A quarter of America’s bishops have said that the most important issue for voters in the forthcoming presidential election is abortion – comments that may help boost the fortunes of Republican candidate John McCain.
Some 50 out of the nation’s 197 active bishops have published articles or given interviews during the run-up up to the election urging abortion as the key issue on which voters should decide which way to vote.
Senator McCain opposes the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade, which legalised abortion in the US, but has refused – most recently, at last week’s final television debate between the presidential candidates – to impose an abortion-based “litmus test” on his Supreme Court nominees. The Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, has repeatedly indicated his support for the 1973 ruling alongside a pledge to sign a proposed Freedom of Choice Act that would invalidate any state or local ordinance intended to “deny or interfere” with a woman’s choice to have an abortion.
Among the bishops who have intervened is Bishop Robert Hermann of St Louis who last Friday wrote: “the issue of life is the most basic issue and must be given priority over the issue of the economy, the issue of war or any other issue.” His comment came in a column for the archdiocesan newspaper that appeared hours before Mr Obama addressed 100,000 people in the heavily Catholic city.
Powerful election video here:
http://www.catholicvote.com/
The issues of abortion are straightforward and obvious.
While it may be be possible for some to argue that what they see as a mere lump of protoplasm during the first trimester of pregnacy is not a human being, it is impossible for them to ‘honestly’ and ‘objectively’ argue that an late-stage embryo that can viably exist outside of the womb during the third trimester is not in fact a human being with all of the rights and protections provided by our Constitution all other human beings living in the Unted States of America.
When an infant is born living outside of the womb during a late term abortion procedure it is impossible to deny that that infant is a human being deserving of all of the constitutional protections of other human beings in the USA. Yet, these helpless infants are killed by the abortionists who discard them like surgical detritus, or even worse as happened in Illinois, toss them into a laundry closet.
Let me posit a situation in which a woman gives birth to an infant and then discards that infant like surgical detritus or tosses ikt into a laundry closet.
Would that woman, if determined sane at the moment of her act, be charged with murder or at least homicide? I think so. In fact this is the normal course of events for such an action.
Why then, are medical personnel held blameless when they discard a living infant? Why?
And now, to pose a question related to abortion and the current election, why are so many Christians willing to overlook the fact that one of the two current presidential candidates not only supports abortion as a general procedure, but has also has not come running to the assistance of an infant, and similar infants, who was discarded in a linen closet.
Why should the government which has failed at so many things be allowed any form of control over what women do with their bodies?
If the issues of abortion were straightforward and obvious, wouldn’t humanity have figured it out by now?
The “issues of abortion’ are “straight forward and obvious.”
Since when is the forced partially delivery and then killing of a third term fetus/infant not “straight forward and obvious?”
I see unwanted children, in danger of abortion as”orphans” abandoned and betrayed by both parents. I think it is highly appropriate that Christians refuse to side with those who “oppress the orphan”.
[blockquote]Why should the government which has failed at so many things be allowed any form of control over what women do with their bodies? [/blockquote]
An entirely reasonable question based on an undeniable truism: Government failure. The answer lies in two additional truths:
1) It’s not the woman’s body that is being destroyed in the abortion, but that of a distinct and separate human being; and
2) Government already tells women (and men) what they can and cannot do with their bodies in myriad ways.
If government is not for the protection of individual life, then it has little purpose at all.
Re # 6
AMEN
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj4pUphDitA]Orthodox Christianity[/url]: Proclaiming the Truth since 33 AD
#6, spot on!
T
Women don’t get pregnant alone. The overwhelming majority of abortions (well over 95%) are performed on women who have voluntarily had sexual relations with men. Why should men and women have sexual license at the expense of innocent lives?
Humanity hasn’t “figured it out” because of the universal nature of selfishness and sin. Men are easily persuaded that sex without paternity lawsuits is a great deal, and women are easily deluded into thinking that they should be just like men. We don’t need more sin and killing. We need repentance.
Irrefutable logic.
Again and again, the problem is fornication. Sex and marriage to together, just like sex and babies. And for the same reason.
That’s “go together” above.
Moreover, Sen. Obama has promised that one of his first acts as president will be to sign the “Freedom of Choice”Act which establishes as policy the right to abortion for ANY woman at ANY time in the pregnancy and for ANY reason. This definitely takes away MY choice to NOT pay for abortions of convenience with my federal tax dollars.
To my way of thinking, this election will signal a defining point in our national culture with abortion being the icon, the symbol.
#13, what would you say is more important that stopping the killing of millions of children? I honestly can’t think of anything.
#13: Because if we don’t respect or protect life within our own borders, what good are we as a nation protecting anything. Anyone for some soylent green?
One of the differences between the political liberal and conservative philosophies is about the expectation of an improved life and affluence guaranteed through the redistribution of wealth as opposed to acting responsibly and being productive. Those who took the sacrifice to continue their education or to work hard, remain sexually responsible, truly value and care for their children (once conceived) and to save for their own future retirement should not have their situation coveted by those who don’t follow these values. It is easier to sell votes by a promise of redistribution rather than to reward people’s responsibility and productivity. Without productivity there will be no wealth to redistribute, but just a prolonged recession and lost jobs. Arguing about how progressive the income tax should be on the very wealthy should not be a smoke screen to diminish the middle class. They will be diminished! Promoting abortion is just one of the many attitudes that contrasts in this choice. It focuses on one selfishness without the confusing alleged selfishness attributed to the middle class for just being the middle class.
Cole, what about the indolent children of the rich? Where do their values come from? Let’s get real.
I think the person who is doing the coveting is more likely a LPN toileting the elderly in a nursing home who wonders why they can’t afford to rent an apartment in the very area they are serving than some hypothetical welfare bum. No, the poor work plenty hard. Usually more so than than monied classes — and especially their perpetually adolescent kids. They work hard with not status and at things that stink.
Albany+: Maybe this isn’t the thread to argue economics. I have no argument with your first statement. During my early twenties and when single, I volunteered three of my summer vacations as a camp counselor, wilderness trip leader and Sr. Staff leader in successive years. It was with a YMCA camp. You don’t have to tell me about indolent, or better yet, just spoiled children of the very affluent.
Don’t get me started about the quality of the employees in a nursing home. I can spend many paragraphs telling horror stories about friends and parents of friends. This is too complicated of an example to argue here. I do hope that the Lord takes me before I have to suffer that kind of indignation. People who think they are safely in the middle class or at least in the middle income and close to retirement may just end up in that predicament. That is where the results of redistribution may diminish the future of these people. That doesn’t say that I think I’m better than the working poor. I don’t wish the economy to create more working poor who need to depend totally on government for their welfare. Do you know what [i] Soylent Green [/i] is about? That takes us back to the discussion of abortion along with who society thinks has value.
Since you have a “+†after your name, do you receive your, and the mission of your vocation, income from an endowment and rich benefactors, or do you receive it from average congregants who tithe? You may find your vocation and mission may be vulnerable too. Everyone, except those who sold high and secure, could be hurting from this economic mess.
My comments really go back to the political rhetoric and promises. Can we compare the concepts in the Beatitudes to those in the Ten Commandments about coveting. I think JFK’s Inaugural Speech took a better approach than what I hear in the Campaign. That is really my point. You jump on my comments because you have a different economic world view. Someone who has a degree in Economics like myself can’t argue with your economic world view, so it is easier to agree on abortion.
Cole,
My irritation is the usually pious accounts of the monied all getting there by hard work, as if no one but the well-to-do work hard are sacrifice. It is particularly galling to me as so many of the well-to-do in fact work very little and live off investments – -while complaining they can’t get decent domestic help!
Truly, I’m not into the so-called “class warfare.” I just think it’s fair to say the class and labor are much more complicated than the frequently self-congratulatory accounts of “merit” and “achievement” we hear from certain ends of the political spectrum.
What I would say is a fair comment is that there is about as much indolence in the monied classes as in the ghettos at which they often wag a finger.
Your general point about coveting is one that I share. I just like to fill out the picture a little more.
Cole, And please accept my apology for “jumping” — it wasn’t my intent.
Also, typo again above — should read “or.”
#15, I would oppose first trimester abortions with a ‘life of the mother’ clause. While I think Catholic teaching is correct on that matter, we don’t live in a Catholic theocracy, and no one should have that particular choice made for them by the state. I would also support banning 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, but only as a stepping stone.
I think we’re in agreement that while the goal is the end of abortion, the all-or-nothing legal strategy isn’t going to work here.