He Might Have Been Anti-Abortion, But Don’t Call Him Pro-Life
One of the possible motives for why Bruce Ivins sent out anthrax, it has been said, is that he was “pro-life” and he sent the anthrax to people he felt were helping the pro-choice cause. This is why the term “pro-life” must never be seen as the same as merely being against abortion. While one who is pro-life must be opposed to abortion, one who is opposed to abortion does not have to be pro-life. One who is truly pro-life would understand life does not end at birth, but it continues on afterwards, and life after birth is as precious as life before birth. With so much emphasis put on abortion by key people in the “pro-life” movement, ignoring the value of life at all of its stages, it is understandable why some might end up thinking it’s fine to take life for the “cause.”
Perhaps it’s time for the “pro-life” movement to finally emphasize the value of all life, and not to neglect some just because they are no longer in the womb. Then Ivins might have read and followed The Gospel of Life. . . and then he might have actually been pro-life.
Perhaps it’s time for the “pro-life” movement to finally emphasize the value of all life, and not to neglect some just because they are no longer in the womb.
It’s one thing if you’re talking about pro-lifers who (as in this case) try to kill someone who is “no longer in the womb.” But it’s another thing when you end by talking about “neglect.” Do you mean that word literally? That is, do you mean to be using a common pro-choice argument? Pro-choicers routinely argue, “Pro-lifers are such hypocrites; they care about fetuses [keeping them from being killed, that is] but they neglect life that is no longer in the womb [meaning, they don't vote for the right set of government programs].” That argument is obviously wrong — one doesn’t have to support any particular set of government programs in order to be able to support anti-murder laws, and the same is true of abortion.
It’s not a question of being for or against gov’t programs.
It’s a question of whether or not one wants to continue to allow one branch of government (the public and duly constituted one) to continue to turn over money, resources, and power to another branch of government (not public, not duly constituted, but with the power of gov’t nonetheless) — the multinational corporations.
Henry,
This is crap. This is just pure speculation on possible motives and has no basis in fact whatsoever.
How we read!
Alkon — your response is irrelevant.
Some conservative positions tend to go together, and certainly opposition to abortion and support for the death penalty are two that often do. It strikes me that people on Vox-Nova tend to be more unpredictable than average conservatives or liberals, but in the country at large one would also probably find that support for the Iraq war and approval of the use of torture on suspected terrorists are two more positions that go with opposition to abortion and support for capital punishment. So even setting aside the question of voting for government social programs to help the disadvantaged, it seems to me there are often contradictions in the “pro-life” movement.
It seems to me that all Henry is doing is promoting the “seamless garment” approach, which seems to me very Catholic. Of course, it is becoming increasingly clear that Ivins was psychotic, so I am not sure he was reachable.
So, a nutjob kills some people with Anthrax, and we hear about how that means that there is too much emphasis on being against murdering people and not enough emphasis on social welfare programs.
Only at Vox Nova.
Henry in large part I think you are correct that the Pro-Life movement in its many facets need to focus on womb to tomb issues. In fact the current pro-life movmenet has been trying to raise the alarm on the very scary right to die to issues that I am horrified are not more of a issue in this electon year
That being said the problem is of course between some of the more clear cut Pro-life positions that come from us in the Christian tradition what happens between the womb and the the last years of life and applying pro-life positons becomes more problematic. Especially as to application because of difference of opinion to how to do it. For instance is the battle against abortion really strenthen and effective if traditional anti abortion groups spends its time on sort War and Peace issues that Michael on here is a advocate of? Does the National Right to LIfe need to engage in resolutions on if the Iraq war is moral or pro-life?
I do find it odd that so many seem to be critical of the anti abortion movement and its pro-life label. Is there really a level of systematic criticism toward the anti State Execution folks because they are not screaming about abortion and thus they need to quit using the term “pro-life”. It is true it is on occasion brought up but it is nothing like the criticism of the anti abortion movement.
In the end of many of these groups have diverse membersips that differ on the application of Pro-life principles in this middle stage. I very much understand why the many anti abortion groups for instance do not engage this vast middle ground. If it did no doubt it would weaken it effectiveness and that would not help the overall Pro-life cause at all. I really do not expect people that devote their attention to State Execution to HAVE to give equal lip service to abortion.
Are people here that are involved in the anti Death Penatly movement telling folks that come to volunteer in this effort that are perhaps “Pro Right to choose” to get the heck of the movement and to go home?
I also suspect that people in the pro life movement are very much more open to the questions and difficulites in applying Pro-Life principles accross the spectrum
G Alkon,
Don’t forget the “elite prayer cells” that foster such transactions. I imagine that SB aspires to such associations…
“William Rehnquist. Sandra Day O’Connor. Clarence Thomas…
They were not alone – indeed, a welter of connections tied principals of both 2000 election campaigns to Doug Coe’s secretive, elite fundamentalist organization, founded in the 1930’s as a union busting initiative, that stresses benevolent rule by a divine appointed caste of wealthy and powerful Christian “elect”, bound together through personal covenants into deeply loyal prayer groups and prayer “cells” and worshiping a denatured and business friendly Jesus:
The Family.
Three of the United States Supreme Court Justices who issued the controversial and logically incoherent ruling in Bush v. Gore and who formed the rump majority of the five justice block that voted to shut down the 2000 election Florida recount were associated with The Family in far less than casual ways. But that salient fact is actually only part of the story of The Family’s influence in the 2000 election, and the core significance of the tale is this: the subversion of American Democracy and the slow motion demolition of the New Deal.
Beyond the association of Rehnquist, O’Connor and Thomas with The Family, Clarence Thomas is also an Opus Dei member as is Antonin Scalia. Opus Dei’s approach and ideology has a great deal, indeed, in common with The Family – so much so that they have shared membership, as in the case of former Pennsylvania US Senator Rick Santorum.
As Frank Cocozzelli described Opus Dei, in an early installment of his groundbreaking ongoing Talk To Action series on the Catholic Right:
The danger that a politically active Opus Dei membership currently represents to liberal democracy is not from assassinations by imaginary albino monks (for the record, there are no Opus Dei monks), but in its very Plutocratic attitude in abhorring dissent… Opus Dei is openly more concerned with the economic self-interest of “friends” who already have superfluous wealth and power, often at the expense of the economically less powerful… It is the antitheses of the Catholic Worker beliefs of Dorothy Day as well as the liberal economics of distributive justice advocate Monsignor John A, Ryan.”"
Mark — Nothing you say is relevant in any way whatsoever. (Note: Scalia and Thomas are not members of Opus Dei, so you might want to start thinking for yourself rather than just cutting and pasting from some scurrilous source.)
You live in a tightly sealed world, SB. It’s astounding.
I don’t know, many anti-abortion people are ultra conservative, with little concern for other issues. They’ll find a way to get abortion into everything. 4000 Americans and I don’t even want to know how many Iraqis dead thanks to a needless war ? But ! abortion ! Hah, I got the trump card ! I’d argue someone being aware of her own impending death, someone watching her parents die, his son not come back from some battlefield hell is indeed more tragic than an abortion, not that an abortion isn’t. Nor is the pro-life claim of a politician a requirement to vote for him. Hitler was ‘pro-life’. He gave out medals (Mutterkreuz) to mothers with many kids. This is where discernment comes in. “Catholics must vote Republican” is convenient for Republicans, of course. I can’t stand either party. How do I hate them ? Let me count the ways. The abortion fixation is, btw, mainly an American thing. It’s used mainly for partisan reasons. It also is a lot easier to care for the non-existing. There is some truth to the “Once you’re born, you’re on your own, kid” accusation.
I’d say that liberals relate more to the woman than to the intangible blastocyst/fetus. If a wife and mother is about to die because of a pregnancy, I’d argue it’d be “better” to not deprive those who have consciousness, memory, love of their wife and mother. A ‘Sophie’s Choice’, mind you. The Catholic church canonizes the mother who’d rather die. (A general note: of course, most abortions are birth control come too late)
Abortion should not be completely outlawed – not that it ever will, anyway. I guess the Catholic church doesn’t grant life of the mother exceptions, but obviously those have to be given. Nor should the needlessly dangerous Catholic way to treat ectopic pregnancies be mandatory, and of course it never will. I can basically guarantee that there will always be an incest and rape exception as well. Dispensation of the morning after pill is crucial in these cases, and some Catholic hospitals actually do. Having one’s own brother grow inside of oneself can be avoided that way.
Most people will agree that abortion as a mulligan is wrong, the question is how can one tell.
They are loose associates, at the very least.
I see no denials about the Family.
Tightly sealed = not gullible when reading left-wing liars. Right.
Note: I talking to the same fellow who had an virtual 179 comment conversation with himself a few days ago.
I see no denials about the Family.
Partly because 1) I don’t know much about that issue; 2) the few stories I have read about “The Family” seem about as trustworthy as the websites claiming that all of the 9/11 planes were crashed by remote control operated by the US government; 3) this post was about “pro-lifers,” not about whatever irrelevant propaganda has recently impressed you.
Try to focus, Mark. Do you have anything intelligent and relevant to say? If you get your jollies by insulting me, feel free to email privately.
News alert, SB.
As always, you have made this post about yourself.
Amazingly, you have turned a phrase of Henry’s into another tiresome opportunity to vigoroulsy defend the ideological choices you have made in your life.
I do not want to fight in your battles, but only here and there provide you a possible escape out of them.
Good day, Stuart. Really.
No, I haven’t made the post “about myself,” Mark — that is an outright lie, and sheer projection to boot. I responded to Henry’s phrasing, because — as he has done before — he’s using a phrase that seems uncomfortably close (identical, really) to an irrational argument made by pro-choicers. I was just wondering if he intended to inspire such a comparison. You, on the other hand, entered the debate only by trying to get people to waste time responding to lies that have absolutely nothing to do with the conversation or post. That’s trollish behavior.
Mark, I know about the Family from J Sharlet’s piece in Harper’s. I assume you know about his book. Good Lord.
Ah, friends…
The point of Henry’s post is the irony of the newspaper referring to a serial killer as “pro-life.”
Get it?
Yes, it is ironic (and inaccurate) that a killer is called “pro-life.” At the same time, it is curious that the post begins by talking about a killer and quickly morphs into talking about mere “neglect,” which is a common euphemism used by statist liberals for someone who doesn’t believe that expanding government welfare programs will be in the common good.
God love you, Stuart.
Well, for what it’s worth, I noticed the borrowing of “pro-choice” language when I read it this morning. That was before all the comments. What I found really offensive was this statement: “With so much emphasis put on abortion by key people in the “pro-life” movement, ignoring the value of life at all of its stages, it is understandable why some might end up thinking it’s fine to take life for the “cause.” It sounds like Henry is blaming anti-abortion activists for Dr. Ivin’s actions.
And then there is this:
“Perhaps it’s time for the “pro-life” movement to finally emphasize the value of all life, and not to neglect some just because they are no longer in the womb. Then Ivins might have read and followed The Gospel of Life. . . and then he might have actually been pro-life.”
By “pro-life” movement I assume he means anti-abortion. Here he tars all in the “pro-life” movement as being unconcerned and neglectful of “some just because they are no longer in the the womb”. You really have to question Henry’s commitment to the truth. with a statement like this. And it is interesting that he ignores the reports of Dr. Ivin’s mental state and focuses on Mrs Ivin’s involvement with an anti-abortion group just to score points against those he sees as his opponents. These are cheap tactics. It’s why I am repulsed when Henry and certain others on this blog wear their Catholicism on their sleeve and seem dedicated to calling into question others commitment to their faith while all the while acting without good will and willing to generalize in an effort to smear whole groups of people. The way I see it there is always an asterisk next to this “Catholic Blog”. There are some on this blog who are more interested in convincing people that abortion is too much of a focus and not that important, than in getting people to understand that other life issues need to be addressed. The use of this act of terrorism as a stick to beat “pro-lifers” with is just one ugly example.
Tim F.,
“Here he tars all in the “pro-life” movement as being unconcerned and neglectful of “some just because they are no longer in the the womb”.
How and where has Henry done what you accuse?
Let us separate wishful thinking from thinking based upon truth…
I included his quote right above my statement Mark. Try reading it. There is no wishful thinking on my part here.
And Mark, he not only says the “pro-life” movement is neglectful of born life, but that if they would have not been that way Ivins may not have done what he did.
Tim F.
(a) “All” has a very precise meaning.
(b) I have been personally involved in the “pro-life’ movement. From my experience, I think we should grant Henry his “might.”
Well Mark if you were personally involved then I would think Henry would say to you that you should “finally emphasize the value of all life, and not to neglect some just because they are no longer in the womb. Then Ivins might have read and followed The Gospel of Life. . . and then he might have actually been pro-life.”
I said the “movement” which is not the same as those who are pro-life, but the political movement, is concerned about abortion, ignoring all other kinds of issues (including the abortions involved in IVF, for example). The movement is known only for being anti-abortion; while, as I pointed out, I think it is clear Ivins was against abortion, that doesn’t make him pro-life. The thing is, the media — and most involved with pro-life politics — if they didn’t know he was involved wiht anthrax would think he is pro-life; yet his willingness to use anthrax shows he is not. It shows to be pro-life requires more than a stand against abortion. And that is exactly what is neglected in the pro-life discussions when engaging politics; only abortion matters, and anything else — is ridiculed. As you can see even here.
The movement, as many who are pro-life have come to know, is a political movement and is for its own agenda, which is not always the same thing as one would expect from one involved with life causes. It’s why many who are pro-life are outside of the movement and criticize it for what it has become: a political tool for votes, nothing else; and this can be confirmed by the ridicule or lack of concern the movement gives to anything which is not abortion related.
Bruce Ivins was clearly mentally ill and there is no point in citing him in reference any social thinking.
However, just as a generation ago, it was thought (at the time, correctly) that the term ‘pro-life’ was a preferable term rather than ‘anti-abortion,’ we are now seeing an embryonic movement (pardon the pun) by those in public life away from the term ‘pro-life’ and back to describing themselves as ‘anti-abortion.’ This is based on their findings that voters associate the term ‘anti-abortion’ as opposition to the act of abortion as opposed to ‘pro-life’ which the public is increasingly (and negatively) is associating with a particular set of organizational leaders, tactics and alliances.
Public perception may or may not reflect actual reality, but particularly in an effort to win over hearts and minds, there should be a sensitivity towards it.
Greg
Whether or not the reason he killed people was because they were pro-choice is not entirely the issue (though the FBI thinks it is a possibility). That he was known as pro-life because he was anti-abortion, is indicative of how the term “pro-life” is used and used improperly. One can be against abortion and not pro-life. He obviously is an example of this. He is not the only example. GW Bush clearly is seen as “pro-life” by some for his stand (weak as it is) on abortion; yet how can one really say he is pro-life when one looks at the whole picture? Yet that is exactly how he is seen — and accepted by the “movement” as a whole.
Kurt
One could say many people involved in the running of the government — and political movements — are mentally ill. Yet again one can be mentally ill and still consistent or inconsistent on various concerns. He was led to be anti-abortion, which is good; but if the whole emphasis on life as a whole was made to him, perhaps his mental illness would not have led him to become a killer — in the name of life or not, he still thought he was pro-life himself.
Tim F.,
I see nothing wrong with what Henry says, wheteher addressed to me personally or to a body which I am/was a part…
It may surprise you, but I also hold myself–as part of the Church.the so-called sacrament of Jesus, the salvific Way, the truth and the Life–responsible for the failure in preventing , say, (a) the Iraqi war and its needless, unjust destruction of life; (b)the still rampant and pernicious racism that plagues America now; all the economic injustice going/gone unchallenged or unrequitted…
Mark
I think many people are upset at how I have shown why being anti-abortion does not make one pro-life, and why one must never surrender the term pro-life to those who are anti-abortion and yet care less about other life causes (i.e., torture).
Henry:
At the risk of dampening your insufferable self-congratulation, you really should listen to Zippy:
So, a nutjob kills some people with Anthrax, and we hear about how that means that there is too much emphasis on being against murdering people and not enough emphasis on social welfare programs.
Only at Vox Nova.
Zippy, it will be noted, does not fit into your comfy narrative of Right Wingers Who Only Care about People Till They’re Born that you are promoting here. He’s pointing out that your dubious equation of one nutjob with all prolifers was not merely dubious, but self-congratulatory, cheap, and, unfortunately, what one has come to pretty much expect on this once-promising blog.
Hopefully your fellow bloggers will rein in you, Iafrate and similar combox ideologues before you destroy it completely, But that’s up to them.
Henry,
Sadly, I think your assessment is true.
For one, I think the long-term damage to the pro-life casue in America that Mr. Bush and all of his anti-abortion accomplices have done is catastrophic–both in terms of reducing or eliminating abortions particularly; and upholding and protecting the dignity of all human life generally. Attractive credibility is all but gone…
Mark Shea,
Don’t you have paid political hackery to attend to?
Mark
You have not read the post too well; I pointed out that the connection of “against abortion” should not make one “pro-life” and we shouldn’t see Bruce Ivins as pro-life. However the problem is — the way the political movement has become, that’s all it takes to be pro-life. Thus, the media is right in a way, and wrong in a way, all because of how the political movement ignores the issues of life; thus as you rightfully post in other places, torture is a life issue, yet the pro-life movement as a whole has no qualms with it or Bush and indeed treat Bush as one of the best things which ever happened to them since Roe v Wade. That can’t be if the value of life is undermined and people can be depersonalized via torture.
So you would do well — the criticism is not about those who are pro-life; it is about the assumption that being anti-abortion is all it takes to be pro-life. The true pro-life position sees how faulty that view is, and here is an example of what happens when the whole of life is ignored: someone who is crazy can think of themselves as pro-life when doing something against life.
Mark D
He seems to have enough time to delete posts responding to his attack on Vox Nova before coming here and making accusations about the post here. Interestingly enough, his comment here really doesn’t respond to the post, but shows how low his reading comprehension is. Sad, very sad.
Perhaps the problem is he does not know about self-consistency, so he doesn’t get that is a part of the discussion going on here. He certainly shows he can’t be self-consistent when he criticizes VN, as a recent post of his shows on his own blog. There, he complains about Michael I as being insulting in the comments discussion on VN; yet when he does so, he is the one who is acting like a jerk, indeed, he uses the term “jackass” in an open post against MI. Strange contradiction, but it is the kind one finds by many online. They don’t see past their own inflated egos. Even more interesting, he uses this as an ad hominem to attack Vox Nova, and to suggest Vox Nova is not orthodox — because he doesn’t like how MI acts (so I guess he should conclude he admits he is not orthodox, since it is the logical conclusion of such an argument?) And then his other criticism of VN shows he has not really read much of the blog itself; for if he did, he would see it is not one-sided. Criticism is given to all via a Catholic perspective, American Right and American Left included. Funny thing is you rarely see someone like him call political shrills like Bill Donahue one-sided, despite how obvious this actually is.
Mark dF:
Thanks for illustrating my point so well.
Henry said ” I think many people are upset at how I have shown why being anti-abortion does not make one pro-life, and why one must never surrender the term pro-life to those who are anti-abortion and yet care less about other life causes (i.e., torture).”
I wasn’t upset about that. What got me to post was your implying the “pro-life” movement’s overemphasis on fighting legal abortion might have been responsible for Ivin’s actions. The pro-choicers have been using the Birmingham incident that happened over a decade ago in much the same way to argue that the tone of the “pro-life” movement contributed to Eric Rudolph’s actions.
Take a look at your whole public persona.
Tim
I put “pro-life” in quotes for a reason. I think there are many different movements claiming the name. One is a political movement, and the one which gets the most media attention. But I also don’t think they are pro-life, just anti-abortion — and only some kinds of abortion (how many in the movement would ever consider dealing with IVF issues? only a few who are Catholics, from what I have seen, yet it is an abortion issue!). The other is the pro-life movement which is real, which is the Catholic Pro-Life cause of the Gospel of Life. It is more than the mere political movement known which calls itself “pro-life.” But the political movement makes anyone who is against abortion “pro-life.” That reinforces the ability of someone to misconstrue life issues, and to act contrary to life. Because they believe in the politics, not life.
Henry, I used your quotes “”. I know to whom you were referring. I think you are reaching when you write stuff like this:
“But the political movement makes anyone who is against abortion “pro-life.” That reinforces the ability of someone to misconstrue life issues, and to act contrary to life. Because they believe in the politics, not life.”
To borrow a term from Mark DeFrancis, I would call that wishful thinking.
The guy killed himself. He was not mentally healthy. I think this post was a case of any stick will do. ( to beat my opponents or those who use names I don’t approve)
Tim F
No, the post was – don’t call him pro-life! And I wasn’t the one who was doing it, the news media was, in part from common agreement that “against abortion” is the same as “pro-life” with the political movement itself. The need for more careful presentations of what it means to be pro-life is significant, because again, crazies do exist, and they will act out on the mixed-messages they get.
Take a look at your whole public persona.
I’m afraid your more-than-commonly-content-free answer doesn’t give me much to go on to supply an excuse for your lie, Mark. So I will have to simply do my best to decode what you mean by my alleged “paid political hackery”.
I *think* what Mark DeF means is that I write for InsideCatholic, which is edited by Brian Saint-Paul, a libertarian who thinks both our candidates are absurd (as do I). However, since Notorious Republican Deal Hudson is also affiliated with the project that means Mark is free to assume my guilt by association, because Mark’s all about Catholic moral principles, doncha know. Therefore, I’m really a GOP shill and a paid political hack. Argument with me is not even necessary. See how profoundly Beyondist they are at Vox Nova?
That’s all I can figure as an excuse for Mark’s nonsensical remark, given that my “public persona” has made it about as clear as I possibly can that both Obama’s messianic delusions and McCain’s dangerous and loopy Nanny State warmongering are not things I trust as far as I can throw either man.
Mark Shea,
Don’t you have paid political hackery to attend to?
MarkD,
You need to come up with another insult for those you disagree with other than accusing them of being paid political hacks. There are many aspects of Mark Shea’s blogging which I find intemperate or hyperbolic, but one thing that absolutely cannot be said about him is that he is a GOP hack. Indeed, if anything, he has been fore forceful and persuasive in his criticism of the current administration than anyone on this blog. The differences is, that he is also not an apologist for the other major party — which some posters on this blog are (though I am unclear that Henry is.)
There are a lot of criticisms one could make of Mark Shea, but he is absolutely nobody’s shill, and if you imagine him to be one it says more about your ability to honestly assess those whom you disagree with than it does about him.
Henry,
Frankly, Mark Shea has a point.
I don’t think you would find any committed pro-life volunteer or activist who would say that mailing anthrax to pro-choice politicians was a “pro-life” thing to do. There are no ravenning masses of self-described pro-lifers itching to slaughter those who disagree with them because they believe that anything “anti-abortion” is “pro-life”.
However, it is true that the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is a single issue movement. It’s purpose is to oppose abortion and to eventually see it legally restricted. And as such, it is generally willing to lend support to anyone who is willing to seriously commit themselves to opposing abortion.
It’s true that this means that they end up providing support to Republicans most of the time, but that’s in part because it’s primarily Republicans who have been willing to oppose abortion legislatively and in regards to judicial appointments in the last 20 years. Perhaps from your point of view this means that pro-lifers are supporting some rather unsavory characters, and indeed I’m not against the principled stand that there is no morally acceptable candidate available in a given election, but that they have chosen to support candidates who are anti-abortion does not necessarily mean that they reject the rest of the gospel of life any more than it would be correct to claim that your co-bloggers who support Democratic candidates reject the gospel of life because they vote for pro-choice politicians.
Darwin
Read the media presentation (with what the FBI itself has said, which you can find on Open Gun); he is being a part of the pro-life movement. His comments in many places show he was, but again, only on abortion. You have confirmed the movement is only about abortion. In this way, your comment here would confirm — since he stood against abortion — he is pro-life. The irony is his willingness to kill (he could, I am sure, have made a just war argument for it) in the name of life. It shows why, as I have said, pro-life CAN NOT be only about abortion. Once it is, it has already given in to the culture of death.
This brings to mind George Carlin’s bit on abortion. It’s on YouTube.
Being against abortion is pretty much the easiest stance in the world. It requires nothing but moral indignation. It’s unfortunate that in the USA the situation is so polarized, and that abortion is in the Constitution. Neither a complete prohibition nor a complete free-for-all is desirable. Some Catholics would even outlaw the morning after pill for rape and incest victims. Opposing abortion and contraception is particularly nonsensical. In Europe, it’s usually regulated by simple law, abortion being legal until the end of the first trimester.
The interesting fact is that the USA, a country with a bigger and more radical religious and moralistic segment than Western Europe has skyhigh abortion and teen pregnancy rates. I’d guess they’re not prepared and, since people have sex anyway, get pregnant. Abstinence education, purity balls and oops:
In the United States, the teen pregnancy rate is more than nine times higher than that in the Netherlands, nearly four times higher than the rate in France, and nearly five times higher than that in Germany.
In the United States, the teen birth rate is nearly 11 times higher than that of the Netherlands, nearly five times higher than the rate in France, and nearly four times higher than that in Germany.
In the United States, the teen abortion rate is nearly eight times higher than the rate in Germany, nearly seven times higher than that in the Netherlands, and nearly three times higher than the rate in France.
If abortion is mass murder, then why don’t Catholics support using violence against abortion providers?
Look, scads of Catholics supported the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan in order to apprehend and/or kill the terrorists responsible for 9-11. But those terrorists only killed a few thousand people.
You say mailing anthrax risked collateral damage? Surely no worse damage than that inflicted by bunker buster bombs falling on wedding parties, or the de-electrification of Baghdad!
Come on, get tough! Read up on your just war criteria! It’s a matter of self-defense, of life and death!
Let’s hit it!
Mark Shea is against “feel good” liturgy these days.
How deep, perceptive, attentive and life-giving an assessment of American Catholic life!
I can just imagine the sanctimony he feels whenever he must descend amidst us oi polloi , you know , us the conspiratorial victims of American emotivism in the academy and the post-VII Church.
But I surmise he gets a third hand reading of Philip Rieff’s “Triumph of the Therapeutic “through, say, the cantankerous “In the Public Square” ramblings of the genius-critic of American culture and politics himself, Fr. Neuhaus.
Maybe I should be more charitable; Mark may actually have read some Paul Vitz…and thus is only one remove from the anti-60s and 70s master, Mr. Rieff. Maybe he even took in a chapter of two of Rieff’s friend’s book, MacIntyre’s “After Virtue”.
I hear these waekly derivative musings pay well these days, especially since one ex- liturgical superstar of the Catholic right blogoshere has opted to real life instead.
Of course, ‘pro-lifers’ get rather unfair treatment in the media, as the extremists are viewed as being the norm. Extremists such as the writer who aborted one of her twins so she wouldn’t have to move and shop at Costco (NY Times) are not portrayed as representative.
But G Alkon does have a point – if you think mass murder is going on in a place, it’d be logical to try and stop it, if necessary by force.
I apologize if Mark is not indeed directly paid to write pro-GOP propaganda, as his fellow posters at Inside Catholic, Donahue and Hudson, notoriously are.
Mea cupla, mea cupla, mea maxima cupla
I only know he is in the habit of accepting PayPal donations. Today, the DONATE button shows up right beside his scintillating commentary on liturgy.
Culpa. I was sincere,even thoough I typed “cupla”…Really.
Ah. I see. You can’t back up the “paid political hackery” thing, so you just change the subject and call me some names for a while.
As I say, thanks for proving my point.
Anyway, it’s your blog guys. You can let it it sink into suckitude or you can try to make sure it fulfils the mission you created it for by pruning combox contributors whose sole purpose is to drive out civilized conversation. It can be done. But it’s your call, Vox Nova bosses.
Civility is not a Christian virtue.
Mark D, I was amazed and amused to read about Fr. Neuhaus’ leftist revolutionary past in the book Theocrats. Ditto for Michael Novak. I’ve read The Nation, I’ve read National Review. In the end, everyone has some good, some bad points. I cast my lot with whoever I think better guarantees freedom – it’s always under siege from extremists, left and right. I am just glad they don’t combine, else the most-hated person in America would be an SUV-driving gay man who doesn’t teach his adopted children to recycle.
Mark
One could say the same about your blog, although of course, the problems are more than merely in the comments box. You let all kinds of claims be said, all kinds of rudeness to be made, on your blog; as long as you find it agreeable to your position. Which is fine — I think all blogs do it; the only irony is you do what you are upset about, but not only do you do it, you use it as a source of arguments instead of points of frustration: the fallacies one could make out of your one post today would include: guilt by association, ad hominem, and poisoning the well. Nice job!
“Civility is not a Christian virtue.”
Yes. And the New Testament says nothing about observing US traffic laws and the Catechism is remarkably silent on whether G Alkon should pick his nose in public.
Happily we are not bound by a “Simon says” mentality and can go ahead and try to be adults even when there aren’t specific rules covering it.
What is it with you guys?
Anyways, I’ve said my piece and it looks like the response here is basically, “Repel Boarders!”
So much for open intellectual inquiry into the application of the Catholic tradition. Back to work, Shea!
Mark Shea
It is funny to see what you say here, while seeing what you allow on your blog (and what you delete). We both know the truth of the matter now.
For those who don’t go to Mark’s blog normally, they can read what is left of the discussion here, since much of what was involved has been removed: http://markshea.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html#8673444394301394911
Hmm.. many of you seem to be missing Henry’s point, which is hijacking the term “pro-life” to apply only to human beings before they have been born. He presents an extreme example of this, which does provide a good lesson to those who think the Republican party is somehow a “pro-life” party.
Mr. Shea in his own words:
Exhibit A: Michael Iafrate, President of the World O’Jerks Consortium, makes himself into the Kudzu of Vox Nova Comboxes and drives away the fair and decent Feddie, as well as other readers whose judgement should really be heeded here.
[This is the Feddie who labelled me an America-hater, because I called him on invoking the phrase "God bless America" to test people's supposed love of God and country.]
Count me as someone else who is finding it harder and harder to credit the notion that Vox Nova is really trying to be faithfully consistent to magisterial teaching. Like so many Beyondists, what appears to be happening is that the blog owners can find the courage to criticize (indeed, hound off the blog) those from the right, but when some jackass announces himself a “Catholic anarchist” they go all weak-kneed and can’t bring themselves to tell tthe jackass he’s not “courageous”, he’s just a jackass. So he first drives away Catholics who don’t happen to be in his political spectrum, then drives away more and more of the ideologically impure middle.
Meanwhile, the other blog owners cower and let the kudzu grow while all the normal people they set out to try to catechize with full-orbed Catholic teaching are alienated and leave
You think civility is just something Jesus happened to say nothing about, like traffic codes, and that we should therefore come to our own conclusion on the matter?
Think about what civility is. The root is from the Roman word for city.
It is a Roman virtue. It is a virtue of manly self-control, forbearance, and respect.
Respect of course is not too bad.
But civility is no virtue, no positive good to be pursued as an end in itself.
Um, let’s see: Zacchaeus; the woman with the flow of blood; the Gadarene madman; Paul — for God’s sake! — a crazy man preaching on the Areopagus, a FOOL for Christ, and also a defensive boaster, a neurotic hero of the first order; the Lord Himself calling the Pharisees tombstones full of dry bones; John of Patmos looking forward to cosmic conflagration and fiery vengeance; the Lord begging to be loved…
These are all examples of extremely un-civil behavior, to say the least.
Civility is not only not a virtue; it is more often than not a vice.
The poor in spirit are not civil.
Civility is not a Christian virtue.
Perhaps not, but treating others as we would like to be treated is — and most of us do actually like to be treated with civility rather than rudeness. Perhaps more importantly, it is among our duties to help others know and love the truth. And being rude often repels others from our opinions — even if we are right.
Read the media presentation (with what the FBI itself has said, which you can find on Open Gun); he is being a part of the pro-life movement. His comments in many places show he was, but again, only on abortion. You have confirmed the movement is only about abortion. In this way, your comment here would confirm — since he stood against abortion — he is pro-life. The irony is his willingness to kill (he could, I am sure, have made a just war argument for it) in the name of life. It shows why, as I have said, pro-life CAN NOT be only about abortion. Once it is, it has already given in to the culture of death.
Yes, I get that. But the fact that this one person who pretty clearly “went nuts” was a member of a pro-life organization at one time does not mean that the idea that killing people is a good way to promote a culture of life is a commonly held idea among pro-life volunteers and activists. Just as if someone who was once associated with a Catholic Worker house went down and did horrible atrocities in South America as part of a revolutionary army, it wouldn’t prove that the entire ethic of the Catholic Worker movement was corrupt.
Most certainly being anti-abortion is not the sum and total of all virtue, moral or public — and on that point I don’t think that you would find much disagreement. But what you seem to find distasteful is that those who are attempting to see action done in the public realm in regards to abortion are willing to work with anyone who is open to helping them restricting abortion.
Certainly, there’s a lack of purity there. But it’s a lack of purity which comes into any political movement, whether it be for fair labor standards, abortion restriction, environmental policies, proverty reduction, etc. That other there is much more to virtue than opposing abortion does not mean that it is not worthwhile to have a political movement dedicated to opposing abortion.
Darwin
When the take on the name of “pro-life” is that it is the movement which is against abortion, and nothing else, then it opens up for many odd bedfellows and one should not complain when one of them does wrong and is called pro-life. Interestingly enough, this movement against abortion (which is a good thing to work against) shows it is not even consistent with abortion issues (look to IVF).
Now, as you say that to be a member of that movement is just to oppose abortion, then Bruce Ivins is a part of it. So am I. Fine. Of course I am not saying all of the movement think like he does, nor that they are guilty for what he did (since of course they are not, and to suggest it would be guilt by association). However, one can look at how the abortion discussion is brought out, and the life discussion is brought out, and ask why can someone who is a part of a movement which calls itself to be pro-life, and fits the definition (anti-abortion) can kill as he did? Self-criticism is often good. If one finds out how one has dealt with things has failed, and had undue effects like this, perhaps it is time to say “let’s do better.”
Why is the ‘pro-life” movement–unlike any other movement–not open to criticism?
It is a fsimple act that Americans see the ‘pro-life’ movement as a bunch of uncritical supporters of the GOP. This cannot completely be the doings of the liberal media and pro-abortionists…
Is it a transgression to consider why this is so….?
The fundamental the point is missed, as is a habit here by certain commenters of a certain persuasion.
It is not just that there is more to virtue than opposing abortion. The very crebidibilty and long-term effectiveness of the anti-abortion movement hinges precisely upon the across-the board cultivation of a culture of life (in all its stages and dignity).
It is a fsimple act that Americans see the ‘pro-life’ movement as a bunch of uncritical supporters of the GOP. This cannot completely be the doings of the liberal media and pro-abortionists…
No, it’s also the doings of the Democrats who actively purged anti-abortion members from their party, and the remaining anti-abortion Democrats who reconciled themselves to voting for pro-abortion politicians rather than risking losing some elections in the short term. If Ted Kennedy was still firing off anti-abortion broadsides like he was in the 70s, the anti-abortion movement would not be seen as a strictly GOP phenomenon.
Why is the ‘pro-life” movement–unlike any other movement–not open to criticism?
Sure it’s open to criticism. Wants some criticism? I think Operation Rescue should disband or change their tactics, because too often their street-theater approach to protesting causes more trouble than good and does nothing but put most people off. I also very much wish that people would not carry around massive placards of dismembered unborn children. And I think it is absolutely counter productive when protesters get aggressive and start shouting things like “baby killer” at abortion clinic staff.
I’m all for criticism, but insisting that the pro-life movement should have to insist on total interpretation to Henry’s personal interpretation of the Gospel of Life if it is to exist at all strikes me as counter productive. (And also, I think it’s good for us to have to work with a really wide variety of anti-abortion people with other values which are different from our own.)
Now, as you say that to be a member of that movement is just to oppose abortion, then Bruce Ivins is a part of it. So am I. Fine. Of course I am not saying all of the movement think like he does, nor that they are guilty for what he did (since of course they are not, and to suggest it would be guilt by association). However, one can look at how the abortion discussion is brought out, and the life discussion is brought out, and ask why can someone who is a part of a movement which calls itself to be pro-life, and fits the definition (anti-abortion) can kill as he did?
For what it’s worth: I’m a truth-in-advertising guy. I would much rather simply talk about pro-abortion and anti-abortion partisans. Unfortunately, both sides in the debate prefer terminology designed from a marketing perspective.
As I am being criticized on a site before I ever even set foot in it, can someone please explain to me why the blogger at that Catholic website (or any, or that matter) thinks it appropriate to set up a PayPal button for accepting credit/debit card donations/tips.
Is a charity being performed. A service worthy of monetary tips rendered?
It seems trivially obvious that pro-life has to include being pro-life after birth and consequently it is trivially obvious that one who is willing to take a life for the pro-life cause is not pro-life any more.
Mark D
It’s quite interesting to see all kinds of self-contradiction in Mark Shea; it says something. Derrida would have found it fascinating!
Henry
There is something pregnant in the question as to why Mr. Shea does not hunger and thirst for righteousness sake in the same way whenever Donahue and Hudson make their characteristic posts over at InsideCatholic.
Zippy: “So, a nutjob kills some people with Anthrax, and we hear about how that means that there is too much emphasis on being against murdering people and not enough emphasis on social welfare programs.
Only at Vox Nova.”Henry:
Shea: “At the risk of dampening your insufferable self-congratulation, you really should listen to Zippy”
Where did Henry say social welfare programs?
Of course, this is the self-congratalutory Zippy who giggles himself to self esteem in applying Dacchau to Vox Nova and the Shea-Meister who commends him for it.
Someone said civility was not a Christian virtue in justification of uncharitable attitudes exhibited here. Which is odd since charity is a virtue. “See how they love one another?” Not here. Not on this blog wallowing in pride, vanity and self-rightousness. Some one said on the newest post Morning’s Minion put up to continue this ugly affair that Vox Nova was a breath of fresh air. Where does that person live? Beijing?
Tim
I hope you can see the irony of your post ending with, “Some one said on the newest post Morning’s Minion put up to continue this ugly affair that Vox Nova was a breath of fresh air. Where does that person live? Beijing?”
Mark Shea banned me from his website.
If his glaring self-inconsistencies were not pathetic enough, the middle aged man seems to take a certain pleasure in repeatedly uttering the word “suckitude.”
I do not want to even imagine the perverse pleasure he gets in uttering those hard dentals in ‘t ‘ and ‘d’ over and over again. Almost us scary as that slight pause I surmise he makes whenever he wallows momentarily to the “k”…
Do you think this thread has been a breath of fresh air Henry? I mean you were trying to link people you don’t like, those “pro-lifers” (notice the quotes) to a murderer in much the same way pro-choicers always try to link them to Eric Rudolph. I would say that and a lot of the resulting commentary that followed your provocation stinks. And that is what you are about, provocation. Zippy in another thread made a point that is very relevant to a lot of the postings here. It basically went like this. A takeoff of MasterCard.
1. Yell fire .05.
2. Disparage the crowds running for the exit. .02
3. Bask in moral superiority. priceless
Or something like that. It was perfect for that post and fits this one nicely too.
All you do is insult people Mark DeFrancisis. You falsely accused him of being a Republican hack. You lied or had no business making the accusation because you didn’t have the facts.
I said he was a paid political hack. I stand behind my words. He is a political hack. And if he does accept any money from Crisis and does not criticize the likes of Hudson and Donahue while he is there, I’ll say he is a paid political hack. As he solicits monies for his services on his own blog, he is a paid hack.
Mark D.
He says a lot of the same things you guys say here. He is vehemently anti-Iraq war, anti-torture. He is equally critical of the Republicans and Democrats. He used to call the Democrats the Evil Party and the Republicans the Stupid Party. I may be mistaken but I think he might put them both in the Evil category now. I’d have to scan his blog. I used to read his blog a lot but don’t any more. I think he tends to goad and bait certain groups just like they do here. It tends to be the same stuff over and over. Just like here. But he is not a political hack. And having a paypal button does not make one a political hack. I understand he makes his living as a writer. He supplements that with his blog proceeds. So what. Does he not deserve a living wage? You guys are all about living wages right? Are you saying he is doing something immoral in writing for InsideCatholic. Is he sinning by doing that? Have you even read his articles? You should go back and read your last post. “He is because I say he is!”. You are immature Mark DeFrancsis, very immature.
I am responding to Shea-Meister’s commenadation of Zippy’s comment to Henry and his further accusations about the latter, along with the ensuant/related accusations made about MI, MM and Henry over at Shea’s own space.
This is the Shea I know , also in the light of his posts here and there at IC.
Until he alters his judgements about these orthodox Catholics and brings them back to a modicum of reasonableness, I simply cannot judge anything otherwise about his writing. There is a great incongruency between his treatment of them; what he purports to practice; and the slackness he grants himself and the people that as ideologues attack the 3 VNers in question.
Henry,
When did the Post ever talk about Ivins being pro-life? I have read their articles and the only mention of anything close to him being pro-life is 1) He played piano at Mass and 2) His wife worked for some un-named pro-life group. Other than these pieces of information, how is he connected to any kind of pro-life movement? Has there been any threats against abortion supporters in his writings? Probably not or the Post would surely have mentioned it and I am sure the FBI would have released it. So the FBI’s speculation is based upon basically non-existant evidence. However, it probably makes the Post editors happy to take a cheap shot at the pro-life movement.
Greg:
The post – not The Post. But you will find many places talking about Ivin’s pro-life connection; I linke to one; here are others:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93385756
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/nationworld/sfl-flaanthrax0807sbaug07,0,5360477.story
Etc.
Tim F
It is clear you have not been able to read what I have said, and ignore the points I make. Like many people. I have shown the political movement is problematic; I point out we need to be fully pro-life, NOT just against abortion. I have said nothing about welfare programs (but many people act like I have). I have only said we need a consistent ethic for life, which would include such things as a rejection of IVF. Notice the dead silence of the movement on IVF.
Well I’ll make one last comment.
Henry I did read what you wrote several times. I understand the point about the definition of “pro-life” . I think I wrote above that that was not what moved me to respond. It was that you twice implied that the “pro-life” movement and it’s overemphasis on abortion and lack of focus on other life issues were possibly responsible for what Ivins did. I guess almost anything is possible. Though I think that’s like blaming the environmentalists pursuing their agenda for the Unabomber’s actions.
I have said nothing about welfare programs (but many people act like I have). I have only said we need a consistent ethic for life, which would include such things as a rejection of IVF.
While I agree with you as to IVF, your original post couldn’t possibly have been referring to IVF when it accused the “pro-life” movement (in quotes) “not to neglect some just because they are no longer in the womb.” What exactly did you mean by “neglect,” and did you realize that you were repeating an argument made almost exclusively by pro-choicers?
Henry,
If I may, you’ve made just about the perfect conflict generating post.
Your message, distilled, is 1) the ‘pro-life movement’ is perceived as ‘not fully pro-life’, and 2) the pro-life movement is not fully pro-life and should change to be so.
Needless to say, these points could have been more effectively made without introducing a potential mass murderer into the discussion!
The rest, DarwinCatholic as said well.