Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Posted on 06/09/2004 5:21:27 PM PDT by Coleus
Answering Pro-Abortion Politicians
If you've ever written to a pro-abortion politician about the right to life, you've probably received a form letter that utilizes one of several worn-out arguments. Let's review how we answer them.
1. "I respect your views, but I have to represent all the people." Our response: That's what we're trying to say to you. If you neglect the unborn, you are not representing all the people. Roe vs. Wade excludes them from protection; we demand that they be included. A public servant cannot legitimately ignore an entire segment of the public that is being destroyed.
2. "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but can't impose my views on others." Our response: This is not a matter of views, but of violence. The law is supposed to protect human life despite the views of those who would destroy it.
3. "The government should not be involved in such a personal decision as abortion." Our response: The government got "too involved" in abortion when it claimed to have the authority to deprive some human beings of their right to life. The Declaration of Independence asserts that government exists to secure the rights already bestowed by the Creator. Moreover, when somebody's "choice" destroys somebody else's life, that choice is no longer merely a personal, private matter.
4. "Legislators should not be practicing medicine." Our response: We're not asking you to practice medicine, but to prevent the abuse of medicine. The practice of medicine is regulated by all kinds of laws that protect the lives of patients. All we ask is that the unborn be included in that protection.
5. "Abortion is the law of the land." Our response: The "law of the land" can be changed, just as it was changed regarding slavery and segregation. Leadership means seeing the injustices that others miss, and inspiring people to utilize the methods the law permits to make necessary changes.
6. "I support women's rights and health." Our response: That is precisely why you should examine the evidence, which is more plentiful than ever, that abortion is destructive of women's health, and listen to the growing voices of those who have been harmed by abortion. That is also why you should examine how the abortion industry, through unregulated and dangerous clinics, continues to deceive and exploit women.
7. "Abortion is just one of many issues; I embrace a consistent ethic of life." Our response: The foundation of a house is only one of many parts of the house, but it is essential in order to build the other parts. That is why the Catholic bishops have repeatedly asserted that among the many interrelated issues within a consistent ethic, abortion deserves "urgent attention and priority " (Pastoral Plan, 2001).
8. "My office does not involve any decision-making about abortion." Our response: Your position on abortion says a lot about your character and worldview. If you cannot stand up for the smallest of children, how will you stand up for the rest of us?
9. "Let's just agree to disagree." Our response: We have the greatest respect for those who disagree with us. But when victims are oppressed, we don't sit back and "agree to disagree" with the oppressor. Rather, we intervene to save the victim. Abortion is not about beliefs; it's about bloodshed. Those who need protection need it despite the disagreement of others.
10. Finally, always use the best response to all the arguments: I vote!
A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters No one seemed to care at the clinic
Politicians and Communion - Bishop Thomas Wenski, May 3, 2004
Homily of Bishop Samuel J. Aquila, April 25, 2004 (pdf format)
Pastoral Letter on the Duties of Catholic Politicians and Voters - Bishop Michael Sheridan, May 2004 (pdf format)
Bishop Smith blasts hypocrisy of ‘pro-choice’ Catholic politicians (March 31, 2004)
Statements of our Bishops on Abortion and the Elections
American Life League - Abortion Choice Arguments Abortio1
Answering Pro-Life Arguments Abortion Responses Arguments and Rebuttals
Catholic Morality: Pro-Life Resources: Fighting Abortion Arguments
Amazon.com: Books: ProLife Answers to ProChoice Arguments
Argument #2 (a Kerry fave) is the nice way that pro-aborts say "MY children deserve life. YOURS don't."
The elections of 2004 are a critical juncture for the future and direction of our nation.
This year voters will either defend the Culture of Life, or advance the culture of death. As Christians, we have a clear and moral obligation to register to vote and to carefully consider the candidates' position on the sanctity of LIFE when we cast our vote.
Christians are called to vote with a PROPERLY FORMED CONSCIENCE. This can be explained with one sentence from our LORD, which applies, even inside the voting booth, “Whatsoever you do to the least of these my brethren, you do to Me” (Mt.25:40). Internalize the following from Pope John Paul II, “Abortion and euthanasia are crimes, which no human law can claim to legitimize. In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to `take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it'” (Gospel of Life, No. 73).
What about the other issues? The US Bishops, in Faithful Citizenship bluntly say, "Calls to advance human rights are an illusion if the right to life itself is subject to attack." A powerful consideration from Fr. Frank Pavone, "If a candidate can't respect the life of a little baby, how is he supposed to respect ours?" From A Brief Catechism for Catholic Voters: “A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters.” FIVE such disqualifying issues are Abortion, Euthanasia, Fetal Stem Cell Research, Human Cloning, and “Homosexual Marriage”.
Participation in the political process is a virtue, and every vote counts. Christians have every right to strive by legitimate means to shape public policy according to their moral convictions. We are each, individually, called to help build a Culture of Life-voting in defense of LIFE is among the most important ways.
Children waiting to be born cannot speak for themselves--we are their voice. We must speak up in their defense at the voting booth. If we do not, millions more will never be allowed to speak.
http://cpforlife.org/id126.htm
Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
I know I'll get flamed, but trying to make abortion an issue of law is tilting at windmills.
Wealthy and women with savings who are so inclined will always have access to abortion. Whether we endorse such actions (and I don't) it remains a cold hard fact that it's going to happen.
And rich people can buy pricey lawyers and get away with murder too. So we should avoid prosecuting murderers? Sounds like typical lib-think. (In fact, as I recall, Mario Cuomo did in fact argue that the state should pay for abortions for the poor because otherwise they couldn't have as many of them as the rich get.)
Abortion is murder, genius.
In case you are unaware, Our beloved Ronald Reagan signing into law in California that abortion was not illegal.
Speeding will always happen too, so will prostitution, doesn't mean we should make it legal. We need to change behavior, stress morals, religious values, marriage, abstinence, etc. even the rates among the rich will go down. And if it is against the law, any Dr. caught performing abortions on the rich will get arrested which will save more lives in the long run.
Murder, child murder, child abuse are not issues of law?
Our forefathers knew that the right to life is paramount (listing it as our first God-Given Right in the Declaration of Independence) and given to us by God; therefore, we Honor God by defending the right to life, a right given to us by our Creator. That's why the Bill of Rights was written and passed into law to make sure that are Guarantee of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is an issue of law and the creation of our Government was instituted among men to secure these basic God-given rights.
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Newflash: abortion and prostitution, child abuse and murder have been around for millenium.
What hubris to think that our generation can fix it!
Right. And murders will be committed. So I guess we need to decriminalize murder.
What hubris to think that our generation can fix it!>>
With God's help we can do anything. Have faith.
I'd like to think that as well. However, that is Magical Thinking.
We all know children who think "if only I wish upon my star every night, EVERYthing will be okay!"
I know we all send up prayers to our Lord. Human nature is corrupt and will be always.
Please don't post that picture. My children run in and out of the room.
See above. We already have.
You're aiming at the emotions, and emotionalism makes for bad law, O.C. Besides, as everyone knows, those who cannot argue their points through logic and words always rely on a little shock therapy.
No law is perfectly enforceable. Wealthy people who want to get get away with a lot of things: fraud, money laundering, rape, even murder. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop them. Plus, most abortions are procured middle to lower income women, so at least we'll be saving some babies.
We can't perfectly solve our social problems, but we can make them less bad. We can't stop all abortions by outlawing them, but we can greatly reudce the number.
The sooner that you face the fact that we have free will the better.
I have already stated that I condemn abortion. I can do that as can you, until the cows come home, but if a woman has the means, she will do as she will. The law be damned.
It is the same with a man who rapes, the prosititute who plies her trade, the child abuser, the molester and the murderer.
We can craft all the laws we would wish, but human nature will take its course.
The Bible is rife with instances of all the above.
No doubt you think that makes it right.
One of the greatest thinkers of the twentieth century, Francis A. Schaeffer, was so sickened by the hideousness of abortion that he was emotional enough to weep over the photos of aborted babies.
There are many of our fellow Americans, even some FReepers I would guess, who are unfamiliar with the reality of abortion. Our news media has no problem showing pictures of the faces of death during war, why should the images of these little ones be hidden from view?
Such lofty thinking eludes me.
It ain't lofty. It's like showing burn victims when ther is a fire thread.
And again I ask you, ma'am. Would showing pictures of the liberation of Buchenwald, Auschwitz, and Bergen-Belsen in a thread on genocide also be considered too emotional for your tastes?
Socialists always support genocide against helpless people in order that they might keep more wealth for themselves, e.g., abortion puts a price on life as it allows the selfish to keep both money and time for themselves.
And again I ask you, ma'am. Would showing pictures of the liberation of Buchenwald, Auschwitz, and Bergen-Belsen in a thread on genocide also be considered too emotional for your tastes?
It's not shock, it's reality. That's what abortion is.
I suppose that the argument that the woman must have a "choice" is not an emotional argument? Of course it is, as is the coat hanger and the exaggerated numbers of deaths due to abortion before it was "safe and legal."
In the end, the child is dead and far too many women are left with the reality of their choice - something like "Sophie's Choice," where one child is killed for others or for education, money, companionship or the hope of a good marriage someday. But, our goal is never to have any woman have to make - and forever live with - that choice: to keep abortion for life saving instances only.
You're right. However, abortion on demand has become a national sin, because of the ruling our nation condones abortion. If it were against the law of the land, then the sin would fall merely on the persons who commit it. I think there is a difference.
Then, naturally, it should be illegal.
Answering Pro-Gun Control Politicians
If you've ever written to a anti- gun politician about the RKBA's, you've probably received a form letter that utilizes one of several worn-out arguments. Let's review how we answer them.
1. "I respect your views, but I have to represent all the people." Our response: A public servant cannot legitimately ignore an entire segment of the public that is having its rights destroyed.
2. "I'm personally opposed to gun control, but can't impose my views on others." Our response: This is not a matter of views, but of government violence. The 2nd is supposed to protect our RKBA's despite the views of those who would destroy it.
3. "The government should be involved in the rational regulation of bearing arms ." Our response: The government got "too involved" in such regulations when it claimed to have the authority to prohibit some human beings from owning "assault weapons". The Declaration of Independence asserts that government exists to secure the rights already bestowed by the Creator.
4. "Legislators should be regulating the safe use of guns." Our response: We're not asking you to make guns 'safe', but to prevent the abuse of our RKBA's.
5. "Congress makes the law of the land." Our response: The "law of the land" can be changed by amendment only, just as it was changed regarding slavery and segregation. Leadership means seeing the injustices that others miss, and inspiring people to utilize the methods the law permits to make necessary changes.
6. "I support our RKBA's." Our response: That is precisely why you should examine the evidence, which is more plentiful than ever, that prohibitive regulations are destructive of liberty, and listen to the growing voices of those who have been harmed by overregulation.
7. "Gun control is just one of many issues; I embrace a consistent ethic of life." Our response: The foundation of a house is only one of many parts of the house, but it is essential in order to build the other parts. That is why constitutional scholars have repeatedly asserted that among the many interrelated issues within a consistent ethic, our RKBA's deserves "urgent attention and priority "
8. "My office does not involve any decision-making about gun control." Our response: Your position on our RKBA's says a lot about your character and worldview.
9. "Let's just agree to disagree." Our response: We have the greatest respect for those who disagree with us. But when victims are oppressed, we don't sit back and "agree to disagree" with the oppressor. Rather, we intervene to save the victim. Gun control is not about beliefs; it's about self defense. Those who need protection need it despite the disagreement of others.
10. Finally, always use the best response to all the arguments: I vote!
A million lives a year are being brutally assassinated and you want to quibble about the means to save them? Who are you trying to protect?
33 million?
In just 30 years?
This is the first generation to deliberately kill its youth.
Combine wishing with talking, talking with planning, planning with doing. A little better?
For what it'w worth, I am a state's rightist. I disagree with Roe v. Wade, and believe it must be overturned, because it performed a carte blance highway robbery on the respective states to decide what is and isn't legal within its borders.
Of course, "choice" is an emotional argument - not matter which choice is made. I have friends whom I have first steered to abortion alternative clinics. However, in the one instance in which my advice was ultimately spurned, I did not "lose" the friendship. How loving would that be?
I am 45 years old. My biological mother was single and 16 when I was born. I thank God for her everyday, even though I've never met her. In the end, though, I know having me and giving me up for adoption was her choice. If I, as an adopted "bastard" can understand that, why oh why, is it so difficult for others to see?
Who am I trying to protect? Maybe it's "What" I am trying to protect - I am trying to protect the rights of the states to decide what is legal within its borders:
1) Overturn Roe v. Wade.
2) Let each state decide whether abortion is or is not legal within it's borders.
Emotionalism makes for great "politics," but for horrible law.
New Jersey Teachers Group Criticized for Promoting Pro-Abortion March (NJEA & March for Choice)
I can't imagine why you would support allowing any other young mother to go through what your mother went through (assuming you are 30 yo or younger, if you're older, your mother was spared having to "choose."). Or to allow any child to be put in danger of having his or her life weighed for his benefits and costs to his mother, and being killed if he/she isn't worth it.
All human beings have the right not to be killed, and the only purpose of the State or any Government is to protect the inalienable rights of the individual. If the rights of some are infringed by others, the government is not a legitimate government.
If any level of government may infringe on the right to life, what's to keep that level or others from infringing on any right? Where does the discrimination begin and end?
Or do only those we can see or those who can hire a lawyer have the right to life, liberty, property?
THe only way to overturn Roe will be by a Constitutional Amendment.
Why would any State allow some humans to kill other humans because of "choice," rather than in self defense? Why would anyone support the infringement of the right not to be killed based on geography or political grouping?
No state can legalize murder without violating the Federal Constitution's right to life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.