Pro-life inconsistency?

An Illinois pro-life organization has rated candidates beginning like this:

1 = Fully pro-life
1# = Rape and incest exception
2 = Not in full support of all pro-life issues

If 1 + # = 1 and not 2, this group is saying someone can hold rape and incest exceptions and be “fully pro-life.”
Do you think a pro-life organization can hold this position?
Or do you think it is inconsistent for a pro-life organization to condone the concept that how one is conceived determines one’s worth?

18 thoughts on “Pro-life inconsistency?”

  1. If we’re going to have a rape exception, why not a fetal health exception? Why not a mother’s mental health exception? Why not a “quality of life” exception? If we’re going to start drawing lines as to when it is and isn’t ok to kill an innocent child, what makes one line more “pro-life” than another?

  2. I dont agree with the rape exception either. If I am raped and become pregnant what gives anyone the right to say my baby is worth less than my other 6. And then to try to compell me to abort, how dare anyone devalue the lives of any of my children. Besides the rape exception is a red herring thrown out to get the community as a whole to swallow aabortion as neccisary.There is no proof it helps rape victims recover whatsoever. The only exception I could understand is to save the life of the mother and that would be ectopics and whatever else there is..

  3. I also dont agree with the rape exception.If we ever get to the point where all abortion is banned except on the instance of rape-I’m afraid that the number of recorded “rapes” would skyrocket.I know there are people who have actually been raped.(God bless ’em so have I)But nevertheless I still dont think abortion is the answer with millions of invitro paying infertal women desperateley wanting and praying for a child.It just isn’t right.

  4. Yvonne (a Post Abortive Woman) also answers the question of rape from the woman’s point of view rather than the unborn babies point of view. Please listen to Yvonne – A Time to Speak…
    Yvonne Florczak-Seeman “A Time to Speak” on 2-17-06…ar=1&category=0
    Listen (Real)Click here to listen to show in Real audio format
    Download (Real)Right click this link and select Save to download
    Listen (MP3)Click here to listen to show in MP3 audio format

  5. The line I submitted for the Yvonne Seeman interview did not work. Try this…
    Go to the “Radio” tab. Click on “Catholic Answers Live Guest Schedule”. Last click on date “2-17-06” to listen.
    This interview will be one you will never forget.

  6. Jill,
    If I were Illinois Citizens For Life I would NEVER give the rating “1#” to those politicians who are in favor of abortion in the cases of rape and incest. I would even be more inclined give those politicians the rating of “4” rather then “2#”. These are my thoughts.
    I do give credit to Illinois Citizens for Life for putting out a Pro-Life Voting Guide. I always use it when I go to the ballot box but I am definitely opposed to their rating symbols for politicians who are for abortion in cases of rape and incest. Since life begins at conception, these are human beings too!!

  7. I guess I’m the odd man out here, I think abortion should be legal on demand for the first trimester. I don’t think the government should regulate this issue.

  8. The 1, 1#, and 2 rating scheme does seem rather wimpy and inadequate. Three categories are two few. I’d suggest something more along the likes of the well-known five-star rating scheme with the addition of five daggers to indicate a zeal for abortion. It’d go something like this:

    ***** Active sponsoring pro-life legislation

    **** Active supporting pro-life legislation

    *** Consistently votes pro-life

    ** Usually votes pro-life

    * Weakly votes pro-life

    1 dagger Weakly votes for abortion

    2 daggers usually votes for abortion

    3 daggers consistently votes for abortion

    4 daggers actively supports abortion legislation

    5 daggers active sponsoring abortion legislation

    Standards would need to be set for each category, but they do a far better job of informing voters and encouraging politicians to do more than check of a political stance on a poll. A politician who whines about only getting one star could be told to do more.

    And it might be good to turn the star rating into a baby rating, using tiny baby symbols rather than stars. And the dagger rating could be a scapel rating for greater vividness.

    –Michael W. Perry, Seattle

    Editor: The Pivot of Civilization in Historical Perspective (a collection of the writings of Margaret Sanger and her supporters)

Comments are closed.