Pro-lifers went wrong in pitting child against mother, says John Paul's favorite politician

Pro-lifers have set over 3000 free help center for mothers and children in north america alone.

This guy has no clue what he's talking about.

Pro-lifers have always supported both mother and child.

As mother Teresa said it is abortion that pitts a child against her mother and the the mother against her child......resulting in murder

Very interesting. As European, I am watching the american catholic life with some fascination... That being said, I would like add something as for the "case Buttiglione". He had been chosen by Durao Barraso for the European Commission with the portofolio of "Justice, Freedom and Justice." During his hearing before the European Parliament's Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice And Home Affairs, he stated that "homosexuality is a sin" but added that his personal opinion would not prevent him from dutifully administering his office, of which to fight (unjust) discriminations. One could doubt about his effective will to prevent unjust discimination based sexual orientation, so that the Parliament had the right to reject the nomination of Buttiglione as Justice "European minister" but was not opposed to a nomination with another portofolio. So that the committee expressed "reservations." Then Durao Barraso had wanted to twist its arm, what pushed the Christian Democrats to let Buttiglione drown in order to reaffirm the prerogatives of the European Parliament. It is inaccurate to speak about "fundamentalist face of Europe" or of "anti-Catholic bias" as did some Italian Catholic politicians and church leaders.
Personnaly, were I a member of the Committee and althought I am Roman Catholic, I would also raise doubts about the nomination of Buttiglione as Justice Commissioner since its claims casted doubt on his effective will to fight unjust discrimination.

Of course this is not an either/or situation: either we work to have the right to life for all unborn children established in law and observed in practice or we work to reduce or eliminate circumstances which some claim justify allowing mothers, supported by the police power of the state, to kill their children in the womb. We should pursue both the ending of legal abortion and the fostering of social and economic conditions that minimize or eliminate economic and social pressures on mothers to kill their unborn children.

It is most unfortunate that Mr. Buttiglione appears to have succumbed to the temptation of taking the easier route rather than maintaining the tension of the both/and approach. Certainly, the pressure to "go along to get along" is enormous in the upper levels of politics. The rise of Mr. Obama and the compromise of so many Catholic leaders in their excitement over him has produced a similar pressure in the United States. But the horrendous reality of legalized abortion remains.

Spiritual pride has no room in this discussion. How many of us 'pro-life' Christians are willing to pay taxes for the developmentally disabled to be in group homes at a cost of $200/day? How many of us are willing to financially support a single mother and her child(ren)? How many of us are willing to take a developmentally disabled person or a single mother and her child into our homes? It is very easy to be vociferously 'pro-life' in our words, but our Lord Jesus Christ wants us to be speak loudly with our actions and our finances.

I am half-Italian, visit Italy on occasion, speak the language passably well. His comments are an example of what happens when good people, who know evil when they see it, keep trying to "split-the-difference"; of what passes as a conservative or traditionalist in western Europe. Like all socialists, he cannot see any solution other than to use the government to solve cultural problems. This speaks poorly of the bishops, who have abdicated their role in calling for the Church as the true solution to the problems. By calls for government action, the bishops have refused to read the Church's own advice over the centuries: evangelize the people. By saving their souls, they will also save the culture, which includes the solution not only to abortion but to pornography, homosexuality and all other social maladies. Instead they offer money by unjust use of government confiscation-and-redistribution, instead of Christ Crucified. By using the engines of organized force to coerce the people from a large portion of their livelihood, the people have less disposable income to assist the poor. This gives them a true feeling of poverty themselves, and an expectation that they expect government to fix the problems. It is the failure of the bishops to read the Church's teachings on socialism, evil, economics and tyranny that has led us to Buttiglione's mindless surrender.

"Pitting child against mother"; this is a bright RED herring. Making efforts to reduce abortions, (certainly an idea that has merit), is subjective and can in no way diminish the efforts to make abortion illegal. Efforts to "reduce abortion" and the rate of success in which reduction would be actualized will be subjective to the efforts (time and money) that governments and organizations will be willing to make; of which we cannot trust. But in the mean time innocent babies will still be murdered. Expecting, unwedded mothers will still be pressured and abused by boyfriends, families and by the abortionists (who only care about the $$ they'll make). Making abortion illegal is an objective means of insuring the safety of babies and mothers. Penalties would still be subjective and should only be enforced on those who push, promote and perform abortions.

Abortion is an abominably intrinsic evil that is a huge symptom when contemplating the ills of our society. Society, the world will never be whole, will never be free, will never have the peace which Christ proclaims until we can completely eliminate all anti-family practices. For as the family deteriorates, so worsens the gravity and affect of the ills on humanity; that will eventually without a doubt destroy humanity.

"Pitting child against mother"; this is a bright RED herring. Making efforts to reduce abortions, (certainly an idea that has merit), is subjective and can in no way diminish the efforts to make abortion illegal. Efforts to "reduce abortion" and the rate of success in which reduction would be actualized will be subjective to the efforts (time and money) that governments and organizations will be willing to make; of which we cannot trust. But in the mean time innocent babies will still be murdered. Expecting, unwedded mothers will still be pressured and abused by boyfriends, families and by the abortionists (who only care about the $$ they'll make). Making abortion illegal is an objective means of insuring the safety of babies and mothers. Penalties would still be subjective and should only be enforced on those who push, promote and perform abortions.

Abortion is an abominably intrinsic evil that is a huge symptom when contemplating the ills of our society. Society, the world will never be whole, will never be free, will never have the peace which Christ proclaims until we can completely eliminate all anti-family practices. For as the family deteriorates, so worsens the gravity and affect of the ills on humanity; that will eventually without a doubt destroy humanity.

Deadly: causing or tending to cause death; fatal; lethal: a deadly poison.

propaganda: information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc.

Thanks NCR

I concur with Kevin. Prolifers do not offer merely feel-good rhetoric, but are on the front lines in supporting mothers and their children.

I agree that support must be given to the mothers, but I also believe we are missing out on a vital part of the ministry and that is the fathers. Men are called to serve and protect woman and child and unfortunately, with the onslaught of so-called sexual freedom, men have abandoned their post. It is most difficult, despite the help a single mother may receive, to raise a child without a loving father in the home as well. We need to get to the men as well....we need an outreach to them, but they are harder to get to because we are socializing to be irresponsible. It is quite a sad situation, but not impossible.

One way of eliminating abortion is through birth control. That too, many times results in the death of an unborn or at least a misdirection of the sexual act between a man and a women.

The most innocent among us, those waiting to be born, deserves the mother's protection. If she will not protect her child than we must do so. We must also see to it that we work with the mother of the unborn child so as to bring her new child into the world.

Abortion is murder and society must not permit it. Abortion should and must be illegal with the state protecting the unborn if the mother chooses not to do so.

What has happened to this poor man? Has he lost his way, his mind or both?

As reported, Buttiglione hasn't done his basic homework. First, prolifers in the United States, at any rate, are heavily involved--day in and day out--in meeting the material and emotional and spiritual needs of mothers who might otherwise submit to abortions. Second, the record shows that where abortion facilities are rare, abortion itself is greatly lessened. See for example Juli Loesch Wiley in the current Catholic Peace Fellowship magazine.) But both these points are already widely known. So it looks like somebody is pushing an agenda...and somebody is falling for it.

He admits that God entrusts the child to its Mother and then goes on to support Abortion - God NEVER makes mistakes he created the child to live - All children have the right to life and All parents deserve full support - By doing EVIL in trying to water down Muder of the Unborn IT IS STILL EVIL - ALL Abortion is Murder
If John Paul 11 was alive Rocco Buttiglione would never have opened his mouth - Now Buttiglione is no longer centre stage he feels alone - he is acting like all politicians speaking for popularity even if it puts the Unborn in danger - All Politicians are Liars

Abortion is the killing of an innocent human being in the womb.

The president is really saying, "We need to reduce the number of human beings we kill in the womb," or "We will work to reduce the need to kill an innocent human being in the womb."

The last paragraph should read "Mr. Buttiglione has announced plans to form an international network in support of reducing the number of times an innocent human being is killed in the womb."

How is this just?

Could anyone imagine telling the abolitionists of the 19th century that we will no longer struggle to outlaw slavery but will do everything in our power to reduce the "needs" of white slave owners so they less of them will "choose" slavery? Can anyone imagine telling modern anti-slavery activitists that we will no longer make human trafficking illegal but work to "reduce" the number of slaves? ALL human beings, whether in the mother, or born, must be protected by law. ALL human life is full of dignity and is inviolable, inherent and inalienable! To accept the legal killing or other abuse of any innocent human life diminishes us all!

Here is an instance where context really is everything. When Buttiglione says that he and pro-life politicians in Italy "went wrong", he was not according to the interview in Corriere della Sera, saying that the Italian law against abortion is wrong, that he is against it. What he said "went wrong" was that in combating the Italian law, he and his fellows on the prolife side did not pay attention to the mother, which they should have. (And here we American pro-lifers may have a lesson to teach. With abortion counseling centers and similar facilities, we help the mother to choose life, by helping her to overcome the pressures exerted by the boyfriend, parents, or husband to "get rid of it.")

So what does this have to do with context? Now he has put together an alliance with some more left-leaning parties to press for a UN resolution for a moratorium on forced abortions. He argues that although we in Europe and the USA split between "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice", this dichotomy does not hold in the rest of the world. Starting with China, but including also other nations, women do not have effectively have a choice as their governments either force them or subject them to severe economic pressure to abort.

From the context -- and indeed from a reasonably attentive reading of his interview with Corriere (and subsequently with "Vatican radio")-- he is not arguing that American pro-lifers should drop the fight in favor of pushing for better health care and welfare programs, which (it is hoped) will reduce the "need" for abortions. He is addressing the situation in other countries where women have no freedom of choice to keep their babies.

Why add the Red Herring fallacy of Pope John Paul II's "favorite politician" seeking to imply the Pope would have approved of this Obama-esque argument?

The best way to refute him is to merely point to Evangelium Vitae, where the late Pope had said legal abortion must be ended, and reduced when it cannot be ended.

This article seems to strike me as a "back door" endorsement of Obama seeking to (wrongly) imply that Pope John Paul II would have approved of Obama's stance.