The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionRomney: "I'm Pro-Life"
by Michael Sean Winters on Jan. 12, 2012
According to Politico, Mitt Romney has begun to assert his pro-life credentials which have recently come under attack from Newt Gingrich.
The problem with his assertion is this: His decision to include taxpayer funded abortions in his health care overhaul, and his decision to award Planned Parenthood a seat on a health care advisory board the overhaul established, came after, not before, Romney's conversion on abortion. Campaign spokesmen have said that Romney had no choice regarding taxpayer-funded abortions given a string of Massachusetts court rulings. But, I am not sure that would have satisfied the position articulated by the USCCB when it opposed Obama's health care plan. The USCCB, you will recall, said that the guarantees against taxpayer funded abortions in the Obama health care reform were insufficiently airtight. In Romney's health care law, there were no such guarantees at all. If the price of extending health care means extending taxpayer-funded abortion, that is a price the USCCB clearly would not have paid.
And, additionally, there were no court rulings in Massachusetts requiring Romney to award Planned Parenthood, by statute, a seat on the advisory board. Nor were there any court rulings preventing him from awarding a seat to a pro-life organization, say, the Catholic Church which maintains a lot of health care programs in the Bay State.
If Romney's health care plan had been passed before his conversion to the pro-life cause, you would not hear a peep out of me. I love converts. But, it happened after that conversion and raises serious questions about the significance of that conversion. I am gald he has seen the light, but if that light did not shine on his health care law, what good is it?
I'm a left-wing liberal. I
I'm a left-wing liberal. I love government and I am a member of the UK Labour party. But if I was American I would be a Republican because I'm a Catholic and I believe the pro-life issues is the most important political issue.
All Catholics whether they be left, right or centre, liberal, conservative or moderate should unite against President Obama.
You cannot be Catholic and pro-abortion.
Luke: I have never met
Luke: I have never met anyone in my life who is "pro-abortion." Abortion is never a "good" outcome for either mother or child. Most Americans as they have grown in maturity become “pro choice.”
There is a big difference. And, the laws that govern our pluralistic society reflect that fact.
From my lifetime of practice, sometimes in some circumstances abortion may be the better choice among really bad choices for a woman with an at-risk pregnancy. Rigid, categorical thinking is always bad medicine and is usually deadly for both mother and child.
As to your political jujitsu trying to straddle the political divide, I'm don't vote for hardly any Republicans because I learned how to read when I was five years old.
One of the reasons that we had a revolution here in America is so that we could be free of any religiously inspired compulsions or enslavement such as you say, “All Catholics” must vote in a certain way.
You may have missed this little gem from Thomas Jefferson referring to autocratic Christians: “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
We Americans are still learning how to hold the tension between our religious faith and the commonweal of the people.
I have met people who are
I have met people who are "pro-abortion" in the UK and they almost certainly exist in the UK. Even if I accept your premise of abortion being best alternatives in some circumstances that does not mean people have to accept an abortion on demand as we have at the moment.
On the religious enslavement point you are free to leave Catholic Church as any time no one from the Church or from the government can force you to stay, so there is no enslavement. But if we do choose to stay in the church you should accept it's teaching or you may as well leave church because if you reject the major teaching of the church you are not Catholic
You get a good look at the
You get a good look at the real beliefs of Liberal Catholics at this website.
Luke: this church has had
Luke: this church has had many "teachings" over time. Which of these do you adhere to these days (I did notice your weasel word "major"):
• It was OK to own slaves. In 1866 Pope Pius IX declared, “It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”
• Earning interest on loaning money was wrong. The church condemned usury at the Second Lateran Council in 1139, the Third Lateran Council in 1179, and the Council of Vienne in 1311.
• Anyone who wasn’t a Catholic was doomed to hell. You know, the old “extra ecclesia nulla salus” thing.
• The 1864 encyclical "Quanta Cura" by Pius IX explicitly condemned freedom of religion.
• Almost anything the church said about Jews prior to Nostra Aetate.
• It was OK to kidnap a Jewish child who was clandestinely baptized and not let the child go back to his parents to be raised as a Jew.
• Women were a near occasions of sin.
• If you ate meat on Friday and died before confessing, you would go to hell because to do so was a mortal sin.
• You were not allowed to read the Bible without prior church permission.
• You were not allowed to read any book on the Index of Forbidden Books.
• Do you remember the Galileo Affair?
• Before and during the Civil War Catholic priests in the South were preaching from their pulpits that the abolition of slavery would lead to the destruction of the economy and family life.
• When woman were campaigning for the vote the Catholic Church in Canada and the United states preached from the pulpit that such a move would erode families.
• When woman struggled for the right to work outside the home and receive equal pay, the Church was right there to proclaim that such a move would destroy families.
Ask yourself, though, why
Ask yourself, though, why abortion is "never a 'good' outcome." If your answer is because it's an innocent human life, then it seems that there is perfect room for categorical thinking (besides, you did it yourself when you said that you "don't vote for hardly any Republicans because [you] learned how to read when [you were]five years old.") It is never okay to purposefully end an innocent human life. Never, ever. That is what abortion is. And no one should have the "choice" to do it, just as no one should have the choice to end any innocent human life (whether that life is in the womb or not).
Thank you for your sane
Thank you for your sane position. By reading here some blogs and many of the comments about the subject, I begin to fear I'm watching a sort of dramatization of The Loony Toons. I don't use the word Kafkian because it has been eroded by too much use and abuse.
"I have never met anyone in
"I have never met anyone in my life who is "pro-abortion." Abortion is never a "good" outcome for either mother or child. Most Americans as they have grown in maturity become “pro choice.” "
Nonsense!!!
I've rarely met a "pro-choicer" who wanted to let me decide whether or not I should wear a seatbelt while driving, or whether I should be able to decide which type of lightbulb I should buy, or whether or not I can smoke in a private establishment, or allow me to decide if I want to buy health insurance...."pro-choice" almost always means pro-abortion, and only pro-abortion.
"Pro-choicers" routinely oppose that which would promote an informed choice, such as doctors providing information on fetal development, ultra-sounds etc, suddenly they become anti-choice, but remain pro-abortion.
Those in the eugenics movement, are certainly pro-abortion, those that wish to select abortion based on the race, sex or health of the child certainly deserve the pro-abortion label.
Those such as BHO who oppose measures like the born alive infant protection act are certainly pro-abortion, in these cases the child is partially outside the mother and living, but killed rather then being allowed to live.
I've found that anyone who honestly tells you that they are "personally opposed to abortion yet pro-choice" can normally be convinced other wise with a short conversation...which makes them easy to tell from others who hide their true motives, behind the "pro-choice" label and hate being exposed for the pro-abortion views they truly hold.
You cannot be Catholic and
You cannot be Catholic and Republican, no matter what the British dictate from afar.
You cannot serve both God and mammon.
You cannot be pro-life and pro-war, or pro-death penalty, like these boyos.
Luke, although it is how The
Luke, although it is how The pro-life community wants to frame it, pro-choice is not pro-abortion.
Looks like everybody is
Looks like everybody is ganging up on Romney for whatever reason they can find because it looks like he is going to win.
Thank you Jim, for pointing
Thank you Jim, for pointing out what I have long wanted to say. Nobody loves an abortion! There isn't a single woman who gets an abortion because she thought this was a fun idea. This is a desperate choice born out of desperate circumstances. If we really want to get rid of abortion, we must focus on providing realistically available healthcare, education and jobs for everyone-----not just the few with abundant financial resources! That includes easily available birth control. You will not find most Republicans getting behind those basic realities.
interesting insight
interesting insight here:
http://news.yahoo.com/opus-dei-influenced-rick-santorum-201937160.html
This is where the rubber
This is where the rubber meets the road, as it is the only instance where being pro-life as a politician matters. Of course, it does not matter much, because abortion is cheap and most people pay cash. Presidential views outside of this issue matter not at all, because they can't direct an appointee on the Supreme Court to vote to overturn Roe, nor can the Church. An Justice so directed would recuse themselves. A personhood law in Congress, the only appropriate place to pass one, would likely settle on assisted viability. It would certainly not go much beyond the first trimester, because the equal protection issues involved in recognizing first trimester embryos are too hard to overcome (criminalizing mothers, civil torts and police investigation of miscarriage).
The most remarkable case of
The most remarkable case of "pro-lifers" passionate compassion:
Brazil rocked by abortion for 9-year-old rape victim
Church excommunicates mother and doctors – but not accused rapist
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-aborti...
Romney isn't pro-life enough
Romney isn't pro-life enough for the Liberal Catholics. They don't mind 100% pro-abortion candidates. In fact, they vote for them every chance they get. Pro-life candidates, though, have to be perfect. When the Liberal Catholics sense the least weakness on the life issue in a candidate who is against abortion, they pounce in righteous indignation. Today's Washington Post, though, quotes favorably a pro-abortion writer who is much more practically minded than Liberal Catholics claim to be. " 'I think it’s incredibly likely that he would fill his administration with anti-choice hard-liners and would be every bit as bad as George W. Bush, if not worse,' she says." That's not good enough for the Liberal Catholics, though. They don't care what he'll do as president, they want to take another look at his record in Massachusetts.
On election day the author of the Washington Post piece will say that she voted against Romney because he's against abortion. Liberal Catholics will say that they voted against Romney because he wasn't against abortion enough. Who will be telling the truth?
Excuse me, Sir, but it was
Excuse me, Sir, but it was too much!
You, in the States, have already the must murderous record in Empire's history, and the biggest per capita genocide criminals in the world. Starting with Mr. Kissinger, Mr.Reagan, Mr. Bush Father, Mr George W., Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, etc. If you are "pro-life" and the pristine "Catholic defenders of the faith", I'll stay, at any time, with the Borgias, which, in comparison, were only amateurs! Please, whatch yourselves in the mirror. If you don't puke, it's because you are so much dead as your propaganda policy of the heavenly policemen/resource suckers of the planet. I've been missing the Soviets, even if they were not my coup of tea. At least, their people had culture and a cultured man used his brains and imagination to fight back the system. You just use your most basic instincts and the few "information" you get from Fox News and the like. I've never before despised a people, but your "elite" his becoming more and more despicable. I thank you Mr. Winters to help me to know the true face of US: huge corruption, a corporate dominated system, the utmost ignorance. Forgive me, Mr. Winters, but only in such a sick system, you would be able to make your very litle, snigering and pseudo-cultivated "intelectual" micro-star to shine. I won't loose any more time with you or with your blog posts. Because they are not catholic, christian or of any religion at all. My best regards to your St. Bernard, that I suspect to be the saner of the couple - even if he eats more in a day that hundreds of famished Africans in monthes.
It's hard to take seriously
It's hard to take seriously somebody who says that we're worse than Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Tamerlane and Genghis Kahn, but I will say that I do not think that Mr. Winters writes the stuff that sets you off. I write things because I think they're true. Here we can write whatever we want. NCR does not let me write anything too rude, but other than that people on this site write what they believe. You should not attribute what I say to Mr. Winters. If you think I've stated a falsehood, point it out. War is a bad thing, but the only reason you're not writing in German or Russian, no matter what country you live in, is that the armed forces of the United States went to war, or were willing to go to war, with the Nazis and the Communists. The totalitarians wouldn't let you use the internet, either. We built it and here you are doing your part to fill it with falsehoods. If it weren't for the United States of America some totalitarian state would be your cup of tea, whether you liked it or not. Don't worry though, Mr. Outsider, we'll continue to let you use the internet. You can despise us all you want in perfect safety. I've seen European tourists in action, btw. After having seen that it would be hard to convince me that, per capita, Americans are the biggest "resource suckers of the planet." I don't think Mr. Winters' dog is causing any problems to anyone. And, also btw, do you really think my sources of information are limited to Fox News and sources like it? Why don't you compare the CNN website and the Fox News website? The facts on both are pretty much the same. The emphasis is different. The interpretation is different. The facts are very similar. If not, provide a cite to the CNN story about American soldiers killing millions. I can read whatever I want. So can you. Thanks to the government of the United States of America.
Dear Sir, We never received
Dear Sir,
We never received any kind of help from your great country, on the contrary. When, for a short period of time, it seemed that the comunists were going to take power, kind Mr. Kissinger sent the following message to your embassy: "Let them fall. They will be Europe's vaccine." Who acted in my country's behalf was Mr. Frank Carlucci, a fair man and a former director of the CIA. As you see I don't forget inteligence and fairness.
As regarding MR. MSW blog, it has become a meeting point for the Tea Party, political and "catholic", even if he stands for President Obama, someone wich I respect too. But his politization of catholicism is a distortion of my faith, and I resent that very much. He has not a christian thought in his brain, just a taste for political intrigue (and Tridentine mass). Perharps a blind lover of basebal could do the job better.
I must confess that I was a litle bit unfair towards the St. Bernard: he's to inteligent to belong to any Tea Party, political or religious.
Above all, I have the utmost respect for your people, even if they are being intoxicated by Faux News and CNN - you are right, they are pratically the same - and a biased form of information that Mr. Carl Bernstein defined some time ago as the kingdom of stupidity (he opened just two excepctions for the New York Times and the Washington Post). That's the cost of concentration and corporation's rule over the media.
With my best regards
Certainly the United States
Certainly the United States may have been insufficiently vigorous in defending your particular country against Communism. The point is that if the United States armed forces were not in existence to oppose the Communists, the Communists would have succeeded everywhere. The United States didn't save Hungary from Communism with a war, but the Communists had to give up on Hungary because of their problems elsewhere. In the absence of the armed forces of the United States, the Communists would have had no reason to give up on Hungary. Similarly, if the foreign Communists had been able to provide more help to your domestic Communists, your patriotic forces would not have succeeded. If the Communists didn’t have to worry about the armed forces of the United States, they would have provided more help. So we did save your country, although we did it indirectly by limiting the ability of foreign Communists to help enslave you. And apparently, according to you, direct help from the CIA was important, too. You don’t have to tell me criticisms of Kissinger’s foreign policy. I voted for Ronald Reagan, who criticized Kissinger and his foreign policy by name when he ran for president in 1976 and 1980. He also appointed Mr. Carlucci to high office. If you can distinguish between the ideology of the CNN website, and the ideology of the New York Times and the Washington Post, you certainly can make fine distinctions, but those very minor differences are without practical importance. Finally, I note you are unwilling to defend European tourists, so there may be things that we agree on. I may be more Catholic than you think. Are you sure I’m bad and not stupid? I pray that the dogmas of the faith be preserved in my country, as in yours.
Dear Sir, Since our
Dear Sir,
Since our conversation is now quite private, I must tell you: my country is Portugal, and Mr. Kissinger message dates from 1975. You see, under an authoritarian leadership, who was backed by the US when was convenient - because of our strategic position (the western command of NATO was here) and of our African colonies -, we had suffered already the opression of a 48 years dictatorial regime, and when freedom come, 1n 1974, the only organized party was the communist one. We managed to deal with the situation, mainly with the support of the German's social democrats, who financed the democratic parties. Mr. Carlucci was then the ambassador, and supported, at a diplomatic level, this aid. I don't have the bad habit of judging entire nations, nor even individuals. But I know that during our 900 hundred years of history we, as a small nation, were too busy to mind our own business and defending ourselves from Spaniards, French and Dutch that we did not have time - or enough people - left to medle in European or World affairs. By the way, wherever we went we spread the Catholic Faith. I'm not saying that our record is spotless, but as a Phoenician like trade Empire, we did a LOT less harm than other empires. I don't like to be rude to people. Excuse me if I ofended you, but sometimes the old pride that runs in my blood is stronger, and , by exceeding myself, I lose the capacity of reasoning in a Christian way.
Let me send you a postcard of my people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Rrx0W_5KmQo&vq=hd720
God bless you, and your family.
Thanks for the postcard!
Thanks for the postcard! It was very interesting. When I was in school we would spend a lot of time with Vasco da Gama and Prince Henry the Navigator. Portugal has a magnificent history, and who knows what the future may bring? I knew that you were from Portugal when you mentioned Frank Carlucci. If you say he was helpful to your country as a diplomat, I'm sure you're right, but he was mixed up with the CIA through his whole carreer, and I don't know what good diplomacy could have done for Portugal, when the Communists had so much power inside it. I remember the summer in the 1970s when every day I would pick up the newspaper and read about two or three Communist Party headquarters being burned down the night before. The last sentence of my last post was a reference to what the Blessed Mother said to Sister Lucia about your country. No hard feelings about any of this. Maybe I am stupid, but I hope I'm not as bad as you had said. I'm stuck with writing what I believe to be true.
Post new comment