More Than One Pro-life Issue?

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1424837' date='Nov 25 2007, 10:35 PM']That's a poorly constructed argument, and you know it.[/quote]
It's not an argument - it's merely citing your own words and noting their obvious conotations. You can retract them if you wish, but take responsibility for your own careless speech, rather than putting the blame on me.

[quote]That's all lovely, except the "liberal news media" isn't where I get this idea from. It's from my own observations here and elsewhere and my own experience.[/quote]
That's not what I've observed (neither here nor elsewhere). I've listed some specific things I've seen prolifers do to help other people (besides the unborn). You've made an extremely vague accusation, with nothing specific to back it up. What have the "prochoice" people done for women that's so wonderful?

[quote]Can't escape the usual Hitler reference. That has nothing to do with the point I made. You only see it in black and white. Some people who are pro-choice aren't for abortion, they are for people being able to choose. Others don't care enough. The point is, people aren't automatically evil and useless because they are pro-choice.[/quote]
The point is quite clear. Many who supported Hitler weren't for the Holocaust; they merely thought Hitler would best help the German people. Why see it in black and white?
It was you who claimed that the lives of innocent babies are not a top priority for you, just as the lives of Jews were not a top priority for those "ordinary real-life" Germans who supported Hitler.
And "people being able to choose" does not mean they should be able to choose murder without facing legal consequence. Do you see murder being illegal as a threat to choice and human free will?
I'll let God decide whether such people are evil or not, but objectively they are wrong, and I will continue to correct their error, and counter it with truth.

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1424842' date='Nov 25 2007, 10:44 PM']President Bush has everything to do with this. This is what I originally talking about. Bush was elected by the Christian right because he promised to help the pro-life movement. My point is that he hasnt, and it's a wasted vote to vote for a politician just because they are pro-life. You can't argue "well at least they aren't pushing for more abortions" because that logic is faulty. Why is it okay to elect a "pro-life" Republican who doesn't do anything for the cause, but it's not okay to elect another politician who is pro-choice, but doesn't believe that abortion is a major issue thus doesn't focus on it? The point is, it's not fair to say that because someone is pro-choice, they are bad. Pro-life politicians make all the promises they can think of in order to get elected, but that doesnt mean they can do anything. That's why it's stupid to make abortion the deciding factor. There isnt much anyone can do about it. [b]It has to be taken care of among the people, not by law makers[/b]. So why not consider other issues that can actually be taken care of by the government?[/quote]
Okay, for the record President Bush stopped government funding of overseas abortions, put limits on funding of embryonic stem-cell research, supported the ban on partial-birth abortion, and appointed two pro-life judges to the Supreme Court.
I'm not saying Bush is perfect, but it makes no sense to criticize Bush for not being pro-life enough, then say that we should support politicians who actively support abortion, such as Kerry or Clinton.

Abortion will not be ended overnight. It can be a slow step-by-step proccess. The first step is to build a pro-life majority in the Supreme Court. This cannot be accomplished if we elect more pro-abortion candidates to the presidency.
Also, it is important to elect pro-life congressmen and senators. Pro-abort liberal Democrat congressmen work hard to block any pro-lifers from the SCOTUS, as they succesfully blocked Judge Bork in the '80s.

Secondly, Roe will need to be challenged by the states. This will only happen if we support strong pro-lifers at the state level.

If more people would really work to support the pro-life cause, we could indeed accomplish something.
If we say abortion doesn't matter and keep electing pro-abort people to office, we will not. Defeat becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Saying that there is nothing much anyone can do about abortion is a self-defeating lie.
If nothing is getting done about abortion, it is due to the apathy of people like yourself.

You haven't presented rational well-informed arguments, only a bitter emotional rant.
Turn off the emo, and get educated on how the legal/political process works.
Then get off your @$$ and do something to support the pro-life cause, rather than sitting there griping about it!

Edited November 27, 2007 by Socrates

[XIX]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1424842' date='Nov 25 2007, 10:44 PM']President Bush has everything to do with this. This is what I originally talking about. Bush was elected by the Christian right because he promised to help the pro-life movement. My point is that he hasnt, and it's a wasted vote to vote for a politician just because they are pro-life.[/quote]
He has taken the pro-life side of every single issue he has come across, as far as I know. I think there was one exception, where he hired someone who would make the Plan B pill available over the counter, I think.

Anyways, that last part was tough to see. But if you don't think that's Bush is helping the pro-life movement with everything else he has done in office, then I am tempted to conclude that you are only seeing what you want to see.

If politics didn't matter to the pro-life movement, then Planned Parenthood would not be so politically involved in trying to stop people like Bush from hurtig the abortion industry!

[Old_Joe]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1423744' date='Nov 22 2007, 05:18 PM']That's all fine and dandy. But for real people, with real problems, it doesn't matter if someone supports abortion or not. For people who have hard lives, who live from paycheck to paycheck, one more life saved from abortion doesnt matter. Im not trying to be insensitive, I'm being realistic. People care about how politicians will help them, not if they're "pro-life" or "pro-choice." Sometimes, you need to be more realistic. Life matters, but remember that life isn't just those who are waiting to be born.[/quote]

That's what I was getting at. one of the things that us prolifers sometimes forget about is that not only do we need to get rid of abortion, but we also need to address the issues surrounding it such as low-income families, a culture that treats sex as "the be all end all", poor healthcare options, etc.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote]The point is quite clear. Many who supported Hitler weren't for the Holocaust; they merely thought Hitler would best help the German people. Why see it in black and white?
It was you who claimed that the lives of innocent babies are not a top priority for you, just as the lives of Jews were not a top priority for those "ordinary real-life" Germans who supported Hitler.
And "people being able to choose" does not mean they should be able to choose murder without facing legal consequence. Do you see murder being illegal as a threat to choice and human free will?
I'll let God decide whether such people are evil or not, but objectively they are wrong, and I will continue to correct their error, and counter it with truth.[/quote]
You still aren't making any valid points by trying to compare supporting abortion with supporting Hitler. Quite frankly, you look silly. Just MHO.

[quote]You haven't presented rational well-informed arguments, only a bitter emotional rant.
Turn off the emo, and get educated on how the legal/political process works.
Then get off your @$$ and do something to support the pro-life cause, rather than sitting there griping about it![/quote]
It's odd, you accuse me of being emotional and presenting "emotional rants" yet it's okay for you to be emotional -about abortion. Double standard? You don't think comparing abortion to the holocaust and pro-choice politicians to Hitler is an emotional rant? The point was to provoke feelings of disgust. What you have presented thus far is much more emotional than what I have.

And getting off your "@$$" can apply to anyone here. Every minute you sit here and chat on phatmass, another baby dies. Great work.

[Socrates]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1425919' date='Nov 27 2007, 09:01 PM']You still aren't making any valid points by trying to compare supporting abortion with supporting Hitler. Quite frankly, you look silly. Just MHO.[/quote]
You haven't answered any of my objections.
You have stated yourself that the murder of innocent babies is not a top priority for you.
You have failed to explain what you think is a higher priority than saving innocent human life.

[quote]It's odd, you accuse me of being emotional and presenting "emotional rants" yet it's okay for you to be emotional -about abortion. Double standard? You don't think comparing abortion to the holocaust and pro-choice politicians to Hitler is an emotional rant? The point was to provoke feelings of disgust. What you have presented thus far is much more emotional than what I have.[/quote]
I was drawing a legitimate comparison.
If it's indeed okay to put other things above innocent human life, what makes it wrong for Nazi-era Germans to do so?
Emotional or no, it's a question you've failed to answer.
And yes, butchering innocent human lives provokes disgust in me, as it should in you.

[quote]And getting off your "@$$" can apply to anyone here. Every minute you sit here and chat on phatmass, another baby dies. Great work.[/quote]
It is you who disapprove of prolifers on principle. Cut the carp and answer my objections, or go on "ignore." You're just wasting my time and yours.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1426030' date='Nov 27 2007, 09:36 PM']You haven't answered any of my objections.
You have stated yourself that the murder of innocent babies is not a top priority for you.
You have failed to explain what you think is a higher priority than saving innocent human life.
I was drawing a legitimate comparison.
If it's indeed okay to put other things above innocent human life, what makes it wrong for Nazi-era Germans to do so?
Emotional or no, it's a question you've failed to answer.
And yes, butchering innocent human lives provokes disgust in me, as it should in you.
It is you who disapprove of prolifers on principle. Cut the carp and answer my objections, or go on "ignore." You're just wasting my time and yours.[/quote]
You're wasting your own time. You don't have to respond to me, just like I choose not to necessarily answer your objections.

Let me make this easy for you, so that you can just "win," since that's what's the most important thing.

I don't believe in your god anymore. I used to, but I don't now. My everyday life, my struggles, my family's struggles, hardships.. that's what matters to me. Statistics about how many unborn babies die... don't matter to me. They are numbers. It's never personally affected me, so I quite honestly don't care. I realize how bad that sounds, and I admit it. But it's how the human condition is. I've never been affected, I'm removed from it.. why should I care? I have many more pressing issues to deal with here and now, I dont really have time to worry about the unborn babies. Let God take care of them.

You win, congrats. I give in. Label me a heartless bastard.

P.S.
"Butcher" and "murder" have less emotional synonyms, but it just proves my point that you are using more emotional rants than I am. As long as you use emotionally charged words, no one is allowed to argue your logic. Surely no one wants to butcher a baby? No. But some people don't see a problem in stopping the growth of a developing fetus, because to them, it's just splitting cells, and they don't consider it actually living until it enters the world and begins to breathe. Oh well.

Edited November 28, 2007 by fidei defensor

[elizabeth_jane]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1424842' date='Nov 25 2007, 10:44 PM']President Bush has everything to do with this. This is what I originally talking about. Bush was elected by the Christian right because he promised to help the pro-life movement. My point is that he hasnt, and it's a wasted vote to vote for a politician just because they are pro-life. You can't argue "well at least they aren't pushing for more abortions" because that logic is faulty. Why is it okay to elect a "pro-life" Republican who doesn't do anything for the cause, but it's not okay to elect another politician who is pro-choice, but doesn't believe that abortion is a major issue thus doesn't focus on it? The point is, it's not fair to say that because someone is pro-choice, they are bad. Pro-life politicians make all the promises they can think of in order to get elected, but that doesnt mean they can do anything. That's why it's stupid to make abortion the deciding factor. There isnt much anyone can do about it. [b]It has to be taken care of among the people, not by law makers[/b]. So why not consider other issues that can actually be taken care of by the government?[/quote]

A few points:
1) President Bush has indeed helped the pro-life movement. The partial-birth abortion ban and the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito to SCOTUS have been major victories for the pro-life movement. As a corollary, his work on stem cell research has also been vital to promoting the Culture of Life. So to say that Pres. Bush hasn't helped the pro-life movement is simply not true.

2) Give me a "pro-life" Republican that doesn't "do anything" for the cause. Usually one can look at their voting record, and the way they vote does indeed "do something."

3) "Because some one is pro-choice, they are bad"--the Church has a list of "non-negotiable" issues when voting for a politician. Abortion is one of them. We cannot, as practicing Catholics, support a politician who is for the destruction of innocent human life (The Church does provide instances when the death penalty is acceptable, so you can't use that).

4) You're right--from a federalist standpoint, politicians can't do a whole lot to end abortion since SCOTUS has stepped in. But they can enact parental consent, waiting times, education requirements, etc. that can make it harder to get one, or to educate women before they get one as to what precisely they will be doing. In some states the legislatures have stepped up to try to ban abortion (i.e., SD) but it gets tangled up in legal battles. So really the only solution is to get SCOTUS that will return the issue to the states. Hence, the reason we need pro-life politicians to support these judges!

5) As a purely hypothetical point, what can the government really take care of? The founding fathers thought it was a pretty limited list. Health care, the environment, etc. are not listed as governmental powers in the Constitution.