Prolife Progress

[dairygirl4u2c]

the only things the prolife movement can take credit for, per the law, at least at the federal level.... is actually not that much.
'infants born alive' act was passed unanimously and almost with total support from democrats.
'partial birth abortion' act was more of just an ideological victory- the abortions don't stop, they just have to change the way they do them.
'stem cell bans' it's more concrete than merely ideological, but it's still effectively just another ideological victory. are nice for a theoretical and theological ban... ie, ya can't do tests on embryos, even though the embryos were already created for in vitro fertilization procedures that never happened. but it doesn't get around the fact that the embryos were being created anyway, and letting to die. you could score one for 'the ends dont justify the means. period.' but as a practical matter, nothing really changed.

what progress has the prolife movement really done, at the federal level?

Edited September 29, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[MichaelFilo]

What kind of pessimistic nonsense is this ? Those are actually achievements you listed. I would argue that the pro-life movement should fail on the federal level but succeed on the state level because it is not the role of the federal government to legislate legal issues like these.

The only true federal accomplishment is to nullify the Roe vs Wade nonesense. Federal judges went way over their jurisdiction.

[dairygirl4u2c]

this thread was made in response to 'can you be a catholic and vote obama' thread.
you're making my points. if it's not obvious, i'm arguing that it's not like people should be all up and arms about thinking abortion is changing any time soon, at least at the federal level. there's progress, but nothing that's significant. i'm mainly making these points, cause people seem to think voting prolife only, on the federal level, is acctually accomplishing something, which is mistaken. perhaps at certain points, voting prolife only may have changed something, Roe, but it's not the case right now or any time soon.
there are no signs that Roe v Wade is goin anywhere any time soon. am i mistaken? you're welcome to try and show me i'm mistaken, but i'm not.
maybe vote prolife on the state level, and up for grabs federally? maybe, check your state for effectiveness, and whether that approach will actually accomplish much there. the large majority of law is set up through Roe, so it's not like any state legilsations are going to change much, by and large.

[MichaelFilo]

Those of us who believe in human rights and the American system of government know that the states can annul unconstitutional power grabs by the feds. We live in an era where this might come about from some states, overruling the judge's decision as being overreaching his jurisdiction.

The federal level should not be "up for grabs." It should not be in the issue. The federal government has no right to dictate anything on the issue as found in the constitution.

[dairygirl4u2c]

-it sounds like you have some pretty unrealistic hopes there, but more power to you. as long as everyone else realizes it's unrealistic, and probably strictly relegated to a state or two. states don't try to trump what the supreme court says, even if they are 'right'. they just dont. at least that im aware of. at least on things like this issue.
-it doesn't matter what you or i think 'ought' to be the case at the federal level, it is what it is. it's a side point, what we think. it doesn't affect how realistic anyone's being about the likelihood that abortion is going to change anytime soon, or whether it's permissible to vote for obama.

[MichaelFilo]

Well, we will see on the realism of those claims. The States do sometimes violate the dictates of the court, at least historically. You do have a point that it is highly unlikely.

In terms of the federal level, we are facing the biggest resurgence of love for the American Constitution. I would be amazed if the last century of American politics is not called into review. Roe vs Wade will be on the table, I assure you, if the constitutionalist and libertarian movements picks up speed.

[Maggyie]

Unfortunately many libertarians do not agree with us about abortion. Their philosophy is exactly the opposite. It also should be noted that the Tea Party movement is about fiscal conservativism, not social conservatisim.

[MichaelFilo]

No disagreement there, for many libertarians it is a right to privacy issue, but that is always cured when the realization exists that it is a right to life issue. Ron Paul is one such libertarian who recognizes the latter. In fact, a good many libertarian leaders are pro life, but the followers are not.

The fiscal conservatism is not rooted in anything but our constitution. Our constitution lends itself emphatically towards the protection of human life, because it's basic premise is human dignity. It is amazing to me that Catholics have been so loathe to advocate the constitutional government we inherited here while protestants have, because our very founding and our founders believed in the highest forms of human dignity. So, the movement maybe about money, but it comes unmistakably from our Constitution and in that document, along with our declaration, is the principals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287496767' post='2180665']
No disagreement there, for many libertarians it is a right to privacy issue, but that is always cured when the realization exists that it is a right to life issue. Ron Paul is one such libertarian who recognizes the latter. In fact, a good many libertarian leaders are pro life, but the followers are not.

The fiscal conservatism is not rooted in anything but our constitution. Our constitution lends itself emphatically towards the protection of human life, because it's basic premise is human dignity. It is amazing to me that Catholics have been so loathe to advocate the constitutional government we inherited here while protestants have, because our very founding and our founders believed in the highest forms of human dignity. So, the movement maybe about money, but it comes unmistakably from our Constitution and in that document, along with our declaration, is the principals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
[/quote]

Interestingly the Founders were very enamoured of Enlightenment philosophy, which in many ways is irreconcilable with the Catholic point of view. But I get your point that it was a big step forward for human dignity - or what the world considers human dignity, anyway.

[havok579257]

voting only for pro life canidates is not soley because we think the laws will get changed. it is a sin plain and simple to vote for a canidate who supports abortion. if you truly suscribe to the catholic church as the ultimate authority from God, then you can not vote pro abortion canidates into office. if you do, your going against God.

[MichaelFilo]

It is not absolute as that, but I agree.

If there was a candidate who supported abortion in the case of rape and wanted peace with other nations vs a candidate who supported nuking the middle east but was against abortion we might rightly be justified to vote for the former. I know it hasn't come up in our politics, but you understand it isn't so absolute.

But I really like the idea that we vote pro life because they are pro-life. But what about the third option, the option to remove that right to decide from the federal government and return it to the state. There are many libertarians, for instance, who want to give women the right to murder their own babies in the womb, but would be strongly against imposing it from Washington. Would it be OK to vote for them?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287505616' post='2180708']
It is not absolute as that, but I agree.

If there was a candidate who supported abortion in the case of rape and wanted peace with other nations vs a candidate who supported nuking the middle east but was against abortion we might rightly be justified to vote for the former. I know it hasn't come up in our politics, but you understand it isn't so absolute.

But I really like the idea that we vote pro life because they are pro-life. But what about the third option, the option to remove that right to decide from the federal government and return it to the state. There are many libertarians, for instance, who want to give women the right to murder their own babies in the womb, but would be strongly against imposing it from Washington. Would it be OK to vote for them?
[/quote]

I don't think so. The principle is the same.

[MichaelFilo]

If they are running on the federal level and want the federal govt to get out of the business but they are supporters of abortion, where does the problem arise? I don't care about the war stance my governor takes because he has no say in the war stance. Same principal?

We must be practical. Being wrong about abortion in fact but still supporting an agenda that is more pro-life than the current shouldn't mean you don't get picked by Catholics.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='havok579257' timestamp='1287504055' post='2180699']
voting only for pro life canidates is not soley because we think the laws will get changed. it is a sin plain and simple to vote for a canidate who supports abortion. if you truly suscribe to the catholic church as the ultimate authority from God, then you can not vote pro abortion canidates into office. if you do, your going against God.
[/quote]

as fio said, it's not as absolute as this. at least, it's not the official stance that it is this absolute.
it's not unreasonable to say "it's like trying to justify the means with the end", but then we get into situations, at least hypothetically, and probably even realisically similiar, where two percent of the population thinks Roe is wrong or who are prolife, and yet we're required to vote that way anyways?
it's actually a lot more complicated than this, even, cause we start seeing how trying to make absolutes such as havok is doing, starts leading to all kinds of weird results. (i can start forming other hypoheticals that make the point) if you are interested, i can dig that thread up where this debate occurred.
but for most practical purposes, it's a limited view to folks like havok, and not even most catholics who are 'good catholics', and not even the official view of the catholic church, that one "must" vote for the prolife candidate, despite any other possible condition or context.

[dairygirl4u2c]

id argue most libertarians should (and i'd guess by and large would, though im not sure of the trend within libertarian movements) say this is a state issue, so it is a matter of getting rid of Roe. if it were me, i'd probably make it a state issue, if i were the judge. i might do something similar to Roe, but it woldnt be at all nearly so lenient, and would be a whole lot more state oriented.
a judge could take the position that all life is protected, via the constitution, and that involves from conception. but as a judge, i couldnt and wouldnt go that far. more power to that judge, i guess. this is a very small amount of conservatives who'd take this position, at least academic conservatives. (most lay people think in terms of making the law what they think is right or wrong, and dont think about legalities so much, so im not sure what the 'average conservatie' would say)

Edited October 20, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

would it be wrong to vote for a candidate who was libertarian, and instead of saying 'the constitution saves all from conception' they say 'it's a state issue'? as the one said above, 'the principle is the same'. i guess one could argbue 'lesser of two evils' (though that overlooks third parties. unless one were to say 'lesser of effective two evils', though there's still many a problem with this approach) and vote for hte person anyway. but it's not like there's such a clear answer in any of this. anyone who's ever acted like there was, gets holes punched into em like crazy, and usually end up with their tail between their legs, trying ot make this all out as if there is a clear answer.

[MichaelFilo]

I have a higher ideal of lay people's ability to reason. Most libertarians think that it is not a fed govt issue or any govt issue. The Constitution, however, allows for the federal govt to be a libertarian entity and the states to have all sorts of strange laws, so it is more a constitutionalists, rather than libertarian position, but that is picking hairs.

I'd vote for a libertarian before a pro-life federal level candidate. Why? Because the constitution relegates this issue to the States. Worse still, if pro-lifers win then there is the chance that they might be overturned one day. It is dangerous business making this a federal issue, like marriage, or drug policy, etc.

Edited October 20, 2010 by MichaelFilo

[dairygirl4u2c]

"but that is picking hairs"
i wouldnt disagree, at least the way it's being characterized. to argue the points wouldnt amount to anything other than semantics, given i agree with you in principle. (eg, id argue most libertaians are constitutionalists, but then i might be wrong, and this is a fuzzy field probably amounting to mostly semantics than anything. maybe our perception of the people's views are more accurate than the other's, i dont know)

"I'd vote for a libertarian before a pro-life federal level candidate. Why? Because the constitution relegates this issue to the States. Worse still, if pro-lifers win then there is the chance that they might be overturned one day. It is dangerous business making this a federal issue, like marriage, or drug policy, etc. "

the poster above recently said this was an unacceptable view. and, one could very plausibly, i dare say reasonably (but won't, cause it's not reasonable), to say that this isn't an acceptable view.

per 'it doesn't matter the liklihood of change' -- intrinsic evil, prudential judgment
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=86552&st=0

Edited October 20, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Maggyie]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' timestamp='1287538116' post='2180869']
I have a higher ideal of lay people's ability to reason. Most libertarians think that it is not a fed govt issue or any govt issue. The Constitution, however, allows for the federal govt to be a libertarian entity and the states to have all sorts of strange laws, so it is more a constitutionalists, rather than libertarian position, but that is picking hairs.

I'd vote for a libertarian before a pro-life federal level candidate. Why? Because the constitution relegates this issue to the States. Worse still, if pro-lifers win then there is the chance that they might be overturned one day. It is dangerous business making this a federal issue, like marriage, or drug policy, etc.
[/quote]


Really!? You would vote for a pro-abortion libertarian over a pro-life federalist. Now that is a novel POV. Don't you think that is putting ideology ahead of social justice? If we just made it a states issue, many, many states would still have unjust abortion laws. Keep in mind that the Constitution, while admirable in some respects, is not a sacred document, and in many ways was deeply flawed from the beginning. The Church says that justice must be done, she doesn't have any advice to give us about states rights.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Maggie

[MichaelFilo]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1287540236' post='2180886']
Really!? You would vote for a pro-abortion libertarian over a pro-life federalist. Now that is a novel POV. Don't you think that is putting ideology ahead of social justice? If we just made it a states issue, many, many states would still have unjust abortion laws. Keep in mind that the Constitution, while admirable in some respects, is not a sacred document, and in many ways was deeply flawed from the beginning. The Church says that justice must be done, she doesn't have any advice to give us about states rights.
[/quote]

That is the problem, our Constitution provides for the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If we disobey it we are destroying the intended framework for those protections. Our federal government today has defined what life is, and it has defined it as something that exists after conception. Is this what you want? Is this the battle you want to fight till the end of the Republic? Who will have power on the federal level to murder babies or protect them?

Rather, let us follow our Constitution. Let us make it a state right. On the state level questions of foreign policy are not made. We can finally separate the two. Catholics have a long history of being anti-unnecessary war. Let us be able to have a say on both. We were forced to pick between George Bush, who was more pro-life but evidently pro-war, vs someone who was pro-peace and anti-life. That decision shouldn't be up there. We should be able to separate the two. That is part of the wisdom of the founding fathers.

The federal governments limited nature is the best means to protect life. A clear distinction on what level government has what level of responsibilities is very important. The federal government should not have the right to allow baby murders, we all agree, but if we give it the right to ban them then we must concede that a democratic vote will be able to change that.

That is the problem, essentially. Roe vs Wade could not have had the level of impact it has today, if it was on the state level. It would be meaningless if it was a declaration of, say, the California courts. But our HIGH COURT has taken upon itself to answer the weighty issue of life. Do you see that if it defines it the other way, it will simply take a new arrangement of judges to get it back the other way. The courts are rendered meaningless on the State level when it comes to this issue. This country is very much for the limitation of abortions on a popular level and so we would have far greater success in the states.