'Wanted: Pro-Life Democrats. Enough of this “big tent” Catholicism . . .'

[CrusaderKing]

i'm sorry, next time you're faced with a 20% survival rate i'll ask you how clsoe to death you feel. bottom line is she felt she had no other recourse. would i as a Catholic been a 'better' Catholic ahd i admonished her and made her feel like garbage for killing her child? things are not always black adn white and unless you're in the situation yourself it's hard to say how one would react.

For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it. - Mark 8:35

We don't make this up.

 

[SaintGeorge]

Q: Kimber, pro choice is pro abortion. When you say you are pro choice what choice do you want???

A: maybe the choice to make your own decision, not one mandated by the gpvernment?

For all intents and purposes, it is the duty of the government to restrict personal decisions insofar as to insure the general well-being and public pease. That is what a government is: a concesion of some personal freedom in exchange for order and security. Thus, the choice to make one's own decision in matters of theft, murder, and so forth are indeed mandated by the government. They are mandated in the negative. Abortion endangers society by introducing ambiguity into the definition of human life, as does secularization. This ambiguity is directly in opposition to each of our own personal interests, because it can easily be used as a platform argument to eliminate us if convenient. Abortion is, albeit, only an indirect influence on most of us, however, when you go to the hospital and are told that "your condition of life is below standard" and the doctor moves to give you a lethal injection, you will understand how any and all ambiguity in regards to the idea of life is a direct threat. Sterilization of the disabled, elimination of the Jews in Nazi Germany, and genocide have their common origin in an ambiguity being introduced into the ancient dogma of what constitutes human life.

i'm sorry, next time you're faced with a 20% survival rate i'll ask you how clsoe to death you feel. bottom line is she felt she had no other recourse. would i as a Catholic been a 'better' Catholic ahd i admonished her and made her feel like garbage for killing her child? things are not always black adn white and unless you're in the situation yourself it's hard to say how one would react.

20% chance of survival you say? Wow, some heart surgeries have worse odds. 1 out of 5 is not bad. Many soldiers are envious of your friends odds. In any case, love calls us to take risks. If we aren't willing to take a 20% chance to save another's life, what kind of Christians are we? Are not all human beings our friends? Are we not all brothers and sisters, having Adam and Eve as our common parents?

This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you.

Do you not see? By commanding us to love our friends as much as Jesus loves us, God is commanding that we ourselves put our lives on the line for them, just as he did for us. What better friends are there than a mother and her daughter? And with a 20% chance of survival, who wouldn't risk saving a friend, or a son, or a daughter? If anyone would be unwilling to save their child, even if that person would survive the effort to save their child 1 out of 5 times, please post. Indeed, what parent wouldn't attempt to save their child even if they had a 1 out of 100 chance of success?

If you are not willing to sacrifice your life, you are not a friend of Jesus. It is not I who say this, but Christ Himself: "You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you."

 

[Davidnic]

I think the main question here from the OP is:

Why is it that in many cases the Democratic leadership (usually on the Catholic side) try to profess the big tent ideology and try and claim a pro-life framework and yet that pro-life framework does not include those who do not support Abortion on demand.

It is not the case of the party line being that abortion should be allowed in grave conditions, but the party line is that it should be on demand without restriction. Those elected can "personally dislike it" but they can not oppose it. And if that is opposed in any real way the people who do so are pushed out of the party of given only a token role.

And that is a good question that casts any statement on life by Catholic elected officials of the party into a suspect light. Much the same has happened to those on the conservative side who speak against the death penalty and for compassionate immigration laws.

The country is splitting into two polarized elected camps and both only support Christian values (with some exceptions) when they are a political advantage.

 

[ufonium2]

It's amazing how much a doctor's personal beliefs can influence his or her diagnosis. I have a defect in my uterus that wasn't discovered until the birth of my son. The doctor who performed the c-section told me, on the operating table as i was being stitched up, that I shouldn't have any more kids because it could kill me. The next day, I was told that I could have maybe one more, but I would need to wait years before trying. When I finally got to see my OB, who has six kids himself, he said, "I don't see what the big deal is. All we have to do is keep an eye on it the next time, and you'll be fine. I wouldn't be mad if you showed up six months from now pregnant again."

 

[Voegelin]

A pro-life Democratic party would be such a wonderful thing. I eagerly hope that such a party could on any scale become more prevalent.

It once existed. Which is why Democrats had a two to one voter registration advantage in the early 1960s. Even after Roe, after the infamous 1974 Democratic Convention at which the party found about a third of its delegates to be self-identified secularists of one sort or the other, the realignment didn't happen over night. When Carter was President, Democrats had more of a majority in the House of Representatives than Republicans had seats. Tip O'Neils buddies, Catholic blue collar workers , in large part gave Democrats that majority. Abortion, Welfare and now Euthanasia and Gay Marriage drive them away (to his credit, Clinton, after much anguish, took away welfare as an issue which was alienating millions).

Of course Protestants made the same move. It is stunning to read congressional speeches by Protestant Democrats during the New Deal. Referring to the faith and quoting from the Old and New Testaments didn't raise any eyebrows. It was expected. When he accepted the Democratic nomination for president in 1952, Adlai Stevenson quoted Matthew 26:42. Try to imagine that today (especially from a Republican. The media would claim the candidate had a Messianic complex).

It would not take much for Catholics to restore the Democratic party. Catholics are the swing vote in American politics. Whoever receives 51% of the Catholic vote probably is elected President. Above 52% it is virtually a sure thing. LBJ received 60% in 1964 and the landslide made Republicans in Congress into potted plants. They had no power to do anything. If one Catholic in ten who voted Democrat in 2004 told the party no mas, no fooling around, no more nice sounding speeches such as Mario Cuomo was famous for, if one in ten told the party to take action on the non-negotiable issues or they were voting GOP in 2008, the Democratic party would have no choice but to drop the rhetoric and get serious.

Personally, I don't want this to happen. Naturally I would prefer every Catholic in the country become a Republican. I believe the Catholic principle of subsidiarity is best reflected in the Republican Party. But....if I had to choose one or the other, there is no choice. A Democratic party which reflected the social teachings (all of them) of the Catholic church would be, while not as good as a Republican party which did that, still wonderful.

 

[scraparcs]

I can't put partisanship ahead of the Church. Thus, if the Democrats were to better reflect Catholic teaching, then so should we all consider being Democrats.

I don't even remember what party I'm registered with anymore. I changed every few years in protest of primary election laws for so long I forget.

 

[Voegelin]

I believe abortion is a horrible sin, murder, and should be made illegal. I'm also a Democrat. Why? Because I've realized, people, that the Republicans, as a whole, don't care any more about "family values" about abortion than the Democrats do. Since both parties don't really care about "family values" and "moral values" I'll vote Democratic 9 times out of 10.

If Republicans don't care, why do they nominate the justices they do to the Supreme Court ?

Charles Schumer and Ralph Neas think the GOP is serious. They waged the filibuster campaign against Miguel Estrada and others. Schumer warned darkly of "theocrats" (i.e. Catholics) sitting on the bench if Republican nominees were confirmed.

If there is no difference, why does Emily's List, PFAW, NARAL and N.O.W spend of millions of dollars supporting Democrats and zero dollars supporting Republicans? Who do pro-life groups spend the money they do on Republican candidates for office?

 

[Fantine]

If Republicans don't care, why do they nominate the justices they do to the Supreme Court ?

Much of the time it's because those justices are OK with taking away rights from workers and the disabled, observing the wholesale rape of the environment, and deregulating business so that their fat-cat friends will be happy....

If there is no difference, why does Emily's List, PFAW, NARAL and N.O.W spend of millions of dollars supporting Democrats and zero dollars supporting Republicans? Who do pro-life groups spend the money they do on Republican candidates for office?

Could it be that these pro-life groups are actually "pro-birth," with little concern for social justice for the already alive?

Why are pro-lifers so undemanding of those candidates who tell them they're "pro-life?" This is a democracy, and we, the voters, have the right to expect a lot from the candidates we elect.

Those of you who are telling Democrats to demand more of their candidates should demand more of Republican candidates, too.....

Republican pro-life candidates, if you want MY vote, you're going to have to earn it by changing a significant number of your other positions.

 

[stivvy]

First off, this whole concept of Liberal Pro-Life is an oxymoron. Can't exist by the nature of liberalism. Second, financially the liberal platform is supported by nearly 100% pro-choice, pro-infant-death organizations. There is an agenda there. It is one of the largest planks of the platform and the platform cannot stand without that support.

.... her only options were abortion or death. how would YOU decide? ....

We are sooo lacking in FAITH in God in our everyday practice of Christianity that it is sickening. The opther option someone should seek is God and faith in His WILL!

... This is a democracy, and we, the voters, have the right to expect a lot from the candidates we elect...

This is not a democrcy, this is a republic. Majority doesn't rule, the rights of the human way rules. That goes for the rights of the unborn who cannot fight for themselves.

It was questioned earlier, why should the government step in on a personal issue such as abortion. The answer is because the baby cannot defend itself, so that is the job of the government to "Do for the people what they CANNOT do for themselves".

 

[Kepha]

It's amazing how much a doctor's personal beliefs can influence his or her diagnosis. I have a defect in my uterus that wasn't discovered until the birth of my son. The doctor who performed the c-section told me, on the operating table as i was being stitched up, that I shouldn't have any more kids because it could kill me. The next day, I was told that I could have maybe one more, but I would need to wait years before trying. When I finally got to see my OB, who has six kids himself, he said, "I don't see what the big deal is. All we have to do is keep an eye on it the next time, and you'll be fine. I wouldn't be mad if you showed up six months from now pregnant again."

This is a nice post because it's knowledge showing how we should all try to know our doctor. A pro abortion doc will most likey have in mind only one patient while a pro life one will have both patient and baby in his mind giving you the entire outlook on it.

Regarding Pro abortion is not black and white" well Pro life is. If your for it, your for it all the way 100 percent. That's the very defintion of it. For Life. No and's, if's or but's.

 

[Davidnic]

Why are pro-lifers so undemanding of those candidates who tell them they're "pro-life?" This is a democracy, and we, the voters, have the right to expect a lot from the candidates we elect.

Those of you who are telling Democrats to demand more of their candidates should demand more of Republican candidates, too.....

Republican pro-life candidates, if you want MY vote, you're going to have to earn it by changing a significant number of your other positions.

And as a Republican I agree. Pro-life is not a single issue but Abortion is the most vital because it in central to the culture of death and it attacks those who have no way other than the efforts of others to protect themselves and the main victims are totally innocent.

But Republicans should support an anti-abortion Republicans and the next questions should be:

What is your position on immigration and the people already here?

Just war?

Exploitation of the poor on a global scale both by America and others?

End of life care?

Post adoption support?

We, Democrat or Republican Catholics, do not need to settle for half measures. And step one is to stand united on the core issues.

 

[Voegelin]

financially the liberal platform is supported by nearly 100% pro-choice, pro-infant-death organizations. There is an agenda there. It is one of the largest planks of the platform and the platform cannot stand without that support.

Think you hit at the heart of the problem. I simply cannot fathom how the Democratic Party became so indebted to a very small group of people. My parents were Democrats, they weren't on the same page as what the party is today. Nowhere close.

Without this select group of very wealthy pro-choice individuals, the party would not be a national force. Emily's list donors drive the agenda. George Soros has given more, far more, to Democrats than any donor has given to a party in American history. He gave over $25 million in 2004. Bing, Lewis and the Sandlers--all very much pro-choice--chipped in another $50 million. There is no other side to this. No countervailing monetary force. Soros funds "Project on Death in America", "Catholics for a Free Choice" and similiar operations. How can a Catholic Democrat accept money from George Soros? I don't get it.

 

[krstlros]

A pro-life Democratic party would be such a wonderful thing. I eagerly hope that such a party could on any scale become more prevalent.

I agree totally.

The problem with the "Pro-Life" connotation, is that people automatically think of abortion. On the contrary, "Pro-Life" involves so much more.

"Pro-Life" encompasses every single aspect of 'Life" fron conception to death. Yes, I can hear the argument that fighting "abortion" is more important in the preservation of life. However, until you can deal with the everyday "life" issues that are happening, there are many who do not feel that "abortion" is on the top of the scale of importance.

We all have "choices", which is what "Pro-Choice" is all about. The ability to choose. To exercise that God-given right to "choose". Whether one agrees or not with the "Choices" each of us makes, that's another story all together.

 

[stivvy]

.... there are many who do not feel that "abortion" is on the top of the scale of importance.

50,000,000 (that is million) lives snuffed out would beg to differ that it isn't important. We must put an end to the genicide!

We all have "choices", which is what "Pro-Choice" is all about. The ability to choose. To exercise that God-given right to "choose". Whether one agrees or not with the "Choices" each of us makes, that's another story all together

Where is the baby's choice? Where?

That is ok, God will make His choice on the pro-infant-murders' souls and those that turn their backs on LIFE at the last judgement. That includes all the luke warm "christians" that vote, support those who make the law, run and do the abortions and all the rest who just plain old ignore those 50,000,000 souls that will stare back at you from behind Gods thrown and ask "why did you let them kill me". For it is written, 'So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I WILL SPIT YOU OUT of My mouth! And I am sure that abortion will be on His high priority list.

 

[CrusaderKing]

"Pro-Life" encompasses every single aspect of 'Life" fron conception to death. Yes, I can hear the argument that fighting "abortion" is more important in the preservation of life. However, until you can deal with the everyday "life" issues that are happening, there are many who do not feel that "abortion" is on the top of the scale of importance.

You won't find very many people disagreeing with the notion that "pro-life" encompasses much more than just being anti-abortion, but it also implies being against capital punishment and euthanasia. Being in favor of movements that would improve the quality of life are also a plus. But when the movement against abortion is undermined out of pursuit of just improving the quality of life, we gain nothing.

We all have "choices", which is what "Pro-Choice" is all about. The ability to choose. To exercise that God-given right to "choose". Whether one agrees or not with the "Choices" each of us makes, that's another story all together.

Freedom of choice is not the same as license. Freedom permits us to worship God freely. This is not the same as license. Just because we are capable of murder does not give us the license to murder; nor do we have the license to commit the most grievous of crimes.

Just because it was legal in Nazi Germany to herd Jews, clergy, political dissidents and prisoners of war into concentration camps and gas them does not mean the Nazis were doing the right thing. It's not a matter of "disagreeing/agreeing with choices," but a clear recognition of the universal morality taught by our faith. The culture of death thrives on lukewarmness. To be lukewarm is to invite the tyranny of Satan.

 

[Fantine]

I accidentally erased my response and have no time right now. Sorry.

 

[salt_of_the_earth]

I'm not American... but if I were, I'd be a democrat...

 

[Caedmon]

If I had to choose, I'd classify myself politically as Democrat. I also believe that terminating life in the womb is a grave sin. Does that make me a "pro-life Democrat"? I wouldn't call myself that. The pro-life/pro-choice label dichotomy doesn't mean much to me. You can call yourself "pro-life," oppose abortion, and still have no problem with depriving people of life in other ways.