current Republican Party. What I see is a party that is desperate to hold on to what little power it has left. I see a party that attempts to manipulate the Pro-Life movement into believing that it is the moral choice, and when given the chance they fail to fight.
This is not a debate on dogma. I am not questioning the wisdom of the Church or how it calls us to live and vote. What I am questioning though is the belief that, the current alternative to Obama, John McCain, will get your Pro-Life vote and will magically make abortion illegal. The truth is he seldom even voted for Pro-Life issues. Seek to find his real voting record and not simply the synopsis that RTL provides.
This is politics. This is the same institution that crucified an innocent man without a trial. And yet, David, you hold this institution to be invariably linked to my salvation? That God would hold me to a candidates campaign promises is not only short sited, it's insulting. I am calling on all of you to reexamine this sheepish mentality of voting as you always did, yet expecting different results.
I am with you in that this is not easy. Am I saying that we should vote for Obama? No. But I'm not so naive as to vote for his opponent either. My vote will be for a man who was the best ally to the Pro-Life movement the Republican Party has ever had, but who they not surprisingly wrote off as a wacko. Unfortunately, it may be in the form of a write in. But so be it. I will be voting my conscience. I implore each of you to do the same before you blindly put undo faith in the campaign promises we've heard for the last 8 years. Unless, that is, you want things to stay exactly the same.
I take issue David, with your last point.
With respect, you didn't. Re-read it and you'll see I said the opposite of what you think I said. I said Catholics don't have to vote for McCain.
Such being the case, I take exception to your comments, and I respectfully ask where I exhibited a "sheepish mentality" or "blindly put faith" a candidate?
I didn't. Your well-intentioned admonishments were unnecessary. FWIW, I did not vote in '00 or '04, nor have I committed a candidate this time.
NT, you said a lot of things I agree with. Unfortunately, you misread my comments.
David, I apologize if I misread your post. But please don't take my comments personally. They are aimed more at those who probably aren't as inclined as to even engage in such a discussion. In fact, it is to the people I know in the Church personally, and others who I may not have met yet, who see their allegiance to the Republican Party as tantamount to their Baptismal promise for no other reason than the party's stance on the abortion issue. I consider this kind of mentality to be less than what our faith calls us to, and I take issue with it.
But let me ask you this then. It seems that your answer is to simply not vote. You said that you didn't vote in the past two presidential elections, which makes me think that you may be inclined to do the same again this year. Are you boycotting the Presidential election, or simply casting a vote for apathy?
The reason I ask is, there is a difference between civil disobedience and inaction. From the way you've talked, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you intend to make a statement by not voting. The USCCB's document on "Faithful Citizenship" states that, "In the Catholic Tradition, responsible citizenship is a virtue, and participation in political life is a moral obligation." While it stops at saying that we are obligated to vote, it does imply that some form of action is required.
The document goes on to say that, "The Catholic call to faithful citizenship affirms the importance of political participation and insists that public service is a worthy vocation. As Catholics, we should be guided more by our moral convictions than by our attachment to a political party or interest group. When necessary, our participation should help transform the party to which we belong; we should not let the party transform us in such a way that we neglect or deny fundamental moral truths."
I read this to mean that we are called not to walk away, but march forward and to change the world which we see. It is for this reason that I am passionate about politics. Not so much because I love it, but because I despise it. In my heart I am a conservative, but I am disgraced by what the current Republican Party has done to true conservatism. Conservatism does not involve invasion and political overthrow of two sovereign nations, the loss of countless civil liberties, and a deficit of 5 trillion dollars. True conservatism does not allow for a federal ruling on abortion either, or allow the Judicial Branch the authority to make law. To me, the issue of abortion is an abomination politically as much as it morally. It is a lapse not only in moral ethics, but political ethics. It is simply a bad policy and has yet to be reconciled.
And yet, we continue to fight on the path chosen by the Republican Party of amending the constitution, electing 'conservative' judges, and vetoing bills in Congress. This is the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gun fight. There is no chance of real vict
... victory. And it is my opinion that the Republican Party knows this. Under this strategy abortion will be on the books for the rest of our lives.
The solution? Under the 9th and 10th amendments, all authority over matters not specifically addressed in the Constitution remains with state legislatures. Since the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the federal government has no real authority in the matter. Therefor, Constitutionally it is up to each state to decide how to handle such social matters, not the federal government. This is essentially mean that each state would be able to vote for itself whether abortion is legal or not. This could be done with a simple referendum. Some states would make it legal, and others would choose to make it illegal. This could be done in as little as a years' time. Imagine, by the end of 2009 your state could be abortion free.
Doing this is not easy, but it is simple. It means that our states and federal representatives go back to the Constitution and enforce what it says. This is what I think the Church means when it says to "transform the party in which we belong." And this is the transformation that I strive for.
So for those who feel that voting for a Pro-Life Republican is enough, or that your party is Pro-Life enough, I challenge you to think again. We fortunately have under us a Constitution that was written by people who understood not only the true dignity of man, but also the true dignity of politics. And until we can bring back dignity to them both, we will continue to fail at both.
Hi again NT,
In truth, I couldn't vote in the last two pres. elections. Even if I wanted to (and I did). Ya see, while I have already voted in state and local elections, this will be my first chance to choose a president.
As for my feelings about voting, I can say that I vote for those I can support and believe I should support. I like to think that I am conscientious when it comes to my vote, and I try to learn the positions of the candidates before pulling the lever.
I agree with most of your comment(s), with one (possible) exception:
Since the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the federal government has no real authority in the matter.
I would point out that while the constitution doesn't mention 'murder,' it is understood the murder is fundamentally opposed to the line concerning the "right to life".
Abortion, for you and me, is murder. It is my opinion that the founding documents, written by men who weren't psychic butwho wished to safeguard basic ethics in spite of unforeseen evils, are diametrically opposed to all anti-life procedures, including abortion.
I've enjoyed our discussion. You've made good points which I agreed with on a tough topic.
God Bless.
Commenting by HaloScan
