Pro Choice or Not

[The Mystery Machine]

Dosen't it go against the church to talk politics....
I thought priests, pastors..etc COULD NOT TELL PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE...

If they do.....they should start paying taxes....and stop
hiding behind the robe if they want to talk politics.
Kerri

Yes, but they do it anyway.

 

[druidia]

A woman and pro-choice. It is absolutely not the business of anyone other me, my spouse and my doctor, no matter my reason for terminating a pregnancy. Ultimately me and my husband are the ones who live with the decision and its consequences and that is our business.

I think there are far too many people who come out of the woodwork to talk about the "sanctity of all life" and then do nothing to back it up. IMHO, many people who support pro-life are very conservative and therefore also support abstinence education, which is useless. Kids are going to have sex, period. Many of those same people are also unsupportive of many social programs that might actually help the poor mothers who ended up having kids that they didn't want.

It makes no sense to me.

 

[barbeml]

I just don't understand your reasoning for saying it would be a disaster.

The Reps would lose their MAJOR wedge issue (sadly, they have others). The Reps have controlled it all for six years and Roe V Wade is still the law of the land.

 

[declansdad]

In all my adult life attending Mass I have NEVER had a priest tell me to vote for a specific candidate or even a specific party. Yes, the Priests will discuss the Catholic teaching on social issues, but I've never been told that I should vote one way or the other.

As far as the Communion thing, why would someone who has rejected Catholic teaching want to receive Communion anyway? I've never really understood that. If I'm going to receive, I need to be in a state of grace and aligned with Church teaching. If I had in any way directly enabled someone so that they could commit a serious sin, I would not be able to receive communion worthily. I would have to go to confession and resolve not to commit that serious sin again. If I go right back out and keep doing it, then my contrition was false. If I disagreed so fundamentally with the teaching of the Church that I could not consistently obey it, and enabled others to disobey it as well, then I wouldn't be Catholic anymore. Family members and friends have left for reasons of conscience and I completely respect that.

If a Catholic politician has made it easier for someone else to commit a sin, then he/she would be in the same position. I don't believe in abortion, I've never had one and I've never directly assisted in anyone else having one either. I also haven't directly assisted in sending anyone off to Iraq. Sure, my taxes are funding it, but I didn't cast a vote to go to war.

It seems that some Catholic politicians like being Catholic when they're getting contributions at the Knights of Columbus dinner, but they're pretty ready to renounce Church teaching when they head over to the NOW meeting.

Does that mean if someone is homosexual, they should leave the Catholic Church, even though the believe everything else the Church stands for?

 

[Fitswimmer]

Does that mean if someone is homosexual, they should leave the Catholic Church, even though the believe everything else the Church stands for?

not to go completely off topic here, but that's a personal decision between them, God and their confessor. The Church teaching is against homosexual acts, not homosexual people.

If you wander over to the Catholic thread, we spent some time discussing this issue...amoung others.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Because it's the Republican party that's pandered to the religious right. It's the Republican party who's platform has reflected that pandering. You can't walk away from 25 years of history. Republicans have been peddling their "pro-life" credentials to energize the religious right base. The mainstream hasn't been too concerned because Roe v Wade has been the ace-in-the-hole which has also been the same ace-in-the-hole for the Republican party.

Do you honestly think if Roe v Wade is overturned, 2 generations are going to accept the loss of privacy, which they have grown up thinking was a right, with a "damn those Democrats". Ahhh, no.

Plus, now all the phony Republican "pro-lifers" are to going to have to face the mainstream. It'll be a helluva show. The last thing Republicans want is to fight the privacy battle through 50 states. They would be forced to do an about face. Not a pretty sight.

I've stayed away from this particular debate (For what it's worth, the huge irony fan inside me can't help but acknowledge how the issue usually revolves around men who hold power forcing their beliefs on women), but I want to point out one thing that backs up LuvDuke's point.

Up until the Terry Schiavo incident, the Republican party (and the President) enjoyed the support of the majority of the country even though there was more than enough evidence out there by that point in time to prove that the administration was being intentionally deceitful about any number of things and that the Republican controlled congress was marching firmly in lockstep, smothering all opposition by any means possible and necessary. Up until that point in time, the majority of the American public was buying in.

Once they overplayed their hand around the whole Terry Schiavo affair (with Senate leader Bill Frist giving the completely wrong diagnosis via video and then denying that he ever did and President Bush staying up later in the night than he did for Katrina victims to help find away around existing law to ram their opinion home), from that point on support started to erode to it's current level where the Republicans lost control of both parts of Congress and the President saw his support erode to the high-20's to mid-30's he's now stuck in.

In my opinion, these two things are completely related. Many Americans willing to think for themselves saw the true intent of the controlling faction of the modern Republican party and decided that they did not want them making decisions about loved ones for them.

Given that, I think LuvDuke is spot on with her analysis.

 

[declansdad]

not to go completely off topic here, but that's a personal decision between them, God and their confessor. The Church teaching is against homosexual acts, not homosexual people.

If you wander over to the Catholic thread, we spent some time discussing this issue...amoung others.

thanks

 

[moviegirl11]

Since the whole religious aspect has come into this, I'll add to other people's remarks:

I'm Catholic. Never have I ever been told by my church who to vote for or what political affiliation to stand behind. The church is as much against capital punishment as they are against abortion so choosing republican over democrat wouldnt even make sense as many of the church's standpoints are all over the map.

Catholics generally do not fall under "the religious right" - many of those types of protestants (not all protestants fall under this either but I'm referring more along the lines of Jerry Falwell), condemn Catholics as much as they condemn non-believers and democrats.

As for being catholic and being against abortion. I'm not anti-abortion because of my religious beliefs. My religion says birth control is wrong but I would MUCH prefer women and young girls go on the pill than risk getting pregnant with an unwanted baby.

In terms of abortion, I dont believe life begins at conception simply because the church tells me so. I've questioned the issue many times and for me, the only logical time when life officially starts is at conception. That is the point at which a human being starts to "become" and it continues to grow and develop for years after that. Therefore, intentionally destroying the embryo/fetus/unborn-baby, at any point AFTER conception would be considered destruction of human life and therefore, wrong.

As for it not being my business. For me, that would be like turning my back on a situation where a child was being abused or some other similar situation in which someone who cant protect themselves is being abused or killed. Situations like those are everyone's business. We as a society determine what's right and wrong and our laws enforce it. Otherwise people could do whatever they want and then defend themselves by saying its a private matter. If you believe abortion is the destruction of human life, turning your back on it is no different than turning a blind eye when you know someone is being abused or killed. I guess this is why I think the ONLY reason I wouldnt care about abortion is if I didnt think life started at conception.

When it comes down to it, I dont care if a girl goes on the pill or sleeps with 100 guys in a week's time. That's her body and her business. Its when another life is brought into it that it becomes an issue.

This is why I understand why people who dont think unborn children "count" can condone abortion. I think I probably said this earlier but if I didnt believe life started at conception, I wouldnt care about abortion or think it was any of my business either.

 

[barbeml]

I'm Catholic. Never have I ever been told by my church who to vote for or what political affiliation to stand behind. The church is as much against capital punishment as they are against abortion so choosing republican over democrat wouldnt even make sense as many of the church's standpoints are all over the map.

My DMIL is a devout Catholic, and I have not known her to be a liar. She was extremely upset during the last election, because she said that her priest told the congregation that they would burn in hell if they voted for John Kerry.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Since the whole religious aspect has come into this, I'll add to other people's remarks:

I'm Catholic. Never have I ever been told by my church who to vote for or what political affiliation to stand behind. The church is as much against capital punishment as they are against abortion so choosing republican over democrat wouldnt even make sense as many of the church's standpoints are all over the map.

Catholics generally do not fall under "the religious right" - many of those types of protestants (not all protestants fall under this either but I'm referring more along the lines of Jerry Falwell), condemn Catholics as much as they condemn non-believers and democrats.

As for being catholic and being against abortion. I'm not anti-abortion because of my religious beliefs. My religion says birth control is wrong but I would MUCH prefer women and young girls go on the pill than risk getting pregnant with an unwanted baby.

In terms of abortion, I dont believe life begins at conception simply because the church tells me so. I've questioned the issue many times and for me, the only logical time when life officially starts is at conception. That is the point at which a human being starts to "become" and it continues to grow and develop for years after that. Therefore, intentionally destroying the embryo/fetus/unborn-baby, at any point AFTER conception would be considered destruction of human life and therefore, wrong.

As for it not being my business. For me, that would be like turning my back on a situation where a child was being abused or some other similar situation in which someone who cant protect themselves is being abused or killed. Situations like those are everyone's business. We as a society determine what's right and wrong and our laws enforce it. Otherwise people could do whatever they want and then defend themselves by saying its a private matter. If you believe abortion is the destruction of human life, turning your back on it is no different than turning a blind eye when you know someone is being abused or killed. I guess this is why I think the ONLY reason I wouldnt care about abortion is if I didnt think life started at conception.

When it comes down to it, I dont care if a girl goes on the pill or sleeps with 100 guys in a week's time. That's her body and her business. Its when another life is brought into it that it becomes an issue.

This is why I understand why people who dont think unborn children "count" can condone abortion. I think I probably said this earlier but if I didnt believe life started at conception, I wouldnt care about abortion or think it was any of my business either.

I've been thinking about this and I have to concede that life does begin at conception or soon after. I don't however see it on par with already born human life...Plants are *life* mice are *life* as they are alive. They certainly are not on par with the conciousness and reasoning abilities of a human being.. I will also concede that from day one a blastocyst is human..But so is a skin cell, a strand of hair etc...They all have human DNA. They are human, but they are not A human... For me the question is when does the fetus become a human being, a conscious, thinking feeling human being and for me that is not at conception. We take lives all the time. We eat living things. We squish bugs.. Clearly we recognize that their are different levels of lives.. For me an Embryo is not a life on par with a full grown woman or a newborn baby

 

[Mrs.Toad]

I've been thinking about this and I have to concede that life does begin at conception or soon after. I don't however see it on par with already born human life...Plants are *life* mice are *life* as they are alive. They certainly are not on par with the conciousness and reasoning abilities of a human being.. I will also concede that from day one a blacocyst is human..But so is a skin cell, a strand of hair etc...They all have human DNA. They are human, but they are not A human... For me the question is when does the fetus become a human being, a conscious, thinking feeling human being and for me that is not at conception. We take lives all the time. We eat living things. We squish bugs.. Clearly we recognize that their are different levels of lives.. For me an Embryo is not a life on par with a full grown woman or a newborn baby

These are my thoughts exactly.

 

[moviegirl11]

My DMIL is a devout Catholic, and I have not known her to be a liar. She was extremely upset during the last election, because she said that her priest told the congregation that they would burn in hell if they voted for John Kerry.

I'm not calling your friend a liar (or even suggesting it). I'm just speaking from my own personal experiences. 13 years of catholic school and mass every sunday and never one do I recall being encouraged to vote for or support a specific candidate.

As for the whole debate on how human human-life is after conception, I dont rate human life by how far along it is in the development process. By that logic one would consider a baby somehow less human than a toddler or a child or teenager. We all start out under developed. I dont see why I'd consider human life in its earliest phases of development as being less human or less alive or comparable to a plant - its not a plant or a dog or bacteria or dead skin cells. Its an embryo and with every second that passes, it is growing and developing into what will eventually be recognizable as a human. A skin cell doesnt do that.

Then again, that's all subject to opinion and belief. What seems like common sense to me might seem less definite to others which is why this debate will go on forever.

 

[Pigeon]

In all my adult life attending Mass I have NEVER had a priest tell me to vote for a specific candidate or even a specific party. Yes, the Priests will discuss the Catholic teaching on social issues, but I've never been told that I should vote one way or the other.

I was born and raised catholic, but left that church as soon as I possibly could. I have an elderly relative who does not drive, and I take her to mass with some regularity, despite my feelings about the institution. I have heard various priests telling the congregation how to vote more times than I can count.

 

[LuvDuke]

I'm not arguing whether or not its a Republican campaign issue, it certainly is. I just don't understand your reasoning for saying it would be a disaster. I would see it as a major victory for the Republicans. Personally, I don't think this something the federal government should even be involved in, and as Fitswimmer already mentioned, Roe v Wade is just bad law.

Personally, I would much rather see it be decided in all 50 states and accept that outcome, then have to live with Roe v. Wade.

In the immediate, yes it is a victory for the Republican Party. And then reality will set in. The mainstream position, in and across this country, is for privacy rights when it comes to abortion. The mainstream position is against overturning Roe v Wade. The Supreme Court, as created by the Republican's nominations, will vote against the mainstream.

When it hits the state level, generations of citizens will suddenly realize their privacy rights have been taken away by a rightwing Republican Supreme Court. The crap will hit the proverbial fan.

Republican are either going to have to distance themselves from the right-to-lifers and embrace the mainstream thereby losing a significant part of their base. Or the Republicans can stay with the right-to-lifers thereby losing the mainstream.

Republicans, because of using the abortion issue as a campaign wedge, have set themselves up for a lose-lose. They will win a battle and ultimately lose the war because they are out of the mainstream. It is a textbood defintion of a pyrrhic victory:

Pyrrhus inherited the throne of Epirus in Northern Greece around 306 B.C., and as a young man proved himself on the battlefield again and again. Pyrrhus apparently had great strategic skills, but he also had the reputation of not knowing when to stop. In 281 he went to Italy and defeated the Romans at Heraclea and Asculum, but suffered bitterly heavy losses. The devastation led to his famous statement, "One more such victory and I am lost" -- hence the term "Pyrrhic victory" for any victory so costly as to be ruinous.

http://www.who2.com/pyrrhus.html

 

[moviegirl11]

who did they say to vote for? Just curious.

 

[LuvDuke]

I've been thinking about this and I have to concede that life does begin at conception or soon after. I don't however see it on par with already born human life...Plants are *life* mice are *life* as they are alive. They certainly are not on par with the conciousness and reasoning abilities of a human being.. I will also concede that from day one a blastocyst is human..But so is a skin cell, a strand of hair etc...They all have human DNA. They are human, but they are not A human... For me the question is when does the fetus become a human being, a conscious, thinking feeling human being and for me that is not at conception. We take lives all the time. We eat living things. We squish bugs.. Clearly we recognize that their are different levels of lives.. For me an Embryo is not a life on par with a full grown woman or a newborn baby

My thoughts exactly!

 

[Pigeon]

who did they say to vote for? Just curious.

Well, that depends on who is running, of course. But the issue is always abortion and the priest-sanctioned candidate is always the anti-choice person.

 

[JennyMominRI]

Well,I guess then, we are back to that burning fertility clinic scenario... Do you save the 3 year old in the room or do you grab the petrie dish with 8 embryos in it/..If you grab the child and not the embryos then clearly you do view the embryos differently from the born child.

 

[JunieJay]

Well, that depends on who is running, of course. But the issue is always abortion and the priest-sanctioned candidate is always the anti-choice person.

Hmmmm, its a good thing those priests aren't in my parish. They would have been bummed out by all the Kerry/Edwards stickers on the back of cars in the church parking lot.

I'm a lifelong Catholic and have never been told how to vote. THat said, I've always lived in notoriously liberal towns. Perhaps this happens in more conservative parts of the country.

 

[moviegirl11]

so not only were they encouraging people to vote a certain way but it was ALWAYS the anti-abortion and no other issues? Thats weird to me. I've never heard of that. My school used to go down to DC for the march and everything but it was voluntary and I really cant recall any candidates (local or national) that the church was able to get behind enough on all issues to encourage people to vote. Most candidates that are anti-abortion are pro-death penalty. So unless the candidates being supported were pro-life (anti euthenasia, anti abortion and anti capital punishment), I dont understand what the deal was with the church you're talking about.