US Bishops Rebuke Democrats Over Abortion
November 17th, 2007 at 05:22am Mark Noonan
This is standing up for the Culture of Life in a very public manner:
Boston, Nov 15, 2007 (CNA).- The U.S. Bishops have issued their strongest condemnation yet of pro-abortion views with their “Faithful Citizenship” document issued yesterday. Cardinal Sean O’Malley of Boston also has added his disapproval of pro-abortion candidates in comments to the Boston Globe saying that the support of Catholics for these politicians “borders on scandal”.
Cardinal O’Malley voiced a sentiment that the bishops’ latest citizenship document includes, namely that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.
Noting that many Catholics traditionally support Democrats, O’Malley reamed the Democratic Party for being “extremely insensitive to the church’s position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues.”
When the cardinal was asked about the many voters who support Democrats who are in favor of abortion, O’Malley said, “I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I’m concerned.”
Abortion is the central moral issue of the modern world - on it hangs all of the associated issues we catagorise as “social issues” in our political debates. If abortion is ok, then so is euthansia; if abortion is ok, then so is same-sex marriage; if abortion is ok, then so is widespread pornography; if abortion is ok, then so is pre- and extra-marital sex; if abortion is ok, then its ok to lie if its for a ‘good cause’…on and on it goes, with abortion being the barometer of our moral disintegration. On the other side of the issue, how can someone in favor of abortion argue against the death penalty? Argue against the war? Argue in favor of open borders? You can be on firm moral ground, or you can be in favor of abortion - you can’t be both.
What the Bishops are addressing here is the way in which people try to keep things in separate boxes - Democrat A is ok because of his support of Issue A and Issue B, and we’ll just ignore his pro-abortion fanaticism. This can’t be done - if you are backing a man who advocates evil because he’ll also throw you a bone on your pet cause, then you are polluting your pet cause, and dishonoring yourself into the bargain. Might as well support a gangster if he’ll throw a donation to Greenpeace.
The reason we are in such a contentious political climate is because of this fundamental disagreement - a disagreement as fundamental as that between the pro- and anti-slavery forces of the 1850’s. There is no way to bridge this gap - you are either on the side of the angels, or on the side of the wicked when it comes to this crucial issue of abortion. Tap dancing around it might make a person feel better about themselves, but the issue remains - the division is still there, and will continue to poison the debate until the matter is permanently settled one way or the other. The US Bishops are calling it as it is - anyone who by act or omission permits the unfettered action of abortion is unworthy of support, and anyone who lends such a person support is engaging in scandalous behaviour. In order to support a candidate, there must first be something in them that will aid an end to the evils of our day, with abortion as the primary evil needing to be ended.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Life Issues, Religion
47 Comments
1. french student | November 17th, 2007 at 6:09 am
Ok, let’s endorse a candidate that wants to reduce the number of abortions in the most successful, scientifically proven way : by making contraception as widely available, in as many forms as possible. By educating young men and women on how sex works. By (gasp) giving them condoms.
This, my friends, is the efficient way to do it. To reduce the numbers of abortions. Why do you think we get half as much abortions per 1000 women as you do?
But of course, neither the bishops nor Mark will ever want that.
Because it is not about morals. It is about following the taboos of a religion that was founded 2000 years before the contraceptive was invented. It is about forcing women to “Behave or go to hell”. It made sense back then. Hell it made sense till the condom waas made reliable, because it was the way to prevent STDs, or at least protect men from being infected from their wives. Does it still make sense now?
The church took centuries to acknowledge that earth was not, in fact, flat and at the center of the universe. How long till they acknowledge that condoms, the pill, contraceptives implants, and contraception in general are more reliable ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies than putting shame of “sin” in front of an eighteen-years-old’s sex drive?
And before you invoke a “golden age” when young ones waited to be married before they had sex, reread the first paragraphs of Romeo And Juliet : As recently as shakespeare time, the girls were getting married at Juliet’s age. Juliet is supposed to be… 13. Today, Romeo would be a statutory rapist. Do you want to come back to that?
And of course, for those abortions that cannot be avoided, let’s not make it even more difficult for the girl. Let’s cut the red tape, since the longer she has to wait, the more serious the procedure is.
But of course solutions are not what this is about, is it, Mark?
2. jgwilk | November 17th, 2007 at 7:51 am
No, it’s not about solutions at all, it’s about votes. Republicans controlled the House, the Senate and the presidency and not one piece of legislation was introduced to make abortion illegal. Why? Republican don’t want to lose that wedge issue. Actually, it’s sad how easily their voting based is so easily duped and led around like a bull with a nose ring.
3. 1H8L1B5 | November 17th, 2007 at 8:32 am
frog student, just because you “enlightened” Europukes want to define morality down, doesn’t mean the church should. This “get with the times” liberal mentality has destroyed many cultures worldwide; we don’t want our already-crumbling culture in America to go by the wayside.
Mark, if one who has a sparse religious background was to consider becoming a Catholic, what would one have to do? Especially if one was headed to the U.K. for an extended period of time. Any suggestions?
4. Jay Gaultieri | November 17th, 2007 at 9:05 am
From 2002 to 2006 the Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. Nothing was done about abortion that entire time.
The values voters have been played for chumps on this issue for 34 years.
5. AgentFear | November 17th, 2007 at 9:21 am
I don’t think ANYONE is “pro-abortion”.
Period.
Do not confuse those who want to maintain a womans right to have freedom of choice.
Abortion is a poor choice. Abortion is ugly and will probably mentally affect the woman for the rest of her life.
Your rant on abortion being OK if…is quite a stretch. In fact its laughable. You could apply any of the seven deadly sins and twist them to conform to your examples.
Abortion is abhorrent and should be the last worst choice a woman has to make.
I for one, will not choose the womans path in making such an extreme decision. It should be solely up to her and her’ alone.
Maybe, just maybe if we take sex and the repercussions of sex out of the dark ages we can make advances on preventing abortion.
I can see you putting your support behind Rudy and we KNOW how he stood on the abortion issue. Does the word hypocritical come to mind?
It’s obvious with the rise of STD”s in the U.S., the use of condoms should be reinforced, not shunned. Abstinence? Give me a break. What a waste of time, money, and effort. Can you for once get real?
Reality? I don’t find your views very real at all.
6. Joe | November 17th, 2007 at 9:33 am
AgentFear,
THAT is exactly what the Republicans don’t understand. Nobody is FOR abortion. People are FOR legal and safe and available if necessary.
Why should some rich 70 year old politicians tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body?
It is simply a wedge issue that righties love to use for votes.
7. neocon | November 17th, 2007 at 10:08 am
“Righties” are more concerned about the loss of infant life than we are about votes. I know that’s difficult for a liberal to understand. “Righties” also realize that overturning Roe V Wade would be nearly impossible considering the current SC, so we look to combatting this issue in a more effective manner, education and adoption.
Rudys NY record on this issue was impressive, and he will appoint constructionists to the bench. That’s hardly hypocritical. It’s called a winning strategy.
According to the state Office of Vital Statistics, total abortions performed in New York City between 1993 (just before Giuliani arrived) and 2001 (as he departed) fell from 103,997 to 86,466 — a 16.86 percent decrease. This upended a 10.32 percent increase over the course of the eight years before Giuliani, with 1985 witnessing 94,270 abortions.
8. Casper | November 17th, 2007 at 10:36 am
“According to the state Office of Vital Statistics, total abortions performed in New York City between 1993 (just before Giuliani arrived) and 2001 (as he departed) fell from 103,997 to 86,466 — a 16.86 percent decrease. This upended a 10.32 percent increase over the course of the eight years before Giuliani, with 1985 witnessing 94,270 abortions.”
1993 to 2001. Who was president then?
9. AgentFear | November 17th, 2007 at 10:44 am
“Giuliani Tries to Clarify Abortion Stance
Candidate Says He Is Personally Opposed but Supports Women’s Right to Choose
By Dan Balz and Sylvia Moreno
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, May 12, 2007; Page A06
Former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani yesterday sought to quell a growing controversy over abortion that has disrupted his presidential campaign. Restating his support for abortion rights, he asked Republican voters to look beyond that issue to the totality of his platform and record.
Giuliani called abortion “morally wrong” but said he nonetheless favors a woman’s right to choose. “I am open to seeking ways of limiting abortions, and I am open to decreasing abortions,” he told an audience at Houston Baptist University. “But I believe you have to respect their [women's] viewpoint and give them a level of choice. I would grant women the right to make that choice.”
10. neocon | November 17th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Casper,
Why does it matter who was President? Are you seriously going to try and credit Clinton with Rudys success in NY?
This I want to see.
11. KCJ | November 17th, 2007 at 11:39 am
“From 2002 to 2006 the Republican Party controlled the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and the Supreme Court. Nothing was done about abortion that entire time.” - Jay Gautieri
Well, there was the partial-birth abortion ban, which was passed, signed, and upheld by the Supreme Court.
12. Casper | November 17th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
“Are you seriously going to try and credit Clinton with Rudys success in NY?”
Ah no. But it does bring up some questions. What policies did Giuliani have that lowered the abortion rate? Did his policies have anything to do with abortion at all? For that matter, can you prove that it was Giuliani’s policies rather than Clinton’s that brought about the decrease?
I think that too often we give credit to a politician for something that happened on his watch whether he had anything to do with it or not.
13. Mark Noonan | November 17th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
IH8,
E mail me - or search for an RCIA group in your locality. You’re closest Catholic parish will have all the info.
14. Mark Noonan | November 17th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
french,
That falls under the catagory of “if abortion is ok, then so is pre- and extra-marital sex”. In other words, you won’t need to pass out condoms to kids if you’ve got a society which values life and because of this valuing of life, also values human sexuality. You’re of the line of thinking which makes having sex akin to getting a drink of water - that its a drink of water out of the gutter is something you don’t want to acknowledge.
The way to reduce abortions is to reduce abortions - all at one, if possible; in slow steps, if necessary.
15. Mark Noonan | November 17th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
jg,
Are you kidding? We banned late term abortions, instituted abstinence sex education, stopped assisting abortion overseas…we’ve done what we can, when we can…the key, of course, is to overturn Roe…need just one more conservative Justice for that.
16. Mark Noonan | November 17th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
Agent,
For more than a century now we’ve been bringing sex out of the dark ages; we’ve got kids who think of oral sex as a kiss goodnight. I think we’re fully into the modern age in matters sexual…the only things left to liberate are same sex marriage, incest and bestiality.
Rather not get that modern, ok?
17. Mark Noonan | November 17th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Oh, and as for being for abortion - sorry, but anyone who votes against a ban on the never-medically-indicated partial birth abortion is de-facto pro-abortion…or stupid; take your pick.
18. Jay Gaultieri | November 17th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
The number of late term abortions was always miniscule—most doctors wouldn’t perform them. Other countries will provide for abortions if we don’t.
And deep down in places you don’t like think to about you know abstinence ed doesn’t work and that the True Love Waits movement is basically a joke. It’s sad really, but that’s the truth. I know from first hand experience because I’ve had sex (using condoms) with several girls who made those vows of chastity.
19. AgentFear | November 17th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Somehow I don’t see a time when we turn on the TV and see Ricky and Lucy sleeping in separate beds again. I don’t see Lifetime network changing its torrid programming (my wife loves that stuff). I don’t see movies at the theaters changing their violent and sexual themes. I don’t think the music industry is going to change its fair, or doing anything beyond labeling it’s music as “mature”.
Time to step into the future boys. Sometimes it ain’t pretty. We can blame this and we can blame that, but I don’t think things are going to change much at all.
What we CAN do is what some have mentioned here, educate, inform, counsel. If we need to provide condoms, so be it.
Preaching abstinence is NOT going to work in todays world. Get it? The kids are too smart. Too wise for their own good. Abstinence? They laugh at you.
No this is not the dark ages, it is the future. Step into the new world and adapt and prepare.
The Beavers gone.
20. lilly06 | November 17th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
As a Christian myself, I believe that abortion should not be used as a contraception or for when a healthy fetus is not ‘convenient for life right now’.
However;
I will not judge a woman who has been raped,
I will not judge a young teen who has been molested by a family member,
I will not judge a woman whose going fetus has spinalbifida,
…who have a preganancy termination.
Abortion is not a black and white issue….it is not straight forward therefore cannot be resolved with a blanket solution.
…I would prefer for women to exercise their right to have a termination in a clean hygenic hospital rather than in an alley somewhere because it is illegal.
Mark I understand your point of view but you need to exercise some empathy for the thousands of women who make this decison in America every year. If you were the women I described above, it would be a very hard decision to make. The last thing you need is judgement.
21. Psycheout | November 17th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Good for Cardinal O’Malley. He’s right. The murder of millions of innocent lives, little candles snuffed out in the abortuaries, is the most significant issue of our time. It is a tragedy, it is wholesale undignified slaughter.
It cannot go on. We must end this night of wrong.
Over six million American children have been murdered in this country since the start of the liberation of Iraq. You certainly can’t say that isn’t a holocaust.
22. Jeremiah | November 17th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
I agree wholeheartedly, Mark
There are approximately 1.5 million abortions annually here in America. Since Roe V. Wade was enacted in 1973 it’s been the result of over 40,000,000, nearly 50,000,000 abortions…that means that 3 or 4 out of every 10 conceptions results in the Murder of an innocent.
The Judges who enacted Abortion into law some 34 years ago have much blood on their hands, and will ultimately give an answer for this criminality.
It is an insult to our humanity, for now the beligerant technocrats have ignorantly injected an insideous trespassing of the Law of Almighty God our Creator who Lovingly Willed us into existence!!
To question the very Life that God hath ordained, is to remove our only firm basis for a civilized world!!
May God have mercy on those Souls who commit such acts of barbarism!!
Jeremiah
23. Jeremiah | November 17th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Any Nation who can’t see Abortion as Murder, is a reprobate Nation!
God help America!
Jeremiah
24. plainjane | November 17th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
Abortion should be in the back alleys like it was in the 40s and 50s.
25. Casper | November 17th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
“There are approximately 1.5 million abortions annually here in America.”
Do you have a link to this?
26. winnowhead | November 17th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Mark,
I look forward to your equally tortured arguments in support of Giuliani, in the likely event that he receives the GOP nomination.
27. Jeremiah | November 17th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Casper,
I presented “1.5″ million as a statistic, roughly! The actual numbers are more like, 1.38.
Here is an actual number chart for the U.S.
U.S. Abortion Statistics!
The clock is ticking, one unborn child is Murdered every 24 seconds!
Sad!
Jeremiah
28. Psycheout | November 17th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Well said, Jeremiah. I think our figures agree.
29. Mark Noonan | November 18th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Winnow,
While Giuliani is officially pro-choice, his election to the White House will work out as a pro-life event. This is because (a) any Democrat will actually ensure that more abortions are performed and (b) the likely judicial appointments of a President Giuliani would make overturning Roe more likely. It isn’t tortured, its just a fact of life.
You see, we on the right aren’t all or nothing types like you on the left.
30. Mark Noonan | November 18th, 2007 at 1:34 am
Lilly,
Actually, it is as black and white as you can get - and as for those women who are victims of rape, or abuse: kill the child because the father was a criminal? Is that just or merciful?
And I don’t judge any woman who has an abortion for whatever reason - I have not the competance to do so, only God does. But I can judge the action - and elective abortion is always and in every case, wrong.
31. winnowhead | November 18th, 2007 at 4:10 am
Mark,
You’re not all or nothing? I’m sorry, but you just claimed that abortion is a barometer of border security. If that’s not a tortured analogy, I don’t know what is.
32. JJ | November 18th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Jay - And deep down in places you don’t like think to about you know abstinence ed doesn’t work and that the True Love Waits movement is basically a joke. It’s sad really, but that’s the truth. I know from first hand experience because I’ve had sex (using condoms) with several girls who made those vows of chastity.
That is absolute rubbish - it worked for me. I am 27 years old and am a virgin. I have never fooled around with a girl before. Sure its been hard but I am saving the ultimate gift for my wife one day. Anyone can do it if they believe it is worth it, and this is how:
1. Respect for God and his principles. Break them and pay the price.
2. A bit of fear of man - when I was younger my dad said - ‘touch a girl who is not your wife and I will knock your head off’
3. Hang around people who have made the same commitment as you.
4. Keep your eye on the prize :-)
Jay - I know from first hand experience because I’ve had sex (using condoms) with several girls who made those vows of chastity. - What a punk, stealing something precious from that girls future husband. I don’t care if the girl was keen or not - you the man and you are supposed to take the lead and protect the ladies around you, not take advantage of them. If a guy like you ever comes around my sisters or daughters one day, he better watch out!
33. JJ | November 18th, 2007 at 7:27 am
Joe - Why should some rich 70 year old politicians tell a woman what she can and can not do with her body?
Sorry to pick on you again :-) but get it into your brain that it is not only the woman’s body involved!
Day 22 - the ‘group of cells’ has its own beating heart with its own blood flowing through it. Now tell me whose heart is that? The womans?
In week 6 - ‘group of cells’ now has its own brain waves - whose freakin brain waves are those?
There is another life involved! I say the life is human and is a baby and has the right to live.
34. lilly06 | November 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Mark,
Judging the action equates to judging the person.
For a christian, you really do give blanket answers to everything.
Why do you consistently put people into a box.
Would Jesus really say that a 13 year old girl who was molested by her father cannot terminate a pregnancy? The act of incest alone so spiritually devasting so why should a child have to suffer the consequences? Why make the girl grow this fetus if it would psychologically cripple her?
Besides you as a man will never know what it feels like to carry the child of a rapist so how dare you judge someone’s actions if they decide to get rid of the pregnancy.
Mark that you have never really been out of your comfort zone in your life because you opinions are way too narrow minded.
35. Mark Noonan | November 18th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
lilly,
Actually, I’ve had the honor of meeting some women who were bamboozled into having one or more abortions…for all those “good” reasons. They urged me strongly to speak out - to condemn, as a man, the concept that the murder of a child is a just result of the sins of adults. You can’t scare me off with that “since I’m a man, I can’t understand” nonsense…
As regards actions and persons - no, when I judge an action, I judge an action: a person I cannot judge, because I cannot peer into that person’s soul and understand the exact motivations they had for their action. I judge the action of abortion, correctly, as a murder - and I urge any women who is contemplating an abortion to take into consideration that her murdered child will not get off her conscience…that it is a bald-faced and cruel lie that you can flush away whatever bad happened to produce the child if you just kill the child. The truth of the matter is that if a woman is raped and then aborts her child she doesn’t receive moral or psychological relief, but actually adds the guilt over abortion to all the other ills she’s suffering.
It is when we do right - regardless of the difficulty - that we cure ourselves of what ailes us. A woman who had been placed or placed herself in a bad position which results in an unwanted pregnancy now has the choice…do the right thing, and start the process of healing, or do just one more bad thing, and continue in the dark night of the soul.
36. lilly06 | November 18th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Okay you’ve made some very good points.
I guess you’re against the death penalty as it also equates to legal murder. You are terminating a person’s life.
You know you pro-lifers have you’re contradictions. Don’t kill a fetus that namely functions as a cluster of living tissue but kill a grown man in the electric chair.
37. lilly06 | November 18th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Oh yeah Mark, I commend you for reading all your posts. Thats really good!!
38. Jeremiah | November 18th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Don’t kill a fetus that namely functions as a cluster of living tissue but kill a grown man in the electric chair.
lilly06,
Oh, Ok, so then, if some lunatic murders a family membrer, or maybe even my whole family, “I’m supposed to let him go”.
Oh, Ok, “nice to know” that I wouldn’t have a family anymore, and the Murderer gets to live, then. Huh?
Just swell!
Oh, yeah, we musn’t forget–”nice to know that forty-million innocent children are dead. Eh?
Sounds pretty sick to me!
Jeremiah
39. lilly06 | November 19th, 2007 at 5:43 am
What I’m saying Jeremiah is that if you pro-life then you should be anti-death penalty.
I’m not pro-abortion, I would never encourage anyone to do that. I’m just saying I wouldn’t place judgement on someone who does.
Thats all.
40. lilly06 | November 19th, 2007 at 5:48 am
The arguement of most pro-lifers that that life is life. Then all life should be precious. How do you know if the murderer you described doesn’t become saved in prison and convert many other prisoners to Christ.
If you are arguing that all life deserves a chance then that should mean all life.
The God we serve is having a personal relationship with us not with you or Mark. Let these women make their personal decisions.
41. CeCe | November 19th, 2007 at 6:05 am
lilly,
You are making an assumption that all pro-lifers are pro-death penalty. This is a false assumption. It is also an argument that can be turned around on you. If you are anti death penalty, how could you support the “right to choose” wherein an innocent life if taken? Taking someone else’s life is not a personal decision. It is a decision that affects the whole society.
42. Jeremiah | November 19th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
lilly06,
Murder is not acceptable!!
Abortion is Murder, the same as a gunman, who shoots somebody!
Murderers should be punished!!
Jeremiah
43. Mark Noonan | November 19th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
lilly,
As it turns out, I am opposed to the death penalty in principle - I want it retained on the books, but I believe that the actual carrying out of a death sentence is almost always un-necessary (especially when one finds out just what sort of prision I’d put a murderer or rapist in). You’re right that a death sentence can cut off a person’s ability to obtain redemption, and I’d give even the worst of us that chance - eternal damnation is something I’d like all my brothers and sisters to avoid (knowing that it won’t be that way, of course).
Fundamentally, death isn’t the answer - it isn’t the answer to rape, it isn’t the answer to incest, it isn’t the answer to murder, it isn’t the answer to fear…it just isn’t the answer. Death will come to all of us; on that question we need not worry…so, let us use the time we have in life to live, and try to live the right way.
44. Joe | November 19th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Sorry to jump way back to an earlier post on this, but I missed a couple of days here.
Mark — (a) any Democrat will actually ensure that more abortions are performed
How exactly do you know that ANY Democrat would do this. And where have you ever heard anyone say that we need more abortions???
That is a pretty ridiculous comment to make Mark. No one is “ensuring that more abortions happen”. No one is saying we need more. That is you just installing more fear in the right-wingnuts.
Unless you can prove that “ANY Democrat” would do this or prove that even just one Democrat wants more abortions, then your comment here is a flat out blatant and outrageous lie.
45. lilly06 | November 19th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Okay you make a good arguement and I can see your point of view.
In light of that I understand even if I don’t completely agree:-)
46. Mark Noonan | November 19th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Joe,
All of the Democratic candidates for President have signed off on the NARAL/NOW view of abortion - which means, at the minimum, military hospitals will perform elective abortions and the United States will fund various programs to provide electivie abortions in the third world - ergo, any Democrat in office will ensure that more abortions will be peformed.
You should look into the views of your Democrats, friend - realise, first off, that the Democratic party is committed to federally funded abortion on demand and has been for decades.
47. Mark Noonan | November 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
lilly,
That is all any of us can ask - that we are understood in our views.