Pat Endorses Who?

[Vyse]

<p>Trying to cast all pro-lifers as religious fundies is ■■■■■■■■. If you believe abortion is murder, you don’t have to be even slightly religious to oppose it.</p>

[TheDad]

<p>The organizational muscle for the anti-Choice movement comes from religious fundies of several different flavors. And most of those who equate abortion with murder do so with a belief rooted in religion.</p>

<p>I am deeply committed to religious pluralism in the country, including beliefs that I’m not wild about and including agnosticism and atheism as well. The necessary corollary of this is that no one group impose its religious beliefs upon the public sector. What you practice in the privacy of your own closet is none of anybody’s business as long as it doesn’t affect other people, e.g., no sacrifices of unbelievers, etc. </p>

<p>See also, those who believe that the US was founded as a Christian nation.</p>

[Vyse]

<p>So you propose the religious completely distance themselves from civic participation?</p>

<p>I just don’t see abortion being a religious issue. It should come down to when you believe life begins. If you believe life begins at conception, you should be against abortion whether you’re a preacher, or a gay vegetarian atheist from san fransisco</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>Some non-religious pro-life links:</p>

<p>[Feminists</a> for Life - Women Deserve Better](<a href=“http://www.womendeservebetter.com/]Feminists”>http://www.womendeservebetter.com/)</p>

<p>

Established in 1972, Feminists for Life is a non-sectarian, grass-roots organization that seeks true equality for all human beings, particularly women. We oppose all forms of violence, including abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment, as they are inconsistent with the core feminist principles of justice, non-violence and non-discrimination. Our efforts focus on education, outreach and advocacy, as well as facilitating practical resources and support for women in need.

</p>

<p>[The</a> Basics of Pro-Life Progressivism](<a href=“http://prolife.liberals.com/basics.html]The”>http://prolife.liberals.com/basics.html)</p>

<p>

A Progressive argument against abortion</p>

<p>What does it mean to be pro-life? Well, at its most basic, two things. </p>

<p>Pro-lifers believe that human beings have human rights from the moment their lives begin, and that this occurs well before birth (usually at conception or implantation.) We further believe that the act of conceiving a child brings with it certain obligations to the child (who did not, after all, ask to be conceived), and that one of these is to allow the child the chance to be born. </p>

<p>That’s all. Fetal rights + parental responsibility = a pro-life stand. No need to pass any ideological, religious, sexual, racial, or economic litmus tests. </p>

<p>Now, let’s look at these two principles as they relate to liberal philosophy. </p>

<p>Why fetal rights?</p>

<p>The first, fetal rights, is nothing more than an extension of the principle of equality to the youngest members of the human family. It bears close examination, though, because the answer to the question of whether human rights apply to the unborn illuminates the answerer’s views of human rights in general. </p>

<p>Ask yourself: is there a difference between a “human being” and a “person”? If so, what is it? Presumably, a “person” is considered a bearer of human rights. The usual criteria currently offered for personhood include sentience, viability, and birth. Each has its merits and demerits, as long as you are willing to accept their common premise; that it’s moral for a powerful group of humans to deny fundamental rights to a powerless group based on criteria set by the powerful. </p>

<p>If humanity is thus divisible into rights-bearers and non-rights-bearers, then sexism, racism and other forms of discrimination are not wrong just because they’re discrimination. Instead of asserting that all humans are created equal, we must instead prove that gender is the wrong criterion to use for discrimination, that race is the wrong criterion to use for discrimination, etc. The acceptance of discrimination on the basis of age or development poisons the well against those of us who would fight other forms of discrimination by stripping us of the weighty (and properly so) argument that equality is a ideal to strive for.</p>

<p>No conflict with women’s rights</p>

<p>Traditionally, social liberals have been on the right (so to speak) side of discrimination questions in this century: the civil rights movement, feminism, disability rights, and gay rights, to name a few. Why are liberals often on the side of discrimination against young humans in the case of abortion? In part, it seems, because they don’t think of it as discrimination; but mostly because they equate opposition to abortion with discrimination against women. This is certainly understandable if we look at the subject using the “mother’s rights vs. fetal rights” framework. Progressive pro-lifers offer an alternative view, one which is rooted in basic tenets of modern liberalism – social responsibility, feminism, and the safety net.
There is, however, another reason pro-life progressives reject the mother’s rights vs. fetal rights framework. We believe that it represents a false dichotomy, imposed by a patriarchal society in which the public sphere has been traditionally reserved for men, who of course do not bear children. The result is that our public institutions, such as schools and the workplace, are hostile to the needs of children and those who bear them. In addition, the sexual double standard works to punish women, but not men, for having sex when they’re not “supposed” to. Therefore, single mothers face much more censure, official and unofficial, than single fathers. We believe that abortion, rather than freeing women from this oppressive structure, helps maintain it by altering women to fit the patriarchy rather than altering (or outright tearing down) the patriarchy to build a society more responsive to women’s needs.

</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>

“Ayahtollah,” used in the vernacular to describe the parallels between the Islamists who want to impose their religious interpretations on their society and their Christian counterparts who wish to do the same in this country, evocatively sums up the parallels nicely.

I’m interested in where else this term is used? I have only seen the term “Ayahtollah” used in a derogatory manner here on CC.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>More non-religious, pro-life organizations:</p>

<p>[Libertarians</a> for Life](<a href=“http://www.l4l.org/]Libertarians”>http://www.l4l.org/)</p>

<p>

The Libertarian Case Against Abortion</p>

<p>To explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from fertilization.
2. Abortion is homicide – the killing of one person by another.
3. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother’s body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

</p>

<p>[Pro-Life</a> Alliance of Gays and Lesbians](<a href=“http://www.plagal.org/]Pro-Life”>http://www.plagal.org/)</p>

<p>

The Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians began in 1990 as local groups in Washington DC and Minneapolis. At first it was called “Gays Against Abortion”, but the name was changed in early 1991 to reflect our membership of both gay men and lesbians. Today PLAGAL strives to promote a respect for life within the gay community and encourage gay and lesbian participation in the pro-life cause. </p>

<p>Our membership includes women and men of various sexual orientations, political affiliations, and geographic locations – all committed to raising awareness of the pro-life ethic as consistent with the gay and lesbian struggle for human rights. </p>

<p>As activists, PLAGAL members and chapters have participated since 1990 in marches for GLBT rights as well as annually in the March for Life. Regional groups throughout the country present educational forums, support programs that serve pregnant women and their children, and participate in local pride events. We also do outreach through the print and online media with opinion columns, interviews, and letters to the editor in both the gay and straight press.

</p>

<p>[Democrats</a> For Life of America](<a href=“About”>About)</p>

<p>

Who We Are</p>

<p>Democrats for Life of America, Inc. is a national organization for pro-life members of the Democratic party.</p>

<p>Our Mission</p>

<p>Democrats for Life of America exists to foster respect for life, from the beginning of life to natural death. This includes, but is not limited to, opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. Democrats for Life of America is one of over 200 member organizations of Consistent Life: an international network for peace, justice and life.</p>

<p>What We Do</p>

<p>We mobilize Democrats at local, state, and national levels to:</p>

<p>*elect pro-life Democrats to office
*support pro-life Democrats while in an elected position
*promote a pro-life plank in the Democratic Party platform
*achieve pro-life legislation with the help of national and state pro-life democrats
*participate actively in Democratic party functions and offices

</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>[Write</a> For Life ~WAV~ Violence, by any other name…](<a href=“Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos”>Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos)</p>

<p>

Writers against violence is dedicated to the promotion of non-violent opposition to abortion, and to the education and awareness that violence is violence, and cannot be condoned by either side. To be Pro-Life means just that… to be in favor of defending of all life. We cannot and will not advocate any violent means to end abortion, and encourage others to recognize the same.

</p>

<p>[Natural</a> Rights](<a href=“Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos”>Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos)</p>

<p>

Natural Rights - A ProLife Pagan website</p>

<p>. . provide a haven for prolife pagans, as well as other non-traditional prolifers, and allow the free expression of their ideas. </p>

<p>. . counter stereotypes and misconceptions about prolifers, and raise awareness that the issue of prenatal rights is not the property of the “religious right”.</p>

<p>. . make accurate information about a variety of life and reproductive health issues available to anyone.

</p>

<p>I think we’ve now covered a variety of non-Christian pro-life organizations. This is NOT just a Christian or Catholic issue. I also found both Jewish and Muslim pro-life sites.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>sjmom2329 said:</p>

<p>

I think we’ve now covered a variety of non-Christian pro-life organizations. This is NOT just a Christian or Catholic issue. I also found both Jewish and Muslim pro-life sites.

</p>

<p>Actually, being Catholic and being anti-abortion and anti-birth control is not one and the same either. To the contrary.</p>

<p>According to data from Catholics for Choice, Catholic women have abortions at the same rate as women generally in the US (27% of women polled who had abortions were Catholic, Catholics comprise approx. 25% of the US pop.). Less than 22% of Catholics agree with the bishop’s position that abortion should be illegal. And only 13% of the priest belong to Priests for Life.</p>

<p>On BC, 96% of the sexually active Catholic women over the age of 17 have used a modern method of birth control. Sex education in public schools is support by 88% of Catholics with 83% believing that BC information should be available to teenagers. And, 58% believe that BC should be available to tennagers 14 and above even if the parents don’t approve.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/reform/documents/2006catholicsandchoice.pdf[/url]”>http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/reform/documents/2006catholicsandchoice.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>As pointed out earlier, if there have been 35 to 40 million abortions post-Roe v. Wade, then over 10 million were had by Catholics. </p>

<p>This choice/pro-life issue isn’t one to use as a litmus test for any candidate unless a voter wants to waste the vote.</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>Catholics for Choice is NOT a Catholic Organization.</p>

<p>[Catholics</a> for a Free Choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholics_for_a_Free_Choice]Catholics”>Catholics for Choice - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>

The USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) has made the statement that “CFFC is not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church as articulated by the Holy See and the NCCB.”</p>

<p>These critics respond to CFFC by stating that the organization’s theological arguments directly contradict the Catholic Church’s teaching on abortion.[27] This teaching is described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.[28]</p>

<p>Further, Diane Dew, on her personal website, has pointed out that through the 1970’s, the majority of the organization’s budget came from a New York foundation related to a Long Island Unitarian Universalist church, and that the organization first operated out of office space donated by Planned Parenthood. Dew claims that CFFC is funded by groups that oppose the Catholic Church, such as the Playboy Foundation, and other groups supporting population control.[29]</p>

<p>The Catholic League has labelled CFFC a fringe group with few followers.[citation needed] The Catholic League also points out that Frances Kissling, president of CFFC stated, “I spent twenty years looking for a government that I could overthrow without being thrown in jail. I finally found one in the Catholic church.”

</p>

<p>[Aborting</a> the Church](<a href=“http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/feature1.htm]Aborting”>http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/feature1.htm)</p>

<p>

“For a number of years,” Bishop Fiorenza’s statement reads, "a group calling itself Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) has been publicly supporting abortion while claiming it speaks as an authentic Catholic voice. That claim is false. In fact, the group’s activity is directed to rejection and distortion of Catholic teaching about the respect and protection due to defenseless unborn human life."</p>

<p>In 1980, Frances Kissling left her post as **founder and head of the National Abortion Federation<a href=“the%20trade%20association%20for%20abortion%20clinics”>/b</a> to take the helm of CFFC, which was founded in 1973-the year Roe v. Wade was decided. </p>

<p>CFFC, the statement continues, is “an arm of the abortion lobby in the United States and throughout the world,” funded by wealthy private foundations seeking to “promote abortion as a method of population control.” The bishops made a similar statement in 1993.

</p>

<p>I would not be surprised if some women who identify themselves as Catholic have had abortions. I’m not going to add to their burden by going after them. I’m sure they have enough to deal with, just living with the loss of a baby.</p>

<p>But I do have some reservations about the statistics you cite, given their source.</p>

[lealdragon]

<p>

Let’s start by doing as much as possible to make contraception available and to provide fact-based sex education instead of the feckless “abstinence” approach.

</p>

<p>I agree with this! That’s why I support Feminists for Life.</p>

<p>Wow, I didn’t know about the other non-religious pro-life groups! Thanks, sjmom!</p>

<p>TheDad: I do understand your points. I too am very concerned about the religious fanatics who would like to make this a theocracy and outlaw contraception as well as other religions.</p>

<p>However, they represent only a small percentage of the total Christians. Most Christians are probably in disagreement with them, as demonstrated by the posts in this thread. It’s just that the small percentage is very vocal and have gained a disproportionate amount of power in the last few years.</p>

<p>Just as Moslems should speak out more against the atrocities committed by fanatics claiming to be Moslems, so too should the rational, non-fanatical Christians speak out more against the fanatics claiming to be Christians. ‘Christian’ fanatics aren’t as violent as ‘Moslem’ fanatics, currently, but it’s the same sort of thinking that can lead to violence. I could easily see some of these ‘Christian’ fanatics eventually becoming violent - already they are indirectly violent by supporting an unjust war, just to manipulate events so that Jesus can ‘return.’</p>

<p>I just spoke to a Christian pastor who is very active in waking up the Christian community about how these fanatics claiming to be Christian have actually lost their way from Christian values. I suspect there are many more pastors like him, who ARE trying to do something about it.</p>

<p>TheDad, I acknowledge your very real concerns. And it’s true that many in the more mainstream Christian denominations seem oblivious to the fanatics. While waking them up to this very real threat is important, it’s also important to be careful not to overgeneralize. Remember that the majority of Christians are NOT fanatics, and seek them out, and work WITH them, instead of lumping them all in together.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>To me the strongest indication of a “vote” for pro-choice is having the procedure. As accurately reported in Catholics for Choice, 27% of the women polled who had an abortion were Catholic.</p>

<p>sjmom2329 said:</p>

<p>

I would not be surprised if some women who identify themselves as Catholic have had abortions. I’m not going to add to their burden by going after them. I’m sure they have enough to deal with, just living with the loss of a baby.</p>

<p>But I do have some reservations about the statistics you cite, given their source.

</p>

<p>Here is the direct link to the study printed in *Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health<a href=“2002”>/I</a> with the methodology and data.</p>

<p>[Patterns</a> in the socioeconomic characteristics of women obtaining abortions in 2000-2001. (Articles). - Free Online Library](<a href=“http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Patterns+in+the+socioeconomic+characteristics+of+women+obtaining…-a093306575%5DPatterns”>http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Patterns+in+the+socioeconomic+characteristics+of+women+obtaining…-a093306575)</p>

<p>

I’m not going to add to their burden by going after them. I’m sure they have enough to deal with, just living with the loss of a baby.

</p>

<p>Let me get this straight. In the new world order, the murdering mother is not to be prosecuted??? Are the non-medical persons she conspired with to pay for the murder of the fetus, say her parents, going to be prosecuted? Or is it only the murdering doctor, mid-wife or free-lance back alley butcherer-murderer that will be prosecuted?</p>

<p>In my homestate, murder for hire can get you the death penalty. And my state does execute people, including females! So, is the death penalty what the murdering mother is looking at? Or only her aiders and abetters?</p>

<p>Or does a pro-life voter only vote for candidates who will pack the Supreme Court to overrule the cases holding the death penalty unconstitutional?</p>

<p>

Let’s start by doing as much as possible to make contraception available and to provide fact-based sex education instead of the feckless “abstinence” approach.

</p>

<p>lealdragon I cannot agree with you more. </p>

<p>But my homestate, Texas (Dallas was where Roe v. Wade originated), actually does what it can to discourage BC for unmarried girls of primary and secondary school age. If BC isn’t readily available and abortion is a crime for which an 18 year old mother can be put to death, is this “progress”?</p>

[sjmom2329]

<p>

Let me get this straight. In the new world order, the murdering mother is not to be prosecuted??? Are the non-medical persons she conspired with to pay for the murder of the fetus, say her parents, going to be prosecuted? Or is it only the murdering doctor, mid-wife or free-lance back alley butcherer-murderer that will be prosecuted?

Would you mind not putting words in my mouth – or in my keyboard? I haven’t said anything about the legal consequences of pro-life legislation. What I said is that I’m not going to further demonize women who have had the procedure.</p>

[bz2010]

<p>Everything I’ve read on this thread just reaffirms the fact that McCain is the right person for the job of POTUS.</p>

<p>He is the candidate with the most experience & knowledge.
Plus, given his sacrifices & suffering as a P.O.W. in Vietnam (for over 5 years!), he is a true American Hero.
We need someone like that in office!
His strategy for Iraq was correct from the beginning. He has a PLAN for Healthcare, Medicare & Social Security - as a Senator, he understands those issues.
He realizes that Border Security is a priority.
He is Pro-Life.
He has campaigned vigorously against Pork Barrel spending & “business-as-usual in Washington.
Unlike typical politicians, he will stand up (& speak up!) for what is the right thing to do & not just say what he thinks people want to hear.
He is a pragmatist who will “reach across the aisle” when necessary.</p>

<p>What more could you want for President?</p>

<p>I think Pat Robertson didn’t endorse McCain because he knows that McCain won’t cowtow - he proved that in 2000 when he wouldn’t go to Bob Jones U. b/c of their policy on mixed marriages (or whatever).</p>

<p>Perhaps Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani is a PLUS for McCain!</p>

[TheDad]

<p>

It’s just that the small percentage is very vocal and have gained a disproportionate amount of power in the last few years.

Yes, the would-be ayahtollahs are the ones who have been vocal and wielding disproportionate power. Which is why I’m out to defeat them at the ballot box and make the irrelevant to the public policy. </p>

<p>

TheDad, I acknowledge your very real concerns. And it’s true that many in the more mainstream Christian denominations seem oblivious to the fanatics. While waking them up to this very real threat is important, it’s also important to be careful not to overgeneralize. Remember that the majority of Christians are NOT fanatics, and seek them out, and work WITH them, instead of lumping them all in together.

What makes you think I’m not Christian? In fact, I bitterly resent the vocal would-be ayahtollahs being the public face of my religion in the minds of many people. I will work with them to reduce abortions: promote birth control and fact-based sex education.</p>

<p>Listen to the sounds of crickets chirping from the anti-Choice brigades on that one.</p>

[Vyse]

<p>I dont think reforming sex education will make a difference. Studies show that kids in abstinence only programs have sex at about the same rate as kids in other programs, and that they’re just as likely to wear a condom. Its pretty much a tie, they all go to wikipedia, urbandictionary, and their friends for sex information anyway.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>“What makes you think I’m not Christian? In fact, I bitterly resent the vocal would-be ayahtollahs being the public face of my religion in the minds of many people.”</p>

<p>So do I, which is why I point out the distinctions as often as possible.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>Posters in favor of a pro-life world where abortions are outlawed, please address some of these real world issues and how your political candidate has proposed to deal with them.</p>

<p>Birth control, even if the patch was made mandatory, is not 100% full proof. Girls will get pregnant. If abortion is murder, the legal consequences cannot be ignored by only focusing on the “good” part, saving the fetus.</p>

<p>Society will revert to back-room butcher abortions, like the “good old days” pre-Roe v. Wade. Hell, I was a teen in Dallas in the 1960’s. What did our sisters and girlfriends do when they got pregnant? One girl committed suicide drinking anti-freeze. She was more scared of her mother than death.</p>

<p>For other girls? It depended ON HOW MUCH MONEY YOUR FAMILY HAD. Affluent families had the medically safe option of the “country club” gynocologist abortion on the sly or a trip to Sweden or other countries where abortions were legal.</p>

<p>Lower middle and economically disadvantaged girls used coat hangers, knitting needles or paid for back alley hack jobs. I had a friend whose older brother worked at the emergency room of the county hospital. HE saw what happened to these often pitifully young girls whose Daddy did not have the money to get the abortion done safely.</p>

<p>The pregnant girl who aborts will be a murderer. So, what happens to her, if she survives the procedure? Jail? Execution? If she already has children, what happens to them while mommy is in jail? Or, is she to get off with her “shame” and only the others involved go to jail or get executed? </p>

<p>Consider whether those family members who know she is pregnant will have a duty to turn the pregnant girl in if she has an abortion or face criminal prosecution as well. Otherwise, won’t society revert to the old way of giving lip service to the illegaity of abortion while in practice letting it occur.</p>

<p>Surely, these candidates have thought about this and have an answer for these questions. And surely those who vote for them have thought about this as well.</p>

<p>Please, pro-lifers how is this going to work when abortion is the crime of murder?</p>

[cartera45]

<p>07DAD - these are exactly the reasons I won’t vote for a candidate who will stack the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade. If the candidates have answers, we won’t be hearing them. Clearly it doesn’t bother Ron Paul because his answer is to wash his hands of it and turn it over to the states - and some of them would gladly relegate abortions to back alleys. Out of sight, out of mind for him. I’m not sure most men even consider these issues, so that rules out all the other candidates - except Hillary and she is so caught up in what she has to do to get elected, she isn’t saying much of anything.</p>

[zoosermom]

<p>As I said, I don’t vote on abortion, so perhaps I shouldn’t respond (but that never stopped me before), but I would really like to see the issue of abortion in the realm of the political and out of the realm of the courts. I know many pro-choice lawyers who believe that Roe v. Wade is bad law and has created as many problems as it solved. I still don’t have a candidate, but I would say Rudy’s position is closer to mine, but I still can’t accept the dilution of parental bonds and authority.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>cartera45 said:</p>

<p>

I’m not sure most men even consider these issues

</p>

<p>Please know how wrong you are. Men do care. In fact, my experience is that women are harder on other women on these issues than men.</p>

<p>Justice Blackmon wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. All members of the Court were men. Both Justice Blackmon’s law clerks were men. </p>

<p>Men cared then and men care now.</p>