Abortion Religious Right

Can Proponents of Unjust War Justly Call Themselves “Pro-Life”?

An editorial in the Tahlequah (Ok) Daily Press illustrates how difficult it is for some to be consistently pro-life. The occasion was the anniversary in January of Roe vs. Wade. (Emphases added.) First, the author attacks the hypocrisy of the very narrow “pro-life” focus that many activists practice in the US; then they go on to discuss some proposed Oklahoma legislation designed to actually help solve the abortion problem.

Anyone who participated in this week’s protests against Roe vs. Wade,” but at the same time is an enthusiastic proponent of the death penalty, assisted suicide, or unjust war, cannot honestly claim to be “pro-life.”

…. True “pro-lifers” honor the dignity of the human person, “from womb to tomb.” The notion that an embryo in its seventh week of gestation has more intrinsic worth than a frightened young man of 19 whose buddy has just been blown to bits by a suicide bomber’s rage is utterly without logic.

…. Abortion foes are often the same people who support cuts to social programs that encourage women to keep – or at least give birth to – their babies. This has been the case with many Bush supporters …. abortions tend to increase under such conditions.

The author mentions some pending legislation in Oklahoma, then makes this very strong statement:

Earmarking money for pregnant women, in [Oklahoma] House Bill 1696, is by far the most important proposal, because it’s the only real way society can hope to reduce abortions. Banning them outright won’t necessarily work: As we know from our experiments in Prohibition, bans may stop the legal procedure, but will reopen a lucrative – and dangerous – black market, and will criminalize desperate women.

HB 1696 … would allow taxpayers to divert up to $100 dollars of their state taxes to fund groups such as Birth Choice of Oklahoma and Crisis Pregnancy Centers, which provide aid to pregnant women and their babies. Tax dollars can also be funneled to programs for domestic violence shelters and rape crises centers.

The article ends with a good summary of the crucial issues – which, not surprisingly, are very much issues of attitude.

“Pro-Life Democrats believe, as [Pope] John Paul II said, that the only way to end abortion is to form a radical solidarity with the woman. Pro-Life Democrats believe that the only way to stop the tragedy of abortion is to love and help both the mother and her baby.”

Democrats need to … strip some of the false patina from politicians like George Bush, who talk the talk just long enough to get the vote. These Democrats have shown they’re willing to walk, too.

Leave a Comment

10 Comments

  • Correction: Let us legalize prostitution, abortion, beastiality, and drugs. IF that is the case you make for abortion. THat it is an individual’s right to choose to do with their body as they will.

  • There is little comparison between being pro-life and pro-War. I am not pro-war, but neither is any individual I know. There is little love for war, but it at times must occur to prevent a greater injustice from occuring. OTherwise Euprope would all be speaking German, and Australia Japanese. I disagreed with the current war but there can be a case made that Hussein, after murdering millions of his own people, had to be overthrown. Not just for the Iraqi people, but to be a salo at the others in the area that have supported terrorism and oppression in the past. Hussein at the very least has not only murdered his
    people but supported terrorists, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, without bringing up the vague relationship with Al Queda. I still did not support the war, but there is a case to be made for it(although I disagreed with it).

    There is no case for a mother murdering her child. Her decision to become a parent occurred at the same time it did for the father, at conception. Aboortion does not add value to life by removing life. Abortion is murder pure and simple. Saying that an individual has a right to his or her own body, then let us legalize abortion and drugs, Because it is their body.

    There can be a moral case made for war at times, there can be no moral case be made for the murder of unborn children, imho.

  • Catholics may be no more successful at following the “rules” than protestants, but they have a much better sense of where they stand in relation to the Roman church’s pro-life positions, which are consistent even where they are not very rational (opposing condoms for AIDS prevention in Third World nations). At least one understands why. So any Catholic who supports the death penalty (& I know some) has to give serious thought to the matter, because the church’s position on capital punishment is “No” period.

  • Then: are the mortal lives of other people then so worthless, such as Iraqis? Does Jesus support anyone destroying in the name of Christianity? Matthew 5:43 – 48:

    “You have heard that it was said, `YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR and hate your enemy.’

    “But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

    “For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

    “If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?

    “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

    For the uninitiated, this is how Jesus talks. Does it sound like the way our current administration or the television pulpiteers talk? I don’t think so.

    A good test of people who claim to represent Jesus’ views is to see what kind of picture their websites present of Jesus. For instance, considering the site of Dobson, who loves fights and political power, just look what his website says about Jesus. There are scant instructions about praying the sinners’ prayer, for a quick lip service conversion. But as to the person of Jesus? He could be an Innuit tribeswoman, for all the detail Dobson’s website offers.

    In a nutshell, let’s read Jesus, and know His true ideas as over all the meanness and venom offered in his name by the pulpiteers.

  • Matthew 5:21-26:

    “You have heard that the ancients were told, `YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER’ and `Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’

    “But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, `You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever says, `You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.

    “Therefore if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.

    “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison.

    “Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid up the last cent.

    So my question is: with all the Christians screaming at one another about the abortion issue – in public, in front of unbelievers – with alll the abuse and humiliation of Christians with Democratic notions in particular these days in the church…

    Do Christians think Jesus was just kidding about the above? Are the lives of fetuses now more important than the souls of our fellow believers, that we should fight in the streets and sling insults over the abortion issue?

Share
Share
Tweet
Pin