Well, long term goals for one who is pro-life would be to change society so it will understand and appreciate the goodness (and sacredness) of all life, so it is not only preserved, but also experienced in a dignified matter (to be pro-life should be more than about preservation of life, but about the quality of that life as well).

I agree with you about litmus tests. Many factors need to be put into play. For example, what if you know someone always says the right things but always does the wrong things while in office (and very corrupt and abusive with their corruption), while their opponent is pro-choice but will free up the corruption? I think one can make a case for the pro-choice candidate because the so-called pro-life candidate I would say really isn’t such, and they mask their anti-life status through the “right words.” The tactical issue is one which is worthy of debate, and should be; but I also think most people don’t realize that concern or issue. And sometimes I don’t think there is only one answer (while some act as if there were) — and if someone chooses a different option than what the majority want to try, they should not be treated as a “traitor” to the cause; rather, they should be seen as someone trying something else which may or may not work better.

I guess I still don’t know what the ‘pro life’ label means in terms of specific long range goals and concrete legal measures. (I guess you’d call them strategic and tactical issues.) What do you think it means?

As you say, it is messy. What I don’t understand is if it’s so messy, how come people act as though the candidate has passed some sort of magic litmus test. Could it be that the very intent is vagueness? That way a voter can say “Well, since candidate X claims to be pro life, they must agree with me.”

I may be overly cynical, but it seems to me what the politicians want is a set of slogans they can drag out at every election. then shove shove back in the closet or attic or whatever, like Christmas decorations that have served their purpose.

There are many possible positions one can take in relation to what being pro-life in a legal sense means. This is because there are many issues one has to address in one, and people will come to different conclusions in how to find a resolution to them.

For example, one thing people forget, but of central importance, is the question of what a specific social structure actually will allow in a legal sense. Without understanding this, many efforts are futile and worthless. There are, of course, debates even on this level; the sad fact is that many people confuse the interpretation of the social structure as indicative of one’s personal desire or belief — while it might be the case, it is often not so. I think Biden is an example here — he interprets the social structure to be one thing, and so he thinks he can only present abortion within that sphere when working as a politician (the problem with this position is that I think he should also be working for a change in the social structure, but most people do not — look, for example, at how many Catholic judges are not trying to reconstruct the social structure in regards to the death penalty).

Next, once one determines what is possible, one then needs to determine, of all the possibilities, which actions would be best within that sphere of possibility. Again, this is not always an easy question. And a problem I see here is people assume only one means to an end so that if you disagree, you are seen as not desiring the same end.

It’s messy, as you can see, and without any easy answers. Obviously the goal would be a social structure which allows positive laws that removes the possibility of abortion. But to get there requires a change in the social structure and the positive law, and the social structure needs to be changed first, not second, while many people want to try this in reverse.

Is the issue here the ‘Catholic position on abortion’ or the ‘Catholic position on what the law of the land must mandate regarding abortion’? ie, Must the law reflect Catholic doctrine in full? In this matter, are issues of law and morality cotermimus or do they diverge at some point?

The word “rare” has been eliminated from the 2008 platform, and its place, these chilling words added: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe V. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” These words taken together are about as inclusive an assertion of an absolute right to abortion as the English language is capable of mustering. “But wait!” people will reply, “… what about the subsequent language claiming that health care and education will help reduce the need for abortions?”

For by education the DNC means concretely their vision of “sex education”, which often is reduced to instruction in “safe sex” practices which promote attitudes conducive to more, not less, unwanted pregnancies, and simultaneously the distribution of condoms and other contraceptives, which are inherently offensive to Catholic sensibilities and against Catholic teaching.

Furthermore, these “education” initiatives frequently resist letting women receive the type of education that includes, for instance, ultrasounds of their growing infants. My question, then: how exactly has “lack of education” been a constitutive cause of abortions in America? And how possibly could their proposed “educational initiatives” significantly reduce them?

Thus, by removing even the concession of desiring to make abortions “rare”, the DNC has once-again presumed upon the support of moderates and actively sought to court the vote of radicals who will never allow the practice of abortion (and related horrors) to be exterminated

Our hope is in rallying all Christians work to ensure FOCA is never passed and not sit idly by hoping it doesn’t happen that it will never make it out of committee.

Our hope is in rallying all Christians work to supporting truly pro-life (in all meanings) politicians to high office where they can make a different policy to policies.

We cannot rest. We must not give never up.

I think there can be many reasons why actions in the past could be changed in the future. One of the things is how people treat Obama; if one actively engages what he says and the issues which point to something beyond what he has already supported, that will I think be able to lead to change. If, on the other hand, one tries to continue the old politics as usual, it will reinforce his position and he will not be able to see any reason why he should change.

Notice, Obama has already said he is willing to regulate against late term abortions, not just partial birth abortions, as long as his concern that the health of the mother is allowed to be an exception. While many people will point out that is a huge exception, on the other hand, even having on the books a law which, in spirit, is against abortion, and having Obama support it — that would be a big change even in the political discussion on the issue of abortion. And have not recent Popes pointed out that we could work for a progressive elimination of abortion in such a fashion?

I am not saying it will be easy work ahead, nor that it will be an automatic conversion, or even a full conversion. But a change in the tenor of the discussion will go a long way in changing the culture — which is needed to get any real change in positive law.

Right. One of the things people seem to forget is the civic responsibility after an election, and the way one is to engage one’s leaders instead of just ignoring them and trying to change things during the next election. The better way has always been one where you encourage the positive, and help bring people forward through what they already believe, showing where it logically should lead. But if you just stay antagonistic, you will not be heard, and you will reinforce the negative because of it. That is exactly what has happened in American politics for decades now.

And while Obama is clearly in the wrong on the issue of abortion, he is also clearly right on the idea that we need to work together on this issue. Often it is through such work, people also have a change of hearts! But if we keep saying, “No, stay away from me,” how will they ever experience the reality which brings about such change?