Flawed Thinking

The fact is that Democrats and Barack Obama do not want to change the abortion stance of the government right now. Roe v Wade provides all the direction that we as a nation need to structure policy on the issue. Abortion will be availabe and safe for any woman up until the last trimester except for the health of the mother and Democrats will do nothing to change that. Most Catholics do not feel they must impose their morality on others as other Democrats and social moderates believe. There is the common ground that binds these groups and the authors scare tactics that Democrats would move in a radical direction are just that, a politically motivated fear campaign directed at Catholics and other pro lifers. Democrats, as all Americans do, want to decrease the number of abortions in this country but they would prefer to do that with education and sensible social programs that prevent unwanted pregnancy instead of criminalizing a women's choice. If the Republicans wish to be the pro-life party, they should look at their positions on war, poverty and healthcare in addition to abortion to gain moral authority with America.

418newsweek,
Thank you for responding, I'm glad to see you quoted Evangelium Vitae, unfortunately you left out the following section from paragraph 23...
Adopting a consistent ethic of life, the Catholic Church promotes a broad spectrum of issues???Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and the marginalized in all those areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages. But being ???right??? in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ???rightness??? of positions in other manners affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as ???the temple of the Holy Spirit???- the living house of God- then these lesser issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of the house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house???s foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person???s most fundamental right-the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand. Such attacks cannot help but lull the social conscience in ways ultimately destructive of other human rights. This is not beside the point it is the point. Also, I do not imply that we should look the other way on other social teaching of the Church. The point of the Church is that the foundational issue of life must logically be the most important issue.

I'm signing off of this crazy discussion, but I'll just leave you all with some food for thought from Sister Helen Prejean.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2006/09/sister-helen-prejean-on-values-voting.html

To you a one-issue voters: please really ask yourself, "do I *really* want to solve the problem?" Because if in your heart you do want to reduce abortions, then you will take the time to research solutions that will undeniably work better than tossing the decision back to state legislatures. Look at other first-world countries, where abortion rates are a fraction of what ours are because their social programming and sex education programs are so strong. And look at the connection between poverty and education and abortion. Consider how the candidates' other policies (on the environment, on energy, on education, on health care) will affect things. Be pro-life, not just pro-existence.

which as stated by our Pope and my states Bishop Zubick (Pennsylvania), Pro-life is also encompassed by the sanctity of human life. The sanctity of human life envelopes many areas such as Global Peace, Poverty, Capital Punishment, and immigration. Pope Benedict has called the Iraq War, "A war of immorality". That gives a pro-life Catholic, like myself, my balance. I can then vote on the issues. Any Catholic that feels a human soul walking the planet does not have the same rights as an unborn child, is clouded by idealism.

Sorry George. You missed the boat on this topic. If you were to pay attention to the current Catholic doctrine, which as stated by our Pope and my states Bishop Zubick (Pennsylvania), Pro-life is also encompassed by the sanctity of human life. The sanctity of human life envelopes many areas such as Global Peace, Poverty, Capital Punishment, and immigration. Pope Benedict has called the Iraq War, "A war of immorality". That gives a pro-life Catholic, like myself, my balance. I can then vote on the issues. Any Catholic that feels a human soul walking the planet does not have the same rights as an unborn child, is clouded by idealism.

To Gphur:

Evangelium vitae, (Second Vatican Council): "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed."
Catholic Bishops??? document regarding faithful citizenship: ???we should not let the party transform us in such a way that we neglect or deny fundamental moral truths.??? They cite as unjustifiable: genocide, torture, war crimes, racism, the death penalty, unjust war, and the targeting of noncombatants in war, the failure to respond to those who are suffering from hunger or lack of health care, and an unjust immigration policy. They say, ???these are not optional concerns which can be dismissed.???

All this is beside the point, though. You imply that as long as the President is going to keep putting in Supreme Court judges who may ??? one day, far, far away - throw the decision back to state legislatures (what a disaster!), then it???s ok to overlook war, torture, death penalty, inadequate health care and education. In the meantime, millions of people are suffering and dying because the government is not caring for them (are they just the price we need to pay to get Roe v. Wade overturned?)

My point is past all of this. The point is that one can oppose abortion but see social reform ??? rather than legislation ??? as an appropriate solution.

with increasing knowledge of human genetics, it has become increasinly clear that the necessary and sufficient condition for personhood -- starting with their identity and leading to what sort of life they might lead -- is bound to their genetic make-up - their DNA

in light of this, it is not a stretch to award "personhood" status to a newly-conceived embryo - they have the DNA code particular to them, no-one else (except for identical twins and (hypothetical and mostly legally banned) clones)

In the age of IVF, known-donors and sperm banks, it is increasinly clear that the resulting children (and the adults they become) demand (and are owed, i believe) certain basic information on thier genetic background - who were their mother and father, in the least.

Modern countries (i'm in Australia) are increasingly confronted by the demands of people conceived other than naturally, as these people seek to live meaningful lives.

But we should also cast our minds back, and consider the (implied) demands of the unborn, to have their own genetic destiny respected, from the time of conception.

Thank you, Mr. Weigel, you said it best. God bless America.

I think the case for (and against) abortion rests on how you define what being a person is. At what point does a fetus start to exhibit brain activity? To me, when the fetus shows more brain activity then a person in a vegetative state, that seems like a good logical place to consider the fetus "human".

I find the abortion issue an issue of different shades of gray. I think the right wing religious nut who is against comprehensive sex education (Studys show this reduces teen pregnancies and STD's) and contraceptives to be just as wrong as the ultra liberal who think abortions should be allowed without any restrictions right up until the day of birth.

I think the case for (and against) abortion rests on how you define what being a person is. At what point does a fetus start to exhibit brain activity? To me, when the fetus shows more brain activity then a person in a vegetative state, that seems like a good logical place to consider the fetus "human".

I find the abortion issue an issue of different shades of gray. I think the right wing religious nut who is against comprehensive sex education (Studys show this reduces teen pregnancies and STD's) and contraceptives to be just as wrong as the ultra liberal who think abortions should be allowed without any restrictions right up until the day of birth.

The Catholic Church does not believe that life begins at conception and ends at natural birth. I will not allow Republicans to treat anti-abortion groups useful idiots while they continue to trample on the rights of the post born. Are we to believe that if a politician says the right things on abortion, we give the license to tear apart our economy and treat the immigrant as an enemy? We then, to honor the right choice on abortion, give any candidate the license to treat workers with less dignity by ignoring their needs for higher minimum wage, better public schools, and more affordable healthcare. Mr Weigel is just being silly in his defense of John McCain.

Bravo, Mr Weigal...great follow up to the previous article. This one definitely makes the statement 'crystal clear' for those under the misguided assumption that they, in fact, are Catholics. No, not at all...they are another form of dissent in a long line of dissenters since the beginning of the church. Politicians come and go, states, countries, and empires all come and go. What speeds up that process is when the common good for all is lost and in the U.S., our civilized society has been letting the most vulnerable, helpless portion of our society be killed in ridiculous numbers, a true holocaust that continues today because "U.S. catholics" are 'morally superior and know more about what God wants for His people than the Body of Christ' (yeah....right), HIS Church has not wavered in its stance that abortion is an intrinsic evil and a sin (going 2000 years and strong). For all of the so-called intellectuals, cafeteria catholics, and 'U.S.' catholics please, please, please, stop calling yourselves Catholic (Non-denominational churches are in rapid growth)or please, please, please, I pray of and for you, come back to the fold, pick up your cross and follow our Lord Jesus Christ.

LOL, adorable. Really cute. Don't know much about McCain's past, do you?