Incompletely Pro-life
Some of us have recently been taken to task by our friends on the Catholic right for being incompletely pro-life, for not really caring too much about abortion, and indeed, for mere “pro forma condemnation”. To many of these people, being “pro-life” is everything and it is nothing. We are called to be absolutists on abortion itself, and minimalists on other life issues, and indeed the economic and social conditions that contribute to an abortion culture in the first place.
What’s behind this? Matthew Bowman of Catholic Vote had an interesting rant the other day, in which he lambasted Catholics on the left for playing down abortion. He provides a reason: “the dissident Catholic Left who pick and choose magisterial authority, derive their identity from one overarching source: they are sexual revolutionaries”. At the time, I wondered if he was a cranky holdover from the battles of the 1960s and 1970s, but then I realized something – deep down, and despite the rhetoric, these people view abortion as a sexual issue, not a life issue. They see it as a sixth, not a fifth commandment, issue. This is of course unspoken, but I believe it is true. This is why you see abortion spoken in the same breath as same-sex marriage, but not war, torture, poverty, health care or capital punishment. Indeed, among the more extreme elements , you will see incessant mocking of such notions as a “seamless garment” or a “consistent ethic of life”.
I’ve already pointed out that Catholic Vote and its acolytes don’t seem to care much about the broader teachings that affect human life and human dignity. Instead of acknowledging that access to affordable health care was a basic right under Church teaching – precisely because it fosters life and dignity – they went on a campaign to destroy any reform efforts, pretending they were somehow defending the unborn. They never seemed to care that pre-reform health care was not required to cover maternity costs, that millions were prohibited from accessing health care because they could not afford it, or that maternity costs dwarfed abortion costs (something like $20,000 versus $450). They never seemed to care that abortion rates are heavily concentrated among the poor, the economically marginalized, minorities. In fact, while putting “Catholic” in their title, they backed tea-party style candidates who mocked the principle of solidarity and Catholic economic concerns in general. Look at this recent statement by Paul Zummo of the American Catholic: “Abortion to him [that would be me!] is nothing more than a distraction from the bigger issues of government mandated health care and whatever pet leftist project he has in his cross-hairs”. Clearly, to him, abortion can be quite easily divorced from other life issues. Why? Because it doesn’t disturb the tranquility of ideology.
Fundamentally, they fail to realize that abortion is so horrendous because it entails grievous violence against the innocent. But they are loath to condemn violence across the board. They generally don’t support gun control, or the elimination of nuclear weapons, and they tend to be military adventurists. Their nationalism is often of a bloody variety. It is quite amazing that blogs like this can link to people who claim to be pro-life but write things like this: “if they ever want a Gentile prime minister, my first order would be to deploy the IDF in a north-south line, facing east. My second order would be “forward march” and the order to halt would not be given until it was time for the troops to rinse their bayonets in the Jordan. After a brief rest halt, the order “about face” would be given, and the next halt would be at the Mediterranean coast. That’s my “Middle East peace plan”. If that’s what it means to be pro-life, then count me out.
One basic criticism is that we spend more energy criticizing the pro-life movement than abortion itself. Well, I don’t spend too much time railing against the evils of rape and child abuse either – does this imply that my positions are somehow insincere? No, what they want is for us to play their game, to dance to their tune. Scream loudly, accept a few scraps from the table, and support the so-called (and mis-named) “conservatives”. In other words, adopt a position that is not only doomed to fail, but is actually liable to harm to unborn.
Remember, the millennial generation is not unsympathetic to restricting abortion, but they detest what has become known as the religious right, because of its hypocrisy and narrow focus. We will never convince the younger generation with the strategy favored by Catholic Vote. We will never convince them by aligning the pro-life movement with the people who fight access to health care tool and nail, who don’t give a damn about climate change, and who are all-too-keen to back America’s right to go to war and commit torture. The cynic in me says this is the point. But it shouldn’t be. The regulations that we all seek will not take place until we change the culture, and that means taking a few steps away from the laissez-faire liberals.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
At the risk of self-promotion, see http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/2010-1115-medaille-tea-party.htm
Thanks for linking!
Please tell me where I can join this party, vote for this canidate or run for office on this ticket!
Hey, you can’t be afraid of self-promotion if you’re gonna run for President!
Really, let’s see more of that stuff around here.
Other than I few questions I would ask about the policy about women (basically wanting to ensure that freedom to stay home with the kids doesn’t become an impediment to women who don’t want to stay home with them), I’m on board.
But I can’t vote. I’m not a citizen.
Who “campaigned to destroy reform efforts” by your definition? Those anti-social justice libertarians at the USCCB.
“I don’t spend too much time railing against the evils of rape and child abuse either.” You would have a burden to do so, if you spent so much time defending rapists and child abusers and their political patrons and attacking the defenders of their victims.
“We will never convince the younger generation with the strategy favored by Catholic Vote” I suppose, instead, the way to convince people to be pro-life is by aligning ourselves with the Planned Parenthood enthusiasts that you align yourself with: Obama and the Congressional Democrats? This is your better idea?
Look in the mirror.
“I suppose, instead, the way to convince people to be pro-life is by aligning ourselves with the Planned Parenthood enthusiasts that you align yourself with: Obama and the Congressional Democrats?”
Is this satire too?
Oh, don’t go there, Mr. Bowman. The USCCB had narrow issues with abortion. Your group had wide issues with the role of government in health care reform in general. You tried to muddle the two. Shame on you.
Your second comment displays a shocking misunderstanding of moral theology. The only equivalence that works is between rapists and people who have and perform abortions. To include a politician who supports the policy in this equivalence is akin to blaming George Weigel for the death and havoc in Iraq.
And when did I say the strategy entails embracing the Democrats? You people really need to get beyond your two-party view of the world. If you say an alliance with the Democrats won’t work, then fine, I say an alliance with Republicans is equally odious (if not more so).
But if Catholics were to stand together on this, it would really help: (i) if Cathollic Vote ended the “short-pants magisterium” that excommunicates other Catholics; (ii) you people actually started supporting Church positions on issues other than abortion.
MM it’s quite simple. If anyone who opposed last spring’s vote on PPACA is an anti-social justice libertarian, then the USCCB is an anti-social justice libertarian. If the USCCB is not an anti-social justice libertarian, then opposing last spring’s vote on PPACA does not make one an anti-social justice libertarian. And again look back at yourself for once: if opposing pro-abortion PPACA makes one an anti-social justice libertarian, SUPPORTING pro-abortion PPACA makes one a pro-abort. If it is wrong to say that supporting pro-abortion PPACA makes one a pro-abort, it is wrong to say that opposing pro-abortion PPACA makes one an anti-social justice libertarian. Apply your own rules to your own logic, for once. When did you say the strategy entails embracing the Democrats? Repeatedly when you endorsed and defended the Democrats in lead up to the 2008 and 2010 elections and as you continue to defend them against true assertions about the pro-abortion things they are doing. You made the analogy between rapists and abortion advocates, not me. The issue has never been MERELY the fact that you don’t talk about being opposed to abortion enough. The issue has always been that you talk about it all the time, and all the time you talk about it it is an attack on pro-life people and efforts and a defense of pro-abortion people and efforts. If you want to do that, fine. But then don’t resent it when people consider you and your platform an abortion facilitating platform.
You are making up stuff. You assume, against all evidence, that the Affordable Care Act is “pro-abortion” because it suits your rather non-Catholic ideology (I assume you toe the Catholic Vote line on these things).
You still have not addressed the plethora of crickets fro my previous posts relating to life and health, adn the 2 issues I framed above. Please do so.
“You are making up stuff. You assume, against all evidence, that the Affordable Care Act is “pro-abortion” because it suits your rather non-Catholic ideology”
Then SO DOES THE USCCB AND ITS SOCIAL JUSTICE BISHOPS. They too have adopted a “rather non-Catholic ideology.” Just be consistent.
Don’t even try. The USCCB named 3 principles – affordable healthcare for all, no funding of abortion, no discrimination against immigrants (undocumented or not). I agree with these principles. I disagree with the prudential application of these principles as to whether the ACA actualy funds abortion.
But you, assuming you align yourself with the corporate Catholic Vote position, reject any government role in bringing about universal healthcare and reject care for immigrants. Instead, you support tea party people like Sharan Angle who is both viciously anti-immigrant and hysterically opposed to paying for anybody else’s health.
Explain yourself. I ask again: answer the questions. Why does Catholic Vote deviate from the USCCB on principles?
Crickets, crickets, an infinity of little crickets.
Thank you for conceding that it is not anti-Catholic to consider PPACA pro-abortion and to have lobbied for no votes on the Act.
Who “campaigned to destroy reform efforts” by your definition? Those anti-social justice libertarians at the USCCB.
No, they did not. Some others used every available weapon in a war against universal health care, even if it meant revising their past stances.
The USCCB, to their credit outlined a number of principles, of which CV dissented from all but a couple. Personally, unlike CV, I affirmed all of the principles the bishop outlined. In the end there was a question not of one of the principles, but on a reading of the bill language as to if and how it honored that principle. On the reading of the text, but not on the principle, I and CHA and many other anti-abortion Catholics had a different understanding of the issue.
My friends on the Right seem only to see the thumbs up or thumbs down, yet the bishops did give us a comprehensive, piece by piece reflection.
And (with great awkwardness at times) the Catholic Right, who found the terms “negotiable and non-negotiable principles” from focus groups and polling financed by Republican political operatives, suddenly flipped back and claimed while it was okay to dissent from the bishops’ judgments on a secondary set of issues, one could not dissent from an even more remote matter of where one concurred with the bishop on the issue but not their reading of bill language.
Actually, yes the USCCB campaigned for no votes on the Act. You and MM simply can’t abide having your principles applied equally to opposition to PPACA as pro-abortion. But you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
See above. Answer the question, Matt. Why does Catholc Vote oppose the the USCCB on 2 of the 3 core principles on which to judge healthcare reform – affordable care for all, and access for immigrants? Why? Crickets, crickets, an infinity of little crickets.
Matt,
As I said, you seem to have an excessive attachment to looking for a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” from the bishops on PPACA.
I know of some good and faithful Catholics who truly dedicate most of their time to important matters in their lives such as their family, etc. They honor their civic duties by somewhat blindly taking the bishops’ public policy advice because detailed study of every issue would interfere with other duties. I hold nothing against those folks. God bless them.
Those however, who demand from others a blind obedience to a “thumbs-down” on PPACA while taking the liberty to separate out “negotiable” and “non-negotiable” issues otherwise have really set themselves up to look like fools.
The Bishops’ outlined a wide range of principles, all of which I accept and most of which you reject, deeming them “negotiable” matters.
Then on one issue, in which you, I and the bishops are all in accord, I have a contrary opinion from you and the bishops not on the principle but as to if particular bill language honors or does not honor that principle.
If I agreed with you and the bishops on your reading of the bill language, I would agree with you as to your conclusion. But I don’t.
Nevertheless, the bishops’ detailed and extensive writing on this matter has been a positive contribution to the discussion and discernment. What has not been a contribution to this discussion is hearing from the very people who invented the two-tiering of Catholics issues ( insisting Catholics were only obligated to follow the episcopate on the upper tier of issues) is the absurd claim that on a tertiary matter such as the interpretation of bill language, we are obligated to concur with the USCCB.
And mark Pope John Paul II as yet another sixth commandment extremist: “But despite their differences of nature and moral gravity, contraception and abortion are often closely connected, as fruits of the same tree.”
Ok Matt. You (citing papal concurrence) say abortion is primarily a sin against sexual morality and not human life. You give me another example why I, while against abortion, don’t support the Pro-Life Movement you help lead. I (even at risk of papal disapproval) consider it primarily a sin against human life not sexual ethics. On that point, I guess I am outside your movement. Bye-bye!!!!
Are you really saying it is a sixth commandment issue? You are in deeper than I thought! Look up the Catechism. It’s there.
Are you serious? Abortion is a killing issue, but it is often the fruit of the same tree as the sexual revolution issues. That’s what I said and am saying. If you want to deny that and reject JPII’s view, go right ahead.
They are both fruits of the tree of individualism, of liberalism, of the belief in the supremacy of individual freedom and autonomy over the common good – in other words, the kinds of positions supported by Catholic Vote.
This is yet another example of a heavy-handed rejection of a perfectly legitimate point, the connection between sex and abortion, and its manipulation in a pure attack on pro-lifers who point it out (since I never said abortion wasn’t killing, I simply pointed out this connection, and you and Kurt will use anything even truths you otherwise agree with to attack pro-lifers), and then the people who are supposed to be the “theology of the body” pro-lifers on this blog don’t even show up to the discussion–but people are supposed to associate their attitudes with the dominant view of this blog, instead of associating the blog with your attacks?
Matt,
I’m going to start by admitting that the temptation this gives me for sarcasm is off the charts. I am going to try to play this as straight as I can.
For your information, I’ve been thinking about the relationship between abortion and the 5th and 6th commandments. I think it is more complicated than either side on this thread is letting on. Further, I planned to write a post about it (it’s up now). Your slanderous accusations and awkward appeals to authority don’t convince anyone who isn’t already with you. I’m not going to wade into such a debate as your partisan. Even the bit of truth you’ve got a hold of is so clumsily and disjointedly presented, I have no interest in identifying myself with it.
Now, you misunderstand the position of the “theology of the body” pro-lifers on this blog if you think that we are mere undercovers in enemy territory for you and your ilk. Speaking for myself, at least, I agree with you about the priority of abortion among social justice issues, but I agree with MM that abortion will never be solved if it is treated in isolation from other social justice issues, which, in my view, is what groups like Catholic Vote do.
But what really drives me nuts about this most recent comment is that, by attacking those at VN whom you claim to be able to find at least some common ground with, you make our job more and more difficult. The dust-up with Pentimento yesterday was the same problem. If we are really your allies, the constant sarcasm and attacks don’t help.
To be frank, you are the one who comes on here and constantly complains that, if VN is really pro-life, it shouldn’t be so hard on the pro-life movement. Then you turn around and attack your own allies! If we “theology of the body” pro-lifers here at VN are to have a greater impact, we don’t need you undercutting our efforts. Do you really think playing us off against our co-bloggers with whom we share both friendship and much common understanding is going to help your cause? Do you hope to instigate some sort of backroom uprising where the plebians throw off their overlords? Do you imagine that we are going to join you when your arguments are full of vitriol and intellectual dishonesty against our own friends? Come on!
I disagree with MM and Kurt here, but I disagree with you too (as my post latest post shows). I’m not worried that MM is going to have a problem with that. He knows that I’m no Democrat, but he’s still happy to have me on the blog. What does that say? Surely something different than your standard narrative about MM.
The last thing those of us who project a more “pro-life” friendly face on this blog need is the disdain of the leadership of the pro-life movement. If you really want to help us, support our posts that you do like. Offer your congratulations on good posts. Re-post them on your own blog. Resist the urge to accompany every compliment with a caveat. Really.
If you really are concerned that some at VN, including everyone with a nameable name, don’t really care about the pro-life movement because they critique it more than they critique abortion itself, then lead by example. If you really care about abortion more than making political points against blog enemies, make sure that 80% (to use a popular number around here lately) of the times you mention the pro-life contingent at VN, you are not attacking us. I know you are frustrated by the way some of us talk about about abortion, but if you’re a Christian turn-about isn’t fair play. Man up. Don’t just be a mirror image of what you despise in your enemies. Lead by example.
Brett–I think your perspective is refreshing for this blog. I came on to respond to the assertion that this blog does not for the most part portray your approach. You and P too criticized me on that assertion. But my description of the image is accurate, and I am pointing out examples of it because you joined the main offenders in challenging me on it. If even those minority deny the problem, they aren’t going to do anything to fix it. To illustrate the problem I have called you both out on examples of it in just this short time period (and it was in fact not until then that you asserted that you disagree with Kurt and Minion). I’ve made my point now as well as it can be made. Most of the rest is in your hands, though I do desire to move forward in your respect on a more “positive” note, and so I welcome your suggestion.
You’re right that VNs image is mostly in VNs hands. Further, I don’t deny the image we have in some circles, though I do not agree with much of your assessment of my fellow contributors. In any case, I dare say that certain ways that others misrepresent us, as individuals and collectively, does contribute to a situation where the good one claims to seek is overlooked and the bad one expects to find is found.
As much as I could continue the debate here, I will say “thank you,” and move one.
I love how Matt comments about this blog over his own blog at Catholic Vote. I would say the major difference is, that Catholic Vote is a lobbyist group politically for the right. Let’s not forget that very fact. So how can one accuse Minion as pushing for the left, when you clearly write for a blog that IS in fact a lobbyist group for the right?
They just got nothing else to do this week because they are boycotting CPAC.
Very well said.
Just so we all know, Kurt was responding to MM, not to me.
Not that I mind the optics. ;)
If I may suggest, I really don’t think this has ever been about life. It has always been about gaining power and control. Which is why you might indeed be correct that this is more of a sexual issue to many of them. There is never a shortage of people who are desirous of controlling that domain.
“They see it as a sixth, not a fifth commandment, issue. This is of course unspoken, but I believe it is true.”
This distinction, whether or not you’re correct, is a helpful insight.
Indeed it is. Excellent post, MM. The Pro-Life Movement™ cares little for “life.”
MM, Once again I agree with you. I was born in ’47 with a non-practicing catholic Mom and a non-practicing protestant Dad. I was raised catholic and went to catholic grade school. There was so much abuse of women then that was never reported and alcoholism that contributed to this abuse. This way of life was transgenerational and it was born from a history of violence. There was a deep rage in my father’s generation and this rage was the result of war. They had a name for it back then as shell shock but many did not exhibit the symptoms immediately. When they came home is when the symptoms began to appear and after decades became known as post traumatic stress disorder.
The children of that generation attempted to rebel against the rigidity and fear that is present in the environment of ptsd. The sexual revolution was one part of that rebellion. Women did not want to be controlled any longer by domineering and potentially dangerous males. In the process they had to find an identity separate from the males they feared and they had to protect themselves from becoming trapped with such males.
They still had no way to establish a sense of value of themselves separate from the system constructed by males. Unwittingly, they competed for status and value the same way males did. They couldn’t compete being pregnant.
Sorry I am going on too long. Don’t know how to be as concise and clear as you.
At its core, abortion is about an isolated unknown female human being attempting to first survive in a violent world, in which she is powerless, and also attempting to identify herself as more than a second class object. It is the violence created by males throughout the world which fuels the culture of death that inundates the unconscious psyche of the woman and the passionate desire for her to have the freedom to choose.
Actually, there is no freedom of choice when one is fearful and isolated. Freedom of choice can only exist when love is present and when love is present there is clarity about the choice to be made.
Ronald, very thoughtful insights as usual. Thank you for this.
Violence per se Is not the issue; unjust violence agaInst indefensible innocents is. And abortion IS related to sexuality because the practice is most often supported as part and parcel of a non-Catholc anthropology and all that that entails.
To prove the truth of this just answer the question how many people are there who are both pro-abortion also pro-chastity (ie adhere to Church teaching regarding genItal sexual activity). You’re kidding yourself if you don’t answer: very few.
In other words, the so-called conservatives have a point.
Violence is the issue. Violence is the source of fear that influences women to abort their babies or to practice birth control. Chastity doesn’t resolve the violence. As we continue to use violence as our problem-solving method then birth control and abortions will continue.
Two points in response:
1. I think you’re using a definition of violence that is not the same as the one above tha I was responding to.
2. You write that “Chastity does not resolve the violence.” No, but a chaste lifestyle eliminates the need for abortion and the desire for contraceprion in the vast vast majority of cases, wouldn’t you agree.
I’m not asserting that there are not connections between the larger issues and violence and sexuality. I am arguing that it is inappropriate to take personal sin — that is, unwillingness to abide by the Church’s clear teaching on sexual behavior — out of the picture. There is no such thing as a private sin: all sins have public consequences of some sort. And so it is appropriate to connect abortion to the sins of unchastity which so many in our society, including many Catholics, dismiss as relatively unimportant.
Another, I agree with your point on chastity. I was not clear enough about violence and it being a personal sin also. Christ tells us that if we have anger with another we have already killed him. What does He mean by that? There is a spiritual dimension to abortion that is not being addressed. I believe that the outrage and hatred expressed to the abortionists contributes to the culture of death that results in abortion. It is the mystery of being either connected in hate, fear, etc. or being connected in love.
The amount of poisoning the well and leaping to conclusions here is a bit much, by any standard.
- You make no real case for your claim that conservative pro-lifers think that abortion is a matter of sexual sin rather than violence against the unborn. Indeed, this would seem to be directly in contradiction to the fact that pro-lifers are at times criticized on this blog for calling abortion murder, for displaying gruesome pictures of aborted babies, for calling politicians who support abortion baby killers, etc.
- You say that conservative pro-lifers are to blame for not supporting gun control, opposing capital punishment, opposing war, etc. And yet, you wrote a whole series of passionate endorsements for our current president — who has continued our wars, supports capital punishment, does not support gun control, and supports unlimited abortion as well. Sheesh. At least conservative pro-lifers get one positive thing out of their politicians. You appear to get none.
- You assert that the most important ways to fight abortion are via universal health care — and yet the percentage of pregnancies ending in abortion in Canada is virtually the same as in the US, and it has been rising there, not falling.
- You say that conservative pro-lifers will fail to understand and appeal to young people — and yet most of us you are attacking are 10-20 years younger than you are. At least give us credit for understanding our own age group.
(1) Somewhat to my surprise, a few people have already commented saying it is a sixth commandment issue. Maybe I’ve really hit on something!
(2) Why does this silliness keep coming up? Why do you people idolize democracy so much? Democracy is highly imperfect, and American democracy is more imperfect than average, given how beholden it is to special interests, combined with the dominance of the American exceptionalist theology. One picks the person likely to do the least damage. It’s that simple. And despite all the awful stances of Obama (I can add more, such as deference to Israel and Wall Street), I can guarantee that he is superior to any Republican that will be nominated in 2012.
(3)One data point? Not even holding everything else constant? Do you really believe that poverty and health care have nothinvg to do with abortion? Many European bishops would disagree strongly with you.
(4) I hope you understand that I will look to statistics rather than your personal view point!
1) It’s grossly simplifying the responses you’re getting to say that people are saying that abortion is a sin against the sixth commandment — they’re saying that abortion is related to a misunderstanding of the nature of sex. A contraceptive mentality is, I think clearly, part of the root of abortion. It’s not as if people just say, “I think I’ll go do some violence to the unborn today, because I’m in a violent mood.” Rather, they convince themselves that it’s not really violence because they’re trying to get out of a problem which was sexual in origin. Funny how you can see the economic connection but not the sexual one.
2) Come now, you pretty much announced Obama was the most amazing thing ever. It was hardly a “I’ll hold my nose and cast my ballot” situation.
3) I could get a lot more data points, if you would like. Health care and poverty are two parts of the abortion puzzle, but they’re far from the only parts. After all, note that even in countries where there is much more safety net than the US and universal health care to boot, abortion is still more common among the poor than the rich.
4) You may well do so, but one may certainly (and validly) look at his own experience and question your interpretation of your data. Of which you haven’t even cited any…
And where does this “contraceptive mentality” come from? From the liberalism that stresses the supremacy of individual freedom and autonomy – the ideology that motivates a good number on your blog, not to mention Catholic Vote. It is no coincidence that the resurgence of laissez-faire liberalism came about the same time as abortion liberlization.
It all goees back to my basic point. You CANNOT separate the sexual and economic teachings of the Church.
They will not see your very valid thoughts on the matter. They are blind to most of our doctrine and only see the portions they choose to use as a weapon.
This is politically driven and you are the enemy now.
The only problem with your statement is that you treat the economic teachings as if they were as clear-cut as the teachings on sexuality. They are not.
Compare the questions of how to properly balance the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity in a multicultural democracy of 300 million people with the simple statement, “premarital sex is always wrong.” or “Abortion is an intrinsic evil.”
I see what you are trying to accomplish, but the Catholic Vote people are NOT your enemy. And you shouldn’t treat them as such. It is the enemies of the Church that are (or at least should be) your enemy.
And yet what we find is that sexual individualism and libertinism is generally more acceptable on the political left than the political right — and the Church’s teaching on contraception is rejection by a significant portion of your left leaning readers, and yet by virtually none of our “laissez faire” readers.
It could be that everyone is just a living contradiction, and no one is living out the implications of their economic beliefs. Or it could be that your analysis is off.
MM, I actually concur with point 1 and more: Abortion traditionally falls under the 5th commandment, but it is also the 6th commandment in many circumstances, so I say both!
So abortion is murder. You are killing a human child, no matter what the other side says. So where does the 6th commandment come in? The 6th is no adultuery, and/or sexual sin. If you choose to fool around, and the kid is aborted because you procreated with some other woman besides your own wife, enough said.
Also, contraception often at times is forgotten to be an abortificient, because that’s its purpose: to prevent procreation by a number of avenues (e.g. kill sperm, prevent uterine implantation.) And of course it’s often taken by women in case they have sex, or worse, so they can be 99% (1% chance of failure) guilt free and fool around in our hookup culture.
So it’s a 5th commandment case no matter what, but many a times is also a 6th commmandment case too.
Was the statement
(1) Somewhat to my surprise, a few people have already commented saying it is a sixth commandment issue. Maybe I’ve really hit on something!
meant to be sarcastic?
Greetings DarwinCatholic,
You posted this statement just above:
“You make no real case for your claim that conservative pro-lifers think that abortion is a matter of sexual sin rather than violence against the unborn.”
And then just below you posted this statement:
“It’s not as if people just say, “I think I’ll go do some violence to the unborn today, because I’m in a violent mood.” Rather, they convince themselves that it’s not really violence because they’re trying to get out of a problem which was sexual in origin.”
Well Morning’s Minion did not really need to make the case because you just came in and provided the proof yourself. This line just resonates:
“they’re trying to get out of a problem which was sexual in origin.”
So I guess conservative pro-lifers really do think that abortion is a matter of sexual sin rather than violence against the unborn. Wow, that was easy.
Thanks so very much for your time and efforts.
gisher,
So is your claim that abortion can only be considered a sin of violence if one is not motivated by any concern other than the desire for violence in and of itself?
If so, then MM clearly believes that abortion is actually a sin against the seventh and tenth commandments, rather than the fifth, since he thinks it results in part from economic considerations.
Thanks for playing…
No sir I have made no claims, you sir made a contradictory statement which I took the liberty of pointing out for you.
If you do not like contradicting yourself I suggest being more careful when you make your comments.
Excellent points, MM! It appears that all the other responses to your post are male — interesting.
Indeed!
Once again I must insist that opposition to government being the primary engine of charitable works, does not equal opposition to charitable works themselves. The latter doesn’t follow from the former. If conservatives are opposed to charitable works, then why do they give more to charity than liberals?
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/11/generosity_inde.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html
If you want to argue that government is the most effective way of accomplishing certain goals, that’s one thing. But someone believing that private charity is better than government-run charity, does not justify accusing them of being uncharitable. To do so, I submit, might itself be construed as uncharitable.
I think what I would say to you Agellius is how long should society allow for “Conservatives” to address the lingering problems before government has to step in and correct them? Right now, we already have over 200 years on the clock without them being sufficiently addressed.
How many more generations must suffer until “Conservatives” have found a way to correct the problem?
Gisher writes, “I think what I would say to you Agellius is how long should society allow for “Conservatives” to address the lingering problems before government has to step in and correct them? Right now, we already have over 200 years on the clock without them being sufficiently addressed.”
So your premise is that government is the thing that gets things right when private citizens can’t solve problems on their own. The problem is, not everyone sees government that way. Some people see government as the thing that makes things even worse, or that causes problems in the first place. Others see it as something to be feared the more power it obtains over the people’s lives.
It’s too bad we don’t all see things the same way, but such is life.
I might add Agellius that if you scan all the threads on VN or you crawl all of my vids you will not find one instance of me coming out in support of Universal care.
I might also point out that the term “Universal care” does not implicitly imply any government control. There are advocates for both Universal care run by government and those who advocate for private control.
All you will ever find from me left in either location is questions I have asked of others on the subject.
Right now all I can find from you is an inability to answer one question I asked of you.
So in other words you refuse to answer a simple question asked of you. Instead you proceed to tell me what my premise was, and completely avoided answering me. Hopefully one day you will answer the question I asked, but not for my benefit, just to confront the answer yourself.
For now though, your silence speaks volumes.
Gisher: I can live with that.
I was also (like Ronald King) born in 1947, and have experienced everything concerning which he wrote so very well above. As usual, when somebody presents the UNVARNISHED truth about an issue, it quickly gets swept under the rug. Which commandment abortion is a violation of is, quite frankly, a topic for discussion in Sunday School. The grown-up issues are the ones Ronald King wrote about. And they are the only real (as opposed to theoretical) issues. If you really want to end abortion, you will address Ronald King’s points, and you will discuss how you can, through the agency of your Church, effectively address those issues with practical courses of action. Anything else is just so much onanistic sophistry.
Rodak, It seems that you and I are too old to partake in the pleasure “onanistic sophistry”:)
I wonder what reaction my priest would have had if, when I was 13 I confessed 26 episodes of onanism for the week? Thanks for the new word. I think I will use it sometime if I get the itch.
Yes, much too old. There’s too little time in the direction of the horizon.
Speaking of evil individualists and libertarians, Cheney and Rumsfeld were jeered at CPAC this week as war criminals–BY THE “LIBERTARIANS” IN THE CROWD. In fact, conservatives like Pat Buchanan on paper have quite a bit in common with Catholic social teaching, including opposition to extensive military action, support for unions, and of course unwavering positions on social issues. But I often get the impression that liberal Catholics hate the Buchanans of the world more than they hate the George W Bushes and Republicans who aren’t as pro-life. Coincidental?
Matt –
I find Pat quite interesting and have long lauded his views on fair trade and even once participated in an event with him on NAFTA. And he a practically a soft-hearted liberal compared to his sister Bay. Now there is a real woman!
Agellius writes:
Once again I must insist that opposition to government being the primary engine of charitable works…
Don’t create a straw man. Liberals don’t beleive government should be the primary engine. We believe individuals, family and non-governmental organizations should be the primary engines. We just don’t beleive the government has no role, not even a secondary one. We believe private charity gets the first crack an donly when they fail does public action come up for consideration. We also don’t dismiss all social justice as “charity” — i.e. the benevolent giving to the unfortunate and weak. We believe in people without organizing for themselves, neither dependent on the charity of others nor the government. It is this, far more than goverment action, that the Right Wing has fought. In fact, a portion of the government action we have today is from a compromise with conservatives who more stridently oppose people doing things for themselves.
Kurt writes, “Liberals don’t beleive government should be the primary engine. We believe individuals, family and non-governmental organizations should be the primary engines. We just don’t beleive the government has no role, not even a secondary one.”
If that’s all you have to say, then we agree.
Kurt writes, “We believe private charity gets the first crack an donly when they fail does public action come up for consideration.”
I see. I was never aware that liberals have an aversion to government getting the first crack at solving a problem. In fact, you’re the first liberal that I have ever heard say such a thing. But, how much of a chance did liberals give private enterprise to solve global warming, once it became a generally known and agreed-upon danger, before advocating government action?
Kurt writes, “We also don’t dismiss all social justice as “charity” — i.e. the benevolent giving to the unfortunate and weak. We believe in people without organizing for themselves, neither dependent on the charity of others nor the government. It is this, far more than goverment action, that the Right Wing has fought. In fact, a portion of the government action we have today is from a compromise with conservatives who more stridently oppose people doing things for themselves.”
No offense, but here you’ve lost me. I can’t figure out what your point is in this paragraph.
I see. I was never aware that liberals have an aversion to government getting the first crack at solving a problem. In fact, you’re the first liberal that I have ever heard say such a thing.
You need to get out more.
Start by staying away from Glenn Beck’s false claims about liberalism.
No offense, but here you’ve lost me. I can’t figure out what your point is in this paragraph
Most of what liberalism has accomplished is not charity to the needy (though Medicaid, School lunches, SSI, would be). Most of our victories are matters of justice, not charity — i.e. the Civil Rights Act and other employment discrimination laws, social insurance, safe workplaces, consumer protection, FDIC, Workers Comp, the right to join a union, pure food and drugs, etc. etc.
I on a personal level am having a difficult time with those who are anti-abortion, but not pro-life. It seems as if many on the right have forgotten that if a child is born we owe the child our support – a place to live, food to eat, an education, parents who can find employment to afford all of the above. I am against abortion, but I am more inclined to see we need to value all life and not merely cling to a political wedge. Taking the life of any person is a sin – yet many anti-abortion persons support/allow the death penalty, they extol the virtues of war where untold thousands die and are wounded. I do with that those who are anti-abortion would become pro-life or at least quit attacking those of us who do not follow their logic and/or their ways of viewing the issue of life.
Well said Andy!