"Catholic voters no longer beholden to bishops and abortion"

That's the title of a post by Ruth Hunt today on RH Reality Check.

I read that and wondered who are they beholden to then? It appears the Obama campaign has accelerated the thought among some Catholics that abortion is but one issue of many and can be trumped.

faithful citizenship.jpgBefore I get to that column, I want to excerpt from another posted by Deal Hudson yesterday, blaming the bishops themselves for the problem:

I never thought it likely that Catholic voters could be persuaded to support a candidate with both the most extreme record on abortion and who favors gay marriage. Yet, barring a miracle, that paradox is only a week away.
If Obama wins on November 4 with the help of Catholic voters, the biggest factor in his favor will be the bishops' own document and Web site, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" [adopted in November 2007]....
As I have watched the campaign unfold, especially Obama's outreach to Catholic voters, the USCCB document has played a decisive role. "Faithful Citizenship" provided Obama's Catholic supporters the escape clauses needed to convince Catholics they could vote for a pro-abortion candidate in "good conscience."

There are two major loopholes in the document. First, it states that Catholics are allowed to vote for a supporter of abortion rights so long as 1) they do not intend to support that position (34) or 2) there are offsetting "morally grave reasons" (35).

And now the column by Hunt, a Catholic pro-abort:

Catholics have often been urged by their clergy to be single-issue voters when it comes to abortion. But the tide has turned, and this year a much broader social justice agenda is guiding these voters....

seamless.jpg

In the late 1980s, Joseph Cardinal Bernardin in Chicago championed the so-called Consistent Ethic of Life or "seamless garment" approach to the question of abortion. In this view, abortion, while important, is joined by moral concerns about war, capital punishment, euthanasia, economic justice, racism, and the like. There is dispute among adherents as to whether abortion is the preeminent concern or one among equals in this approach. This discrepancy is key to the current shift among anti-abortion Catholic citizens who are choosing pro-choice Barack Obama over anti-abortion John McCain....

Recent events have served to dislodge abortion and install a much broader social justice agenda that guides Catholic voters. An economy teetering on recession and a failed war in Iraq have shifted the moral focus for most people from personal to social ethics, from abortion to the common good....

The real story is with bishops who have taken to heart their own November 2007 document, "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States." Rather than dictate policy, they wrote, "We bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote. Our purpose is to help Catholics form their consciences in accordance with God's truth. We recognize that the responsibility to make choices in political life rests with each individual in light of a properly formed conscience...." (No. 7) They go on to say: "There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate's unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil" (No. 35).

This formulation allows some bishops to counsel against single-issue voting....

It is clear that these bishops have not backed off of abortion, but it is equally the case that they have not so focused on it that they miss the many conditions - racism, poverty, sexism, war, among others - that form the context in which abortions are necessary, the context that needs to change if the number of abortions is to be reduced. This larger context constitutes "gravely moral reasons" why a Catholic could, some might say should, vote for Obama over McCain despite their respective positions on abortion....

free love.jpgNo, no, no. The "condition" that "form[s] the context in which abortions are necessary" is promiscuity, sex outside of marriage. It is really that simple. This takes us back to the "love the one you're with" mentality introduced in the 60's in conjuction with widespread contraceptive availability.

Protestants by and large don't yet see the connection (By golly, I am going to write that book.) but the Catholic Church does.

The problem is many priests have backed away from teaching on this issue. First, teaching against contraception is counter-cultural right now, and second there is a disconnect between understanding why contraceptives are morally wrong.

Someone recently said abortion won't go away until our society begins practicing chaste living again. This is true.

Obama's so-called solutions to lower the abortion rate based on the aforementioned "conditions" are all wrong and won't work. Catholics and Evangelicals following this thought are helping push America over the cliff.


Comments:

You know what would be an interesting word to use that would help me understand what's REALLY going on? "Church-going"

'Catholics' attend Mass regularly at a rate just under 30%. You survey that 30% and you will find a different story. Guaranteed.

A 'Catholic' who does not go to Mass often might as well be surveyed as general public IMHO.

Posted by: Alex at October 30, 2008 10:17 AM


I'm glad you're exposing this "Seamless Garment" stuff that was put forth by Cardinal Bernardin. This was a very deceptive ploy on his part to make abortion "just another life issue." I have often said that it is people who have been put in a position of teaching authority and who use it to undermine the very institution that they are supposed to represent who have the greatest thing to fear on judgment day. God help us all.

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 30, 2008 10:20 AM


WARNING TO CATHOLICS BY FATHER JOHN CORAPI:

see video:

http://www.fathercorapi.com/election.aspx

Posted by: Jasper at October 30, 2008 10:42 AM


Our priest made it abundantly clear that it was unacceptable for devout Catholics to vote for a candidate who supports abortion. I wish that more priests and bishops would have the courage to speak so frankly.

Posted by: Allison at October 30, 2008 10:49 AM


Someone recently said abortion won't go away until our society begins practicing chaste living again. This is true.

In other words, abortion will never go away. Because our society has never been chaste, and never will be.

Posted by: reality at October 30, 2008 11:01 AM


Abortion WILL go away because "Abortion is the greatest destroyer of Peace". When America and other countries wake up to this, Abortion WILL END.


Socio Economic reasons: We can support these women through job skill training programs, homes for unwed mothers, parenting classes and life skills.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 30, 2008 11:05 AM


"Someone recently said abortion won't go away until our society begins practicing chaste living again. This is true."

Many people don't wish to live that way. Those who do, can do so now.

Posted by: Hal at October 30, 2008 11:09 AM


Liz,

Abortion WILL go away because "Abortion is the greatest destroyer of Peace".

This is delusional. When a woman is unhappily pregnant, an abortion usually brings her great peace.

When America and other countries wake up to this, Abortion WILL END.

Countries can not stop abortion. Only individual women can stop having abortions, if they so choose.

Socio Economic reasons: We can support these women through job skill training programs, homes for unwed mothers, parenting classes and life skills.

Women who want abortions don't want to have a baby. They don't want to take parenting classes or live in a home for unwed mothers. They don't want to be unwed mothers.

Posted by: reality at October 30, 2008 11:14 AM


They are pressured into abortions: Look at Carla, PJmama and the other women who are posters here. They were lied to or coerced into abortions.

No real woman truly WANTS an abortion. Most of the time, they are desperately seeking help. They think abortion is their ONLY choice. They get told its "not a baby yet" or "its just a blob of tissue" or "its a blood clot".


There are couples unable to have children who would take these babies and love them, but they aren't given the chance!


Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 30, 2008 11:34 AM


I call the "Seamless garment" the "shameless garment because of the way Catholic abortion apologists have used it. But they have used it unfairly.

I am not much of a fan of the late Cardinal Bernardin, but he was no abortion apologist and did not see the seamless garment as something relativistic with all issues being equal.

Amy Welborn referenced this on her blog yesterday about Bernardin opposition to Jimmy Carter.

"Archbishop Joseph Bernardin of Cincinnati, the head of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, blasted the party platform as ‘irresponsible’ and ‘morally offensive in the extreme.’ On the eve of the Democratic convention, ten thousand people rallied under a blazing sun in Central Park and marched to Madison Square Garden to urge the party to oppose the abortion plank….The priest chosen to give the closing benediction at the convention backed out, citing Carter and the party’s stand on abortion."

Posted by: Jeff Miller at October 30, 2008 11:46 AM


Socio Economic reasons: We can support these women through job skill training programs, homes for unwed mothers, parenting classes and life skills.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 30, 2008 11:05 AM

Liz, what's the biggest attack on Obama right now? That "he's a socialist who wants to take your money away and give it to others." That's the right saying that. In other words, your side sees usung taxation to fund social programs as a negative-and a sizable number (at minumum 40% of Americans (those who support McCain) are buying it.

SO what you're saying is you want to get Americans to give their $ to those who don't have $ in order to support children that could have been prevented by birth control (those on the left and moderates) or, even an implausible abstinence (those on the far right).

Go ahead, try that one - and get back to us in a few years and let us know how it's going- OK?

Posted by: phylosopher at October 30, 2008 11:48 AM


Phylo.:

What are you talking about? The programs and homes I AM talking about are run by pro lifers and function on Funds raised through fundraising. They aren't run by the government.

I happen to know that many CPCs have parenting classes for those who decide to keep their child. They also get donations of diapers and other baby supplies. They rely on the generosity of human beings, not the government.

You misunderstood what I was talking about.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 30, 2008 11:55 AM


"They aren't run by the government."

Well you are opposed to government intervention and yet I doubt charities can shoulder an extra 4000 people daily. Maybe getting them the help they need can come from things like recieving good health care on a regular basis.


Also, nothing wrong with seamless garment. It just means that everything is important.
Does not mean that abortion is unimportant. Subtle difference. The seamless garment even says it is possible to have a focus, but that you must keep everything else in mind.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 30, 2008 12:14 PM


Liz,

They are pressured into abortions: Look at Carla, PJmama and the other women who are posters here. They were lied to or coerced into abortions.

The vast majority of women who have abortions are not coerced in to it. They want it. The fact that three pro-life posters on a pro-life blog claim that they were coerced is not remarkable or evidence of any kind of trend.

No real woman truly WANTS an abortion.

Of course they do. I know plenty of women who wanted their abortions and are satisfied with their choice.

There are couples unable to have children who would take these babies and love them, but they aren't given the chance!

There are thousands of children waiting to be adopted in foster care RIGHT NOW. Where are all the adopting couples?

Posted by: reality at October 30, 2008 12:21 PM


Uninformed Catholics believe that if the USCCB publishes something it must be binding to U.S. Catholics. And this isn't true. Every time I hear a fellow Catholic begin a sentence with "The Bishops have said...", I roll my eyes.

I read most of the documents released by the Bishops and I take every one of them with a grain of salt. A Bishop speaks for the Catholics in his parish. U.S. Bishops do NOT speak for U.S. Catholics.

If this goes over the heads of devout Catholics, how much can we really expect the writers at RH Reality Check to?

Posted by: Cranky Catholic at October 30, 2008 12:24 PM


Also, nothing wrong with seamless garment. It just means that everything is important.
Does not mean that abortion is unimportant. Subtle difference. The seamless garment even says it is possible to have a focus, but that you must keep everything else in mind.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 30, 2008 12:14 PM

You are right, everything is important. The problem has been in the misinterpretation of the "seamless garment". I think Cardinal Bernardin wanted to make the point known that Catholics respect all issues, not that they all have equal weight.

The Church says that abortion is most important issue and only a grave moral issue can supersede abortion in making a voting decision. The "grave moral issue" might come into consideration for example if a candidate said he was pro-life but advocated the mass extermination of a segment of the population. (Obviously, he isn't really pro-life, therefore a vote for him is not a morally correct.)

Posted by: Janet at October 30, 2008 12:40 PM


This is from Rev. Chaput, archbishop of Denver, from 2007. A New York Times interview.

NYT: Archbishop Burke in St. Louis caught my attention again on Friday [October 1]. He issued a statement basically stating that it’s a sin if you vote for a pro-choice politician, I believe he was saying even if that wasn’t the reason you voted for him, that you voted for a pro-abortion politician that is still something that you ought confess. Is that…?

AB: I don’t believe that’s where you should start. The place to start would be, does our voting for someone make us responsible for what that person does as a legislator or as a judge?…And the answer is yes, because we are in some ways materially -- we use the word “materially” -- cooperating in that person’s activity because we’ve given [him or her] the platform to be elected. Now, if the person does something wrong, are we responsible for that? Well, if we didn’t know they were going to something wrong, our participation is remote, but if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we approved of it, our responsibility would be really be close, even if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we voted for them for another reason, we would still be responsible in some ways.
The standing is that if you know someone is going to do evil and you participate in that in some way, you are responsible. So it’s not…“if you vote this way, should you go to confession?” The question is, “if you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?” Now, if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes. There’s a more sophisticated thing here…it’s not so crude. The reason I want to stress that is because it is not like bishops are issuing edicts about who should vote for whom. It’s issuing statements about how a Catholic forms her conscience, or his conscience…and remote material cooperation or proximate material cooperation is cooperation, and it’s important for Catholics to know that, to be sophisticated in their judgments.

The key statement here is:

The question is, “if you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?”

Do you think voting for Obama is cooperating with evil? I say yes. Here's why:

Barack Obama is the most extreme pro-abortion candidate ever to seek the office of President of the United States. He is the most extreme pro-abortion member of the United States Senate. Indeed, he is the most extreme pro-abortion legislator ever to serve in either house of the United States Congress. Here is why:

1. One of the most telling comments made by any candidate in either party in this election year, Senator Obama, when asked by Rick Warren when a baby gets human rights, replied: "That question is above my pay grade." It was a profoundly disingenuous answer: For even at a state senator's pay grade, Obama presumed to answer that question with blind certainty. His unspoken answer then, as now, is chilling: human beings have no rights until infancy -- and if they are unwanted survivors of attempted abortions, not even then.

2. When a bill was introduced in the United States Senate to develop an exact equivalent of embryonic stem cells without using (or producing) embryos, Barack Obama was one of the few senators who opposed a modest amount of federal money into this research. It is as if Obama is opposed to stem-cell research unless it involves killing human embryos

3. In an act of breathtaking injustice as an Illinois state senator Obama opposed legislation to protect children who are born alive, either as a result of an abortionist's unsuccessful effort to kill them in the womb, or by the deliberate delivery of the baby prior to viability. The Obama campaign lied about until critics produced documentary proof of what he had done (bornalivetruth.org).

4. Senator Obama, despite the urging of pro-life members of his own party, has not endorsed or offered support for the Pregnant Women Support Act, the signature bill of Democrats for Life. Obama has opposed key provisions of the Act, including providing coverage of unborn children, informed consent for women about the effects of abortion and the gestational age of their child. This legislation would not make a single abortion illegal. It simply seeks to make it easier for pregnant women to make the choice not to abort their babies.

5. He wishes to strip federal funding from pro-life crisis pregnancy centers that provide alternatives to abortion for pregnant women in need. There is certainly nothing "pro-choice" about that.

6. He has promised, "The first thing I'd do as President is sign the Freedom of Choice Act" (known as FOCA). This proposed legislation would create a federally guaranteed "fundamental right" to abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, including a right to abort a fully developed child in the final weeks for undefined 'health' reasons. In essence, FOCA would abolish virtually every existing state and federal limitation on abortion, including parental consent and notification laws for minors, state and federal funding restrictions on abortion, and conscience protections for pro-life citizens working in the health-care industry -- protections against being forced to participate in the practice of abortion or else lose their jobs.

7. Obama supports legislation that would repeal the Hyde Amendment, which protects pro-life citizens from having to pay for abortions that are not necessary to save the life of the mother and are not the result of rape or incest

Posted by: getthefacts at October 30, 2008 12:48 PM



'Catholics' attend Mass regularly at a rate just under 30%. You survey that 30% and you will find a different story. Guaranteed.

A 'Catholic' who does not go to Mass often might as well be surveyed as general public IMHO.

Posted by: Alex at October 30, 2008 10:17 AM

Great point. But then then MSM wouldn't be able to report the HUGE number of Catholics who ignore the Magisterium. That wouldn't be good for ratings.

Posted by: Janet at October 30, 2008 12:49 PM


HUMILITY

It takes a great deal of this to accept the Church's teachings. Let us ask ourselves - are we voting for a certain candidate because it is our will?

Posted by: Janet at October 30, 2008 1:14 PM


Liz,
You are correct. I was coerced and did not want an abortion but was not presented with any other choice and was alone in my decision. I didn't want an abortion. What I really wanted was help, support and compassion to help me face a crisis pregnancy.

Reality,
I am no longer alone in my regret of abortion. There are more than 3 of us out here. There are thousands and thousands of men and women that regret their abortions. But you can stick to your "vast majority" in an effort to diminish my story.
Toodles.

Posted by: Carla at October 30, 2008 1:44 PM


I had an abortion. I was married. I don't regret it. My husband doesn't regret it. We are still married.

This was 15 years ago. I can't say it was fun, but it was the right choice for me and I don't want other women to lose their right to make that choice.

Posted by: Wichita Linewoman at October 30, 2008 1:57 PM


"Well you are opposed to government intervention and yet I doubt charities can shoulder an extra 4000 people daily. Maybe getting them the help they need can come from things like receiving good health care on a regular basis."
Charities will do whatever it takes and your right health care would be a great start and we can talk about that topic as soon as we stop killing babies.
What we no longer need to do as pro-lifers is to defend the pro life position to people who think killing babies is ok and usually good and desirable for the mother. Lots of people think racism is ok. Many people think torture is ok but we don't have to sit here and defend ourselves over and over again about it. Pro abortionists are just as extreme as anyone who is pro racist, pro torture, pro rape. I am sick and tired of debating something so obviously evil.

Posted by: Jeff at October 30, 2008 2:04 PM


Liz, Liz, Liz, typical rightist incomplete thinking. So here's a more real scenario for you to deal with.

Let's start with: those who are underage having children - childcare while they finish high school for starters, then college. That's how much $$$$? And housing, healthcare, food and transportation.

Most charitable maternity homes don't house single moms beyond the child's first birthday.

Then tuition for those institutions $$$$$
And if they're just not smart enough to complete those courses, or they have a second, third, fourth or fifth child? It's back to square one with each child, right?

And we'll handle married couples who are low income - how? Let's take an employed but at the poverty line family living in a 2 bedroom apt. - all they can afford- hubby loses job - no bc, cause your side says so - just NFP - and she gets pregnant - your solution is? They already have at least a couple or more kids. Money for food and apt will come from? And then money for larger apt for the more kids?

BTW unemployment is expected to hit 7.5 percent in 2009.

Posted by: phylosopher at October 30, 2008 2:24 PM


Here is a direct quote from Cardinal Bernardin's message for Respect Life Sunday, October 1st, 1989:

"Not all values, however, are of equal weight. Some are more fundamental than others. On this Respect Life Sunday, I wish to emphasize that no earthly value is more fundamental than human life itself. Human life is the condition for enjoying freedom and all other values. Consequently, if one must choose between protecting or serving lesser human values that depend upon life for their existence and life itself, human life must take precedence."

It's so easy to misuse the Consistent of Ethic of Life and so easy to correct the abuse when it happens.

Posted by: Andrew at October 30, 2008 3:15 PM


phylosopher

Seemingly by your reasoning, why not kill children that already exist that are a "burden"? One could come up with circumstance after circumstance and who will decide which situation is dire enough to kill. Your post is not relevant to whether or not abortion is killing. Your post is saying that some situations are bad enough where we can justify killing.

Posted by: Jeff at October 30, 2008 3:28 PM


phylosipher

My sister told me about a unwed mothers home in the city where she lives. They take unwed mothers in need that are 19 years and older. They have parenting classes, a social worker on staff,help the mothers get jobs, find a place to live, etc.



Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 30, 2008 3:43 PM


"and we can talk about that topic as soon as we stop killing babies."

Why not do it at the same time?

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 30, 2008 3:47 PM


"Why not do it at the same time?"

I hope we can and we should, however one of the reasons is because some want to have abortion covered and that just can't happen.

Posted by: Jeff at October 30, 2008 3:59 PM


Money for food and apt will come from?

Phylo,

There are so many places for people to get help. Sometimes the hardest part is just asking.

My church has a Transistional Housing Ministry that does very much the same that Liz mentioned in her post. Finds housing, clothing, transportation, employment, food stamps, for families and continues to help them until they are self sufficient.

While on the subject...many of these ministries take car donations and give the cars to families who can not keep a job if they don't have transpotation. Anyone should keep this in mind when they have an older car they no longer need.

Treating children as a burden is no way for us to think. Just ask a parent who has four children (gasp!) if they could imagine their life without children #3 and #4.

Posted by: Janet at October 30, 2008 4:00 PM


Janet et al,

Your posts show how reliance of the government system of wealth redistribution is a necessity so ingrained that you don't even realize you are including it in your catalog of "charity."

Where do you think the funding for those food stamps comes from? the USDA

Housing? In many cases, HUD housing, or section 8.

So, even today, with your charitable institutions, the reliance is on the gov't. Add the many more undesired pregnancies and resultant children to the mix which would be the case if your draconian anti abortion and anti-bc policies were in effect, and yep, there would be a lot more need to spread the wealth - just to have a subsistence level for many more.

As before - good luck with selling that plan to the American people.

Posted by: phylosopher at October 30, 2008 4:24 PM


If we establish abortion as an "elective surgical procedure" (like cosmetic surgery) then that shouldn't be a problem because stuff like that isn't covered on most insurance plans.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 30, 2008 4:34 PM


Jeff,
Your convoluted twisting of words shows a proclivity for fallacious strawman arguments which generally aren't worthy of response - but you get one freebie:

Of course I (and Barack Obama) don't support killing of children, Jill's lies notwithstanding. Banning abortion would actually strengthen that strawman argument, BTW.

With BC, a woman has the right to refuse in a menaingful way, pregnancy - be that from a rapist, or a husband or other male who won't take no for an answer. In the case of younger women, that's even a no to her own raging hormones and maternal fantasies.
However, all birth control - natural or artificial, barrier or hormonal can fail. But...

With abortion legal, the woman has had additional time to make a choice. That choice ends assuredly at birth and yes, I (with Barack Obama,) do agree that there can be restrictions on late term abortion with appropriate acceptions for the life and health of the mother - and yes (Barack Obama also agrees with this) even a narrow definintion of life and health, limiting, but not excluding mental health.

However, in the case of born infants whose continued long term viability is questionable whether due to extreme prematurity or other abnormaility, then the decision for heroic measures rests with the next of kin - the parents.

Posted by: phylosopher at October 30, 2008 4:40 PM


Oh, and Janet:

It wasn't so long ago that parents were forced to make such decisions (and still are today in many countries.) Children farmed out to relatives as their parents couldn't afford to feed all of them - if you check, there are probably a few stories like this in your own families. Those that didn't have extended families were given up for adoption. Those Orphan Train stories are a brilliant expose - some ended up well, some were disasters of all kinds - from mediocre "not loved or nurtured as a child should be" to child slave labor, rape and abuse.

Unreliable and hodgepodge charities are insufficient. We have reliable means of limiting family size. Many types of birth control - and abortion as a last resort when those fail - or the pregnancy goes awry.

Posted by: phylosopher at October 30, 2008 4:50 PM


"I read that and wondered who are they beholden to then?"

To their own personal desires, carnal and otherwise. In other words, these "Catholics" are beholden to the original rebel instead of the obedient Son.

Posted by: John Lewandowski at October 30, 2008 5:12 PM


phylosopher,
"Your convoluted twisting of words shows a proclivity for fallacious strawman arguments which generally aren't worthy of response - but you get one freebie:"

Intellectual intimidation won't work-talk about the twisting of words. All your words mean nothing. I am talking about the physical integrity of a human being, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Posted by: Jeff at October 30, 2008 5:36 PM


Phylo,
So you are really arguing for birth control, not abortion?

Posted by: Janet at October 30, 2008 5:49 PM


Both Janet,
I'm of the safe, legal, rare school. And certainly one way to get there is better bc.

The silliness and outright lies I've seen on this and other sites like it condemning birth control in teh midst of an anti-aboriton fight has got to the height of stupidity.

Posted by: phylosopher at October 30, 2008 6:42 PM


Phylo @ 6:42,

Both Janet, I'm of the safe, legal, rare school. And certainly one way to get there is better bc.

The silliness and outright lies I've seen on this and other sites like it condemning birth control in teh midst of an anti-aboriton fight has got to the height of stupidity.

Well, we are not all cut from the same mold, so to speak, and we don't all have to agree on everything - thank goodness!

SAFE, LEGAL, and RARE - Just a thought - I think I read somewhere that about half of all abortions are a result of failed birth control. It follows then, that birth control isn't the only answer to less abortion. No one wants to talk about abstinence. Now what? Instead of getting mad at pro-lifers, why don't PC'rs get mad about the real problem - too many abortions?

Posted by: Janet at October 30, 2008 7:31 PM


"With BC, a woman has the right to refuse in a menaingful way, pregnancy - be that from a rapist, or a husband or other male who won't take no for an answer. In the case of younger women, that's even a no to her own raging hormones and maternal fantasies."

Phylo, sounds like a fallacious strawman argument to me!

Posted by: Eileen #2 at October 30, 2008 9:36 PM


Birth control increases the risk for certain cancers and can damage fertility for when a woman WANTS to conceive, especially after prolonged use.

Rare? 1.2 Million a year is NOT "rare". And I am sure many of those were because of failed contraception as Janet pointed out.

Posted by: LizFromNebraska at October 30, 2008 10:15 PM


"Birth control increases the risk for certain cancers"

...and decreases the risk for other cancers. Keep in mind that many other drugs also can have the same effect. Some medicines have side effects. Women should be fully aware of them before taking the medication. If women want to take the risk..

"and can damage fertility for when a woman WANTS to conceive, especially after prolonged use."
Hey, did you know the reason the pill was made was actually to HELP women conceive? In fact in some ways the pill actually helps women stay fertile even if she contracts an STD because the diminished lining helps prevent the disease from reaching the tubes- and subsequently women on the pill have 50% less PID. Only 1% of women that went off the pill had fertility issues--pretty low margin. Here is a new study on fertility:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=81003

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 30, 2008 11:12 PM


phylo, do your posts come across as if you have dual personalities. You say abortion should be RARE. And then I look at your October 30, 2008 2:24 PM. All about NOT helping a girl choose life because of the economic costs. And your post at October 30, 2008 4:24 PM. Pro-abort because you don't want to have to pay for food stamps to feed the woman and her child.

And your nlegal idea is a really bad idea if you want to keep the homocide of the unborn RARE. We don't need laws giving a people the choice to commit homocide. It is our governments job to protect the most fundamental of rights, especially for the vulnerable, and the most fundamental of rights is the right to life.

Posted by: truthseeker at October 31, 2008 2:26 AM


Witchy Woman,
How old was your baby when you had him/her killed? Have you and your husband of fifteen years had any other children together? If so, what ages are they? Your own flesh and blood, your baby never got the chance to grow up.
grow up and fulfill his or her own dreams? Do you honesly expect us to believe you really have NO regrets about that?

Posted by: truthseeker at October 31, 2008 2:27 AM


PIP - a lone voice of sanity in the anti-choice desert. Goo luck in keeping yours in that hostile environment - g'night.
Posted by: phylosopher at October 30, 2008 11:23 PM

pip, how come you never let pro-aborts like phylo have it for her lack of willingness to provide for the needs of women who don't want to abort but who do because they are scared and don't have the means to support themselves and their baby? Where is your conviction?

Posted by: truthseeker at October 31, 2008 2:34 AM


ts

...what? Often I leave conversations between 2 people alone because I don't want to butt in, I just like to listen. Nothing wrong with that. I occasionally intervene if I want to make a specific point.

Just because I am listening ts does not mean I don't have conviction. Just because I don't call Hal evil on a regular basis doesn't mean I have no conviction.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 31, 2008 7:48 AM


So, does Jill now propose to outlaw contraception?

Posted by: HuckFinn at October 31, 2008 11:05 AM


Where do you see that, Huck?

Posted by: Bobby Bambino at October 31, 2008 11:22 AM


Bobby,

Jill claims that "widespread contraceptive availability" is a major factor in the abortion rate. Leaving aside the dubious merits of this argument, I'm curious what should propose to do about it.

Regarding the Consistent Ethic of Life, it's true that liberals are guilty of distorting this concept, but it's also true that conservatives generally fall far short of defending the poor and oppressed, protecting the environment, etc. McCain's bold leadership on global warming is a refreshing departure from Republican orthodoxy.

Posted by: HuckFinn at October 31, 2008 1:15 PM


o.k. pip, but when someone like phylo so consistently goes against your beliefs of providing support for pregnant womens choice to keep their baby , and then uses your name as a source of reasonabiliy, I think you might want to let her know how unreasonable she is too. Phylo is not pro-choice, she is pro death while on birth control.

Posted by: truthseeker at October 31, 2008 2:11 PM


ts,

Maybe if phylo sees how reasonable being a pro-lifer is, she would be more likely to see our side and even one day join us here. The problem of many pro-lifers here is not in their arguments but approach. If changing minds is the goal, condemnation isn't the way to go. Starts with a sense of respect and identifying the main concerns and addressing them rationally.

Posted by: prettyinpink at October 31, 2008 3:52 PM


to alex's first post: you might be right but I don't know.
There are lots of Catholic's who contracept and who still attend Mass and go to receive Holy Communion.

Posted by: Patricia at October 31, 2008 4:49 PM


just check out the difference between the line-ups for confession (zero) and the line-ups for communion.....

Posted by: Patricia at October 31, 2008 4:50 PM


Patricia, alex,
My church has placed a priority on having priests available for confessions (even during masses) several days of the week. It has been wonderful and there are lines!!! It is truly a blessing.

Posted by: Janet at October 31, 2008 6:18 PM


truth seeker - the way to find truth is to read carefully, for starters.

PIP, my guess is you can jump in anytime, because I belive you've made similar arguments.

I'm not the one with the split personality - conservatives are. I didn't say that women shouldn't be supported - as a matter of fact, I've brought up European style support a numbe rof times - and that is generally met with gasps (garlic necklaces and silver bullets) of "SOCIALISM!"

So, what I was pointing out was the irony that you ultra-right fundies are now claiming (LIzfrom Nebreaska post) that low income pregnant women should be supported, which is going to take $$$$ - at the same time your candidates (McShameful and Failin' Palin) are criticizing Obama for taxation of the rich $250K+ in order to support low-income folks. McShameful raises the "socialist" spector rather routinely and (mostly) your side buys it.

So if you think the American public is going to buy the support argument - when your leaders use it against the other side, I suggest you listen, too. I can already hear the cries of "Welfare Queen" and "why should I pay for that slut to keep breeding?"....

Posted by: phylosopher at November 1, 2008 3:47 PM


So if you think the American public is going to buy the support argument - when your leaders use it against the other side, I suggest you listen, too. I can already hear the cries of "Welfare Queen" and "why should I pay for that slut to keep breeding?"....

Posted by: phylosopher at November 1, 2008 3:47 PM

Let's take away public funding from Planned Parenthood and give it directly to pre-natal care for women. As the story today on PPSWFLA suggested, there are plenty of wealthy supporters who can fill their coffers to the brim with out our extra tax dollars.
The American public would most likely support that.

I don't think pro-lifers would have any problems with more babies in the world.
Some abstinence education could help reduce the number of unwed mothers.

Posted by: Janet at November 1, 2008 5:35 PM


So, what I was pointing out was the irony that you ultra-right fundies are now claiming (LIzfrom Nebreaska post) that low income pregnant women should be supported, which is going to take $$$$ - at the same time your candidates (McShameful and Failin' Palin) are criticizing Obama for taxation of the rich $250K+ in order to support low-income folks. McShameful raises the "socialist" spector rather routinely and (mostly) your side buys it.

phylo,
If you are all about helping the poor, then why do you promote killing the babies of the poor? Myself, I am FOR keeping my tax dollars so I can help said poor as I see fit rather than the government taking my tax dollars and using it to fund abortion or whatever they see fit. I work for the money so I should get to distribute it. I should get to give it to a crisis pregnancy center or a reigious mission etc. You on the other hand want the government to get tke it and redistribute as they see fit. That is the difference. Another difference is I would never disrespect an unborn life by seeking that lifes destruction because it would cost too much for the mother to keep said child. I want to help these women and tehir children, and that is why I don't want people like you and Barack Obama in charge of my tax dollars or trying to increase the amount of tax dollars you take from me. human life by seeking

Posted by: truthseeker at November 2, 2008 2:47 PM