whoah this weblog is great i like studying your articles. Keep up the great paintings! You already know, a lot of people are searching around for this info, you could help them greatly.

Questo è stato alcune cose interessanti. Grazie per la pubblicazione di esso.

StillBelieve, you raised a very good question and sorry if I blew by it before. To be honest with you, I can’t understand why they’re pushing this either. It’s one thing to put on a momentarily hefty jump in a gas tax if it’s to definitely help improve roads so people can get to work safely with no bridges tumbling in ravines, etc. But I agree, to just manipulate the prices of oil so as to induce greater conservation and switch to different forms of energy does work against the people in the lower rungs.  Hell, we don’t see our Beijing buddies doing likewise, don we? What makes this worse is that the people with the money, and I’m not referring to ultra rich that no matter how much they’re taxed will even feel the pinch. Let’s say the reasonably comfortable folks who’ll feel some pinch, but say with some degree of even feigned anguish and “empathy” for everybody else,  “Oh, well, we all have to pay and feel some pain in order to ‘transition ourselves’ from fossil fuels to gleaming solar power ... but just think of the benefits to come when we don’t have to go to war over oil, etc.” In the meantime, their minds are whirling with some other new novel shortage they can invent to invite “mutual sacrifices.”  While they can still afford the switch, they’re still leaving the rest of us in the lurch. 
  This, my friend, is the result of too many academics who don’t have a clue as to how the real works. Energy shortages don’t hurt them as fast or as deeply as it does the rest of us who don’t have tenured or deeply endowed special “academic chairs” to pontificate from. The kid taking their courses by day and working at a bread, beer n’ gas store at night, who frets over his safety and barely gets 3-4 hours of sleep a day is the one who’ll be paying for all these “mutual sacrifices” our well esconced experts in energy conservation and “transistioning” ideas. Unfortunately, too damn many of them have wormed their way into the Democratic Party. I’ll admit it. One of my lesser reasons to get out, (all will be lesser than abortion, of course) ... because these wealthy folks, a lot of them being the trust-fund babies of retired academics are turning the old party of the people upside down. It’s a screwy situation, that I’ll admit. One time in a college town, I asked somebody if he’d still have that “no war for oil” bumper sticker on his car if all other poss ibilities to avoid war with a despot who’d taken hold of all the major oil reserves meant that the local soup kitchen would have to close, the only homeless shelter would close up immediately and many businesses employing his friends would go out of business overnight.
  He shocked me by not having any answer at all. Not even given the easy out of being presented with a worst of all cases scenario to say “Well, in that case ...”
  Maybe I shouldn’t have been so shocked, but the idea of us folding up and forgetting that we, too, have human needs to meet, couldn’t register with this peace at any price believer left me flummoxed for the coldness of such an absolutist stance. Of course, pro-abortion rights supporters say we’re absolutist. But never to the point where we couldn’t offer a positive life-saving alternative to death ... because there aren’t any.  This guy, and those who taught him to think like that preferred to walk blindfolded with the white flag he’d pull off to wave in a heartbeat if it meant saving his sorry rear.
  The culprits in this issue you brought up can best be found in our ivoried towers, and the damn Democratic Party caucuses they’ve come to dominate. Even Hillary Clinton learned this too late to her lasting regret after Obama outcaucused her by lining up all his academic pals with their “let’s jack up the price of energy so we can all be Europeans” nonsense.
  I’m too much of an old line Democrat who believes in fighting for programs that actually help the needy to see this kind of backdoor nonsense knock the necessary political support they need; especially when they’re under attack by a lot of rookie pols in the GOP/TP who are actually working against the day to day best fiscal interests of their consituents; not handouts, but vital programs that can actually provide jobs. For every liberal academic who says we spend too much money on defense procurement, I want to say, go tell that to your unemployed machinists, welders, etc. And to every Republican who says, “Government doesn’t create jobs,” I want to say, “Go down to Cape Canaveral and tell that to he people who lost their jobs after the Shuttle makes its last landing and there’s nobody going up except in Ivan’s rockets.”
  Hope that provides some answers. Who knows, I might’ve given you more ammo! lol Be my guest and hope that arm’s healing.

@Steven

And your thinking on the second question I asked in that posting 3/14/11 which follows below:

“And why do you think they, the party previously thought to be for ‘the little guy’ and the ‘middle class,’ are making it so much harder on the ‘little guy’ and the ‘middle class’ by their banning and interfering with America’s oil production, causing our country to continue to be so dependant on foreign suppliers and speculators, at a time when gasoline is reaching $4 a gallon?  Why are they doing that when their action is putting, and keeping, tens of thousands of workers in that industry, alone, out of a work?  The rich are not suffering by these Democrat governmental actions, just the poor, low income and the middle class.”

Steven,

Excellent reply you btw.

The US ranks 39th at 16.9/100,000 deaths of women during childbirth.

CDC identified 19 maternal deaths for 2001 and 21 maternal deaths for 2002 that were thought to be potentially related to abortion.  If there are 1,000,000 abortions/year as claimed, it is almost 10 times more dangerous to have a baby than an abortion.

Both of these numbers would be better if we had heathcare.  I would bet that most women having babies are in better health/financial position than the ones choosing abortion.

Abortion is a terrible decission but it is a matter of competing freedoms.  The freedom for a woman to have control over her body vs. a fetus having dominion over her, forcing her to feed and nuture it for 9 months.  Women are not chattle.  If a person forced his way into your home and the government forced you to have them in your house, you would be outraged.

Rover.

StillBelieve, you brought up some good questions and sorry I didn’t get back to you or I simply missed it. Lots on my mind between commenting on NCR’s stories with you and others and trying to pull a business plan together, etc. My apologies. To the best of my knowledge, there was a colossal flip on abortion, and PPF in particular around the time just before the Roe decision came down. If I recall correctly, it was the GOP that was backing that outfit and abortion as a sick, but “genteel” way of keeping poverty down by keeping the poor folks population down. Well, that’s code for reducing the numbers of blacks which they viewed as welfare cases, burdens and potential higher taxes. Tsk tsk. How a lot of “moderate” GOPers got away with this still remains a mystery, but I think it might’ve had something to do with the GOP’s still highly predominate northeastern liberal Protestant wing that was fiscally conservative and socially liberal. Not much has changed with that bunch except their numbers.
  Now here’s where I could be wrong, but I think that when Roe came down, Nixon tried to take advantage of what it meant in the eyes of the conservative and mostly Southern Protestant population which he was trying hard to coalesce into a strong conservative regional bloc and fighting abortion, along with taking advantage of other hot button issues, such as desegregation, white flight, helped push LBJ’s prediction that the once Solid Democratic South would soon turn the opposite way. It did.
  But, here’s the opposite ideogical and regional move taken by the more increasingly radicalized liberal wing of the Democratic Party. I tend to identify more with the values of the older and more socially-religiously conservative Democrats who stopped dead cold on abortion whereas Ted Kennedy, who was once a champion for the unborn, turned 180 degrees in what seemed like a heartbeat. (Pardon the ironic pun.) But why then, not before? Simple, his older brother Bobby was no longer there to say, “Uh uh, I won’t go there, and you won’t either buddy.” Once Ted turned, it was like the floodgates had opened for Naral, NOW, PPF and the rest of the usual suspects.
  Sadly, no matter how close the more sensible and older Catholic members of the Mass delegation were to Ted on a personal level, they could not bring him back; and I’m writing about Eddie Boland, Tip O’Neill, Silvio Conte (a very prolife RINO). Then along came the McGovern campaign and followed by that was the Watergate midterm class; which for prolifers, was a huge obstacle to overcome as most of that class of freshmen Congressmen and Senators were liberal pro-abortion pols. One other thing, intense dislike and in some cases, outright hatred of Nixon colored so much of the minds back then. If Nixon was pro-Roe, maybe the Democrats might’ve stayed more prolife, and his ex-northeastern “moderate” fellow Republicans might’ve worked with enough prolife Democrats to find a law that’d stand up under appellate reviews to succeed in overturning Roe.
  I’ll admit I’m guessing based on a 40 year old hunch. But I honestly believe the seismic shift in regional voting patterns resulting from Nixon’s successful “Southern Strategy” produced enough consequential reactions that inevitably led to a present day freezing of positions held on Roe, particularly by the Democrats. Admittedly, when it comes to Roe, I can’t deny that this one thing they’re so deeply enamored with is their biggest weakness and it’s greatly undercut their reputation as the party of the little guy.
  I understand the rest of their policies, but like yourself, I find it hard to fathom how they can match their dedication to Roe anymore than I can figure out why the Republicans are so much into fighting Roe but equally as willing to cut back on so many of the good programs government has provided to help young mothers and their children get at least a fighting chance.
  Hope this clarifies things. You and I give each other a good measure for measure going over on points, lol, but I know that you’d be right there to help a young mother in need. Moreover, while you know I have no use for the super big fat cats and plutocrats whom I believe are sponging off the middle class with their outrageous tax breaks (which even Obama caved in on last December) I don’t believe like at least one other far more radical writers in this and other abortion/social policy related threads, that the fatcats n’ daddy warbucks wouldn’t contribute out of their pockets to help needy pregnant moms and their kids. They do so quietly like the Lord instructs us.
  It’s the policies and legislative maneuverings where we have our honest disagreements. Now I’m not sure where you’re from StillBelieve, but there’s at least one big St.Patrick’s Day Parade I plan to take in tomorrow on the tube and we can both use some rest from all the political bogtrotters, or in today’s parlance, blogtrotters for a day. Erin Go Bragh!

@Steven

Am I to presume your still working on a reply to my questions to you on 3/14//11?

Rover, while I agree with some of your points about [some] social/fiscal conservatives who are all for abolishing Roe (which I am too, but not in the way some of them are up to in Georgia with this awful miscarriage law or using the IRS to check the finances of people who’ve had abortions, though I can see what they’re up to, making sure that the Hyde Amendment isn’t violated) ... and then voting to cut deeply into vital well-baby/mom nutrition programs ($700 out of WIC alone! Ouch!) ... but don’t you think you’re swinging your tar bucket and brush a little too wildly, too? It’s not “safer for a woman to have an ab ortion than a Child in this country,” not by a long shot. Take the recent arrest of that doctor in Philadelphia who ran one of the most septic abortion centers in the nation, if not THE worst. Was it safe for those women? We know about their children, but haven’t we also forgot about those women this guy “served”? He’s not alone and there’ll come the day when so many of these abortion centers will be exposed for what they’ve been all along.
  Moreover, you’re also forgetting the fact that while a lot of fiscal conservatives who oppose a huge outlay of federal funds for x, y and z programs for a variety of reasons, many of these same people also dig deep into their pockets to make sure organizations like Birthright and local parishes, congregations and synagogues or even mosques have sufficient blankets, baby clothes, formula, cribs, and other necessary pieces of infant furniture and room decorations to help these young brave women bring these babies into the world.
  I have good honest disagreements on philosophical grounds with the more conservative contributors to this and similarly related threads, but not for a moment would I tar them as cold and uncaring as you’ve done. It’s one thing to defend necessary social programs, but do you think it helps fiscal liberals, believers or non-believers, one bit to tar the social conservatives like this? You’re right about retrenching on the maintainance of working and necessary programs needed to help the poor and even the President has disappointed many of his oldest followers by his decision to jettison so much funding for community action centers. Now I’m not entirely sure he made the wrong decision here, but his action surely sends a message that he’s not the same guy liberals thought they knew all along. (They should’ve checked his Wall St. contributors’ list much earlier.)
  But lay off the attacks on the Church and blanket ad hominems on fiscal conservatives. It won’t restore a dime to any of the good programs we want to keep alive. Not one thin dime. Nor will these shots push us further along the road out of this cruel recession.

First, just to be clear, I completely agree with Bob.  Republicans care about children from conception till birth.  Then they are for Capital punishment for those they feel like killing. Not pro life, just anti-choice. 

Second, All of you Catholics have the wrong target!  Your target should be the supreme court.  You have 6 of the 9 votes.  Next case, no matter what it is, these 6 could outlaw abortion and contraception and no branch of government could overrule them.  Your “leaders” threaten Catholic Democrats with “no communion for you” before each election i.e Senator Kerry.  Don’t allow communion for anyone that agrees with contracteption or ever practiced it without a confession and see how many people you keep.

Republicans need to keep you excited about abortion so you keep them in office to rape America for the rich.  Your “single issue” has kept healthcare, womens health (we stink at women dying during birth), and criminal human rights abusers (Bush and Cheney) from being corrected.

It is far safer for a woman to have an abortion than a Child in this country.

So Glad I’m an atheist.

Rover.

@Steven

Why do you think the Democrat Party has, as you say, a “slavish support for Roe, PPF, etc”?  Their “slavish support” for that has resulted in the murder of 51,000,000 future citizens that are needed, as you correctly point out, to be future workers funding the government’s social programs with their taxes. And at the same time, their murder also kills the need in our country for goods and services, i.e., jobs, to supply the needs for that many more people, not only when they are old enough to become workers, themselves, but for the 20 to 25 years leading up to that point in time. 

And why do you think they, the party previously thought to be for “the little guy” and the “middle class,” are making it so much harder on the “little guy” and the “middle class” by their banning and interfering with America’s oil production, causing our country to continue to be so dependant on foreign suppliers and speculators, at a time when gasoline is reaching $4 a gallon?  Why are they doing that when their action is putting, and keeping, tens of thousands of workers in that industry, alone, out of a work?  The rich are not suffering by these Democrat governmental actions, just the poor, low income and the middle class.

And all of that is leading up to a back lash in the country for the government union “sweet heart” wages and benefit packages when every body else, but the rich, in the private sector,  are hurting.

Bob:
Aborted babies have NO CHANCE to live. Somehow, that doesn’t bother you, or at least you imply it. Who is supposed to take care of the orphans and widows? WE are, not the government. The answer to Dems is Obama and them; do you honestly think a big group in D.C. really gives a rat’s rear end about someone in Smalltown, USA?
Actually, the government’s job IS to protect lives — you know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; without life, the other two liberties are useless —  especially of the most vulnerable, not allow them to be killed for whatever reason just because they happen to be in the “wrong” place at the “wrong” time. Are the Dems educating them? LOL. Are they feeding them? LOL! Housing them? LOL! No, but they want them to remain slaves to the government in the name of all of this!!! Talk about the greedy and powerful!!! By law, no hospital can turn someone away, so get your facts straight. Guess that: pro-lifers didn’t harbor abusive priests, either; it was people that really DIDN’T defend children!! Follow the money, Bob. Ever heard of crisis pregnancy centers? They do this on volunteer basis while PP and others make millions of bucks — including our tax money — on abortions, condoms, etc. Yet who are the Dems going after: CPCs — they are “lying” about their purposes, etc. Remember, Bob, when you point a finger and call someone a hypocrite, you have 3 fingers pointed back at you.

Brianna, your post expressed the angst a lot of prolife Democrats, or former Democrats like myself, feel towards the party. While I fully agree that its slavish support for Roe, PPF, etc, do little justice to the party’s more stellar history of supporting and enacting legislation that’s provided our elderly with more dignified old age years (SS), abolished child labor and worked to make sure workers have a fair shot at receiving decent liveable incomes and decent working conditions, not to mention also the rights to organize, and even before the good parts of Obamacare, Medicare/Medicaid designed to ensure that nobody would be denied at least some affordable medical insurance. Sure, none of these programs are perfect and there’s always plenty of room for improvement.
  The Democrats worst and incredulously most immoral and self-defeating decision to embrace Roe has ironically played right into the hands of the GOP and its (minor league Tea Party franchise) and uber fiscal conservative-funded outfits like the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute, Americans for Prosperity e/a who are lying through their teeth when they claim Social Security is broke. It’s not, and in fact it has a $3T+ surplus in its Trust Fund and will be solvent until 2030. The big lie goes like this, SS is a “Ponzi Scam” therefore deserving of privatization and Medicare/Medicaid should be handled on a “voucher system.” Well, you’d better not get really sick and needing a lot of expensive treatment because a voucher system will only pay for so much and then you’re on your own. (That fits in with the whole GOP mantra modus operandi anyway.)
  But the Democrats, as I said above play right into the Republicans hand by standing in firm defense of the very medical “procedure” that’s snuffed the lives out of 50 million would-be American citizens. I’m not a math wizard, and I would normally be loath to put this in financial terms because we’re talking about the loss of so many people! Still, we can safely agree that the financial losses to our national treasury, and of course the social safety net programs of SS, SSDI, Medicare, Medicaid and “Obamacare,” (most of which contains excellent changes), are simply staggering. Have we yet to hear any Democrat of national stature complain about the real long term costs of legal abortion in both human and fiscal terms? By “human,” I’m primarily referring to the unspeakable toll in human sacrifices to convenience, manipulation and yes, economic fears, which have long been used for the manipulation part.
  I’ve stated my objections to the way the Pence Amendment was handled and introduced along with the other budget cuts the GOP was hell-bent on inflicting on the American taxpayers. I have no problems cutting PPF off and the Democrats can scream till they’re blue that the money wasn’t used for abortions. Money’s fungible and if PPF was even given x dollars to perform non-abortion services, doesn’t it stand to reason that those dollars gave PPF more money in its other accounts to perform abortions? It doesn’t take a CPA to see this.
  But the Pence Amendment was included in with a lot of other budget cutting amendments presented to help produce more jobs. Apples n’ oranges. But what does cutting funding for Head Start programs, WIC, nutrition programs and other programs designed to help young moms or moms living in lower income households, married or unmarried have to do with saving jobs or even showing a sense of what means to be FULLY prolife?
  I caught a lot of grief for saying the Pence Amendment turned out to be symbolic political dog n’ pony show and it’d die either in the Senate or on the President’s desk. Well, guess what, our good Catholic Mr. Speaker who’s promised to be the most prolife Speaker is already backpeddaling on previous promises to push Rep. Pence’s amendment into law.
  When I left the Democrats, I was thoroughly dismayed at their lock’d arms position with NOW, NARAL, PPF, notwithstanding what it’s cost the good programs they also hold dear ... and rightfully so ... but I knew, from being in the GOP before and falling for its “Big Tent” embracement of social conservatives support for ending abortion ... that it always will leave the social conservatives at the station, but of course, only after the usual “Big Boys” with their eyes on the Big Bucks ONLY, stepped in and changed the departure time in secret.
  Your statement ” ... Politicians will always be politicians,” is right on. But don’t count on the GOP to be there for the most important moral issues which also present enormous fiscal challenges for the nation’s long term health in many more ways than one. Consider this: if the GOP was as concerned for our children’s and grandchildren’s ability to pay off our enormous debts, why did it vote for an $800 tax giveaway to tiny minority of wealthy people, gambling on the presumption that this money would make its way back into the economy ... when in fact, the people who’ll be getting this scandalous confiscatory redistribution from the vast overwhelming base of American working taxpayers, will in all probablility be socking that dough so that none of it will trickle back into the economy for the purpose of creating jobs? They had help from Obama’s expedience and Conservadem’s acquience. Then less than a month later, while thumping their chests, they cut roughly $50B,  mostly in social safety net and necessary agencies, such the EPA, NOAA, etc ... all to save jobs and give our heirs less of a burden to carry. Who’s kidding whom. Outside of the Pence Amendment, where was the rest of their concern for saving lives and producing jobs?

Cheer up Brianna, with God’s help, one of these days we’ll all be singing “We were social conservatives before it was cool ... again.” (But we need to be a lot more careful about who to call our real consistent and effective allies are on Capitol Hill. Boehner’s back-pedallin’ boyos and Rand Paul (with his toilet rants) won’t help.

YES.  So, so true.  It’s hard to understand those who are against abortion, but who hate the Republican party and claim voting Democrat will actually REDUCE the number of abortions.  It seems like most in my generation feel this way.

And to be honest, a few years ago I too reached a point where I felt completely fed up with politics (who isn’t?), and switched my affiliation from Republican to “decline to state”.  But after not getting to vote in the primaries, and realizing that I can never in good conscience vote for a candidate belonging to the party of Planned Parenthood and abortion rights, I’ve decided to re-register as a Republican.  Politicians will always be politicians, but I need to cast my vote for life. 

Thank you so much for speaking out and articulating all of this so well in this article.  It was excellent!

Regardless of where one stands on how best to put an end to Roe—without further stimatizing women and reaching for the most draconian measures, such as using handguns (???!) that’ll only reinvigorate the opposition (or for another example, the miscarriage bill of Georgia ... which would’ve landed my good Catholic albeit late mother in the clink due to the number of miscarriages she had before finally being able to give birth to me ... and she had battled malaria which she caught overseas before she had the miscarriages back in the late 40’s)—let’s also motivate at least one of the most pro-life senators to pull his act together more when he decides to push the prolife message.
  This is one of the best examples of rookie, greenhorn, political flubs I’ve ever seen in all my near-fifty years of following political events. The “award” for this distinction goes to Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky (TP), and it’s a doozy. Take a look at the video contained in this Politico story about Paul’s rambling rant about abortion, light bulbs, choice and toilets during a Senate Energy & Natural Resources Cmte. hearing last Thursday . http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51053.html
  In one respect, it’s hilarious because Paul, whom I never cared for because of his disdain for the ADA, not to mention other odd-ball positions in the areas of economics,etc., is very serious in his lecture/rant/semi-mental meltdown although he does relent a bit and cracks a smile towards the end. If this guy is said to be a rising star by some, or many people within the PLM, a lot of soul-searching and talent-searching needs to be done PDQ.
  While it was one thing for this admitted non-fan of Sen. Paul to watch his state’s and amateur-party (that’s really a minor-league libertarian farm team for the GOP) chicken’s come home to roost, I couldn’t help but feeling embarrassed for the many voters in the Blue Grass State who might be suffering now from a strong case of voter’s regret. More dimwitted performances like this will flush the rookie pol’s meteoric senate career in no time flat. 
  Who put what in his tea before he went into that hearing?

Robert,
To suggest that Mark Shea supports abortion rights is completely unfounded.  Mark and I may differ on 1% of things when it comes to tactics, but he recognizes the horror of abortion as well as anyone and routinely says so.

Robert R wrote: “...including Mr. Shea, whom I stopped reading some time ago because I became convinced he supports abortion rights because of his ridiculous accusations of republicans…”

In order to stop reading a blog, Robert, you have to have read it in the first place. Obviously you never did so, otherwise you would have read Mark’s tireless defense of the unborn and his criticism of Republicas who are pro-life in name only.

Mark has nothing but praise for Republicans who are pro-life in word and in action. Sadly, these seem to be few and far between in terms of our elected officials.

Curses!  Exposed!  I must wire my grim masters at Planned Parenthood and request they send me more blood money!

Excellent article, it seems to be taking awhile for some catholics to realize the democratic party of today is not the democratic party of a generation or two ago. The comments show how it struck a nerve with some out there who just don’t what to acknowledge the truth, including Mr. Shea, whom I stopped reading some time ago because I became convinced he supports abortion rights because of his ridiculous accusations of republicans ,  trying to convince his readers to not vote republican, which is only going to keep abortion legal.. Notice how he portrays Lila Rose as a liar, like he doesn’t understand undercover reporting involves the art of deception, it’s obvious he doesn’t like her exposing planned parenthood for what it is…......

I really liked this analysis.  It’s definitely changed my mind!  I’m going to share this with others.  There are pro-choice Republicans and pro-life Democrats, so make sure you do your research.

As someone stated before education is the cure for this.  Some people are called to pray outside abortion clinics.  Some are called to promote it in politics.  I feel otherwise, I feel as though reaching young girls before they are sexually active prevents abortions.

Praying is the most important thing we can do.  God is in control of EVERYTHING and we seek him anything can be changed.  Our actions are no comparison to what God has the power to do.

I’ll drink to that!  And… it is Fat Tuesday.

@Kathy16670 ... You’re most welcome, Kathy. Think of it this way, even if the Good Lord should call Liseux, myself, you and all of us who contributed to this long thread, alas before Roe’s finally overturned, WE’LL ALL HAVE THE LAST LAUGH UPSTAIRS IN GOD’S SALOON.

I don’t consider any politician who is pro-war to be pro-life, and it seems as though too many Republicans jump at the chance to feed the war machine. Give me a real pro-lifer, like Ron Paul, and I’ll be satisfied politically. As for defending the ultimately dishonest route Lila Rose and her group chose to expose Planned unParenthood, I agree with Mark Shea’s analysis. (The only reason why I spend much time in an armchair is because I’m completely worn out from caring for my eight kids, and husband!)

@ Steven and Liseux

Thanks for the chuckle!

The mental image I get when I think of a Pro-Life Saloon is quite humorous!

Thank you for the invite Liseux, and I’d be delighted to play in your saloon, any prolife saloon. I promise no guns, full of hope, love,  and you can DEFINITELY count on me playing HAPPY DAYS ARE HERE AGAIN!

Pat, this was phenomenal… EVERYTHING I have been wanted to say!!  And it must have been good- look at how many people it upset!!  TRUTH HURTS!!  Well written, thank you for your passion!

Thanks Pat, this is exactly what I’ve been thinking. While praying is the most important thing we can ALL do, those who CAN must take it to the streets. 50 million dead IS a war and Planned Parenthood is coming after your daughter. This is NOT hyperbole people, this is real.

I know many Catholics for whom the Democratic Party is their primary allegiance!

I freely admit to being a bad pro-lifer. I don’t pray for the end of abortion as I ought. I don’t support legislation, vigils, protests, etc. as I ought. Guilty as charged.

But the following propositions I and others have put forth:

1. Abortion is intrinsicly wrong.
2. Lying is intrinsicly wrong.
3. It is morally unacceptable to use one intrinsic wrong to fight another intrinsic wrong.
4. With a simple sunject word-swap, arguments in favor of things like lying or torture of prisoners are identical to arguments in favor of abortion. (“Pro-lifers are not really pro-lifers because they do not support x.”; “Well, the Church hasn’t specifically defined dilation and curettage as an abortion, therefore…” you get the idea.)

have been left undamaged by anything I’ve read so far.

That’s certainly one way of putting it, though my initial impression was that it was about the Live Action debate, not Shea specifically.
‘Confirmation bias’ quoth the psychologist. Or better yet, Tolstoy:

“I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.”

Ah, I see.  If you assume that he’s really talking about Shea, the entire article is clearly about Shea.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Thanks Foxfier.
I was thinking more of external links to people who epitomise the ‘pro-life’ attitude Pat is condemning. 
The descriptions you’ve quoted are open to interpretation in the current context, especially given the rhetorical style of this piece. 

Eg.
“Their active opposition to abortion, usually restricted to tut-tutting the occasional article on African-American abortion rates, underwhelms.”
When I first read this in the context of the lying debate, I thought Pat was using hyperbole to question the pro-life credentials of the armchair-inhabitant.  I didn’t interpret it as the contingent descriptor of the people he is criticising.

In addition, some of the themes used in the piece were also featured in the recent lying debate. eg. terms like ‘armchair’ and ‘purist’ as derogatory terms, the dichotomy between criticising from the sidelines versus getting involved in the battle, even the reference to Solomon’s threat to cut the baby in half; I recall these being used, and hence there’s an unavoidable ‘continuity error’ for those who have read extensively in that recent controversy.

This is not by way of accusation, just to hopefully make clear the basis of the interpretation, that I do not think it unwarranted. 

Fair enough, sometimes we can’t find good published examples of the views we wish to criticise.

It’s a bit like Pat’s piece from October: “who is Mark Shea talking about?”  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/who-is-mark-shea-talking-about/

ie. “After a post by Pat Archbold on the subject of “the armchair pro-life”, I must admit I don’t like those armchair pro-lifers very much.  Anyway, at least how Pat describes them. Fortunately, I haven’t met very many who fit Pat’s description.”

; )

Regards,

Zac

Zac-
here you go:
The armchair pro-life oppose abortion much in the same way that I oppose cannibalism in Papua New Guinea—in theory. Their active opposition to abortion, usually restricted to tut-tutting the occasional article on African-American abortion rates, underwhelms.
and
Yet, in even the skirmishes leading to the looming battle, the armchair pro-life have attempted to cede the moral high-ground while excitedly preparing their “I told you so” speeches anticipating, perhaps even hoping for, defeat.

Much of this armchair defeatism stems from the choice of political bedfellows by the activist pro-life, Republicans.
and
They point to the two-week continuing resolution, which did not defund Planned Parenthood, as all the evidence they need that alliance with Republicans gains us nothing. That the Republicans have already turned their backs on the pro-life movement and they retreat to their default position of “a pox on both their houses”.

The wonderful SBA List spoke out against that continuing resolution, but does not mistake a battle for the war. The real war is on the long-term budget, not the short term continuing resolutions. But the armchair pro-life throw up their hands in feigned exasperation when politics shockingly involves politicians. These tactics are certainly debatable, but the debate on tactics is better left to those engaged in battle. Those shouting from the cheap seats don’t have much to offer.

There’s more—I think you can find the link….

For what it’s worth, I also interpreted this piece in the context of the recent debate over the Live Action videos, and hence as a response from the Kreeft/Zmirak side of the fence, to the Tollefsen/Shea side.

To be fair to this interpretation, Kreeft and Zmirak had already offered strong criticisms of those who questioned the validity of Live Action’s tactics, hence this latest piece was consistent with the broader debate.

If possible, some concrete references to the real targets of Archbold’s ire would prevent this kind of misunderstanding.

Paul:

God bless you.

Pat:

Sorry, I didn’t mean here.  I came here via other blogs who seem to very definitely think you meant me and the other folk I mentioned.  What I said was that I am completely mystified about who you are referring to if it is not the people who were, after all, the ones making all the noise about the problem of Live Aid’s tactics.  I’m no closer to understanding that, but I am content that you apparently mean nobody that actually critiqued Live Aid in the circle I mention above.  As I said, I completely understand if you don’t want to name names.  It would do no good.  However, you should be aware that at least some of your readers do indeed take you to mean me, Eden, Doino, etc.  If you mean somebody at the Reporter, I confess I seldom read it and so may have missed something. 

Anyway, I’m glad you cleared up who you don’t mean.  Thank you.

Somebody sees to be channeling the spirit of Carly Simon: You’re so vain . . . I bet you think this post is about you.

Mark,

We are comment 85 here and the only one who mentioned you was you.

Let me be clear(er).

The first criteria I listed for armchair pro-lifers is that they only are pro-life in theory. And that their pro-life activity is limited to, as I put it:
tut-tutting the occasional article on African-American abortion rates.

I cannot imagine why you would surmise that this applies to you.  I don’t question your pro-life commitment.

As far as naming names for those who rejoice in using such arguments to create division, one would have to be quite sheltered not to have run across some.  They even have their own newspaper from what I hear.

Pat:

If you aren’t referring to me or the other folks I mentioned, all of whom were precisely those who very publicly raised the criticism of LA’s tactics, I am happy. But I remain completely puzzled since I can’t imagine who you are talking about instead and I doubt I’m the only one who felt as though you meant that particular circle of writers.  To make the charge that somebody critical of LA’s tactics is the “armchair pro-lifer [who} sniffed at her tactics and offered ex cathedra pronouncements from the comfort of their la-z-boys decrying the unseemliness of it all” does suggest that you have somebody in mind.  But if not those who, let’s face it, were the loudest voices of criticism, then who?  Random comboxers?  How do we know that *they* are sitting in their La-Z-Boys sniffing and doing nothing?  I couldn’t tell you a thing about the lives of any comboxers at the Register.  I don’t even know what you do when you aren’t blogging.  So I can’t, for the life of me, fathom who you are actually referring to in the paragraph I quote if it’s not those who were the most prominent voices.  If you don’t mean me or the folks I mention who have criticized what Peter Kreeft (writing in defense of Lila Rose) called “lying” then it would be good to clarify that since it would appear that at least some of your readers seem to have a pretty good idea of who they *think* you mean.  If you don’t want to name names, I can understand.  But I think it would at least be helpful if you could at least *un*-name names lest your readers get the same wrong impression I got.

What a masterpiece of ad hominem, strawmanning and tu quoque, Mr. Archbold.

And the irony is deafening.

What a masterpiece of ad hominem, strawmanning and tu quoque, Mr. Archbold. The morally despicable nature of an opponent has nothing to do with whether he or you is right on an issue, so this entire post is a distraction.

Your entire post was an implicit assertion that at least the vast majority of people who disagree with you (about Lila Rose, about Republicans, etc) are armchair pro-lifers. Then when people comment that they disagree with you yet fast against abortion, babysit children of marchers, etc etc, you weaselly claim that your post wasn’t meant to target them. Why not? That is intellectually dishonest. You can’t make a post sliming people and then when they protest being slimed, claim that it didn’t target them, and that if they’re offended it proves it “touched a nerve”.

This is like making a post saying that all Catholic priests abuse children and rant, slamming the priesthood with words like “limited compassion and unlimited hubris” and “repellent pride” and “blithely nattering”, and then when a priest protests that he has never even thought of touching a child, responding “if a priest does as you describe, then he cannot be described as a pedophile”, as if that makes everything alright!

I was unaware that Fr. Brian Mullady, Robert George, and Bernard Nathanson were do-nothings for questioning the wisdom of lying in a good cause.

To even suggest that I was suggesting such a thing is a complete misreading of my post.  I think I was pretty clear that I am talking about do-nothings who take these positions, not that everyone who takes these positions is a do-nothing.

There is plenty of context within the post that, I believe, makes this abundantly clear.

As I have already stated in the combox, I have no issue with active pro-lifers disagreeing with me on just about anything (deception, Republicans, etc).  I do take issue with the do-nothings that use these arguments to hurt the pro-life cause.

If what I wrote does not apply to you, then I rejoice.

A young woman by the name of Lila Rose took on the abortion behemoth Planned Parenthood in a continuing video series exposing the organization for what it is. This young woman has almost single-handedly has brought Planned Parenthood to its knees. All the while, the armchair pro-life sniffed at her tactics and offered ex cathedra pronouncements from the comfort of their la-z-boys decrying the unseemliness of it all.

I was unaware that Fr. Brian Mullady, Robert George, and Bernard Nathanson were do-nothings in their La-z-boys for questioning the wisdom of lying in a good cause.  In the same way, I will be interested in seeing the documentation on Dawn Eden’s, William Doino’s and Chris Tollefsen’s complete and utter neglect of the prolife cause.  Apparently, we have reached the remarkable combox consensus here that if you question one morally dubious tactic, this is equivalent to lounging back in the La-Z-Boy and doing nothing.  I’ll be sure to inform my friends at 40 Days for Life that they do nothing.  It also apparently doesn’t matter how much you make clear that you admire someone’s zeal or commitment to the unborn.  Question what even defenders of Lila Rose call lying and you don’t care at all about the unborn.

Sheesh!

Permit me to say it again in the hope it will be heard this time:

Everybody involved in this discussion—Lila Rose, Peter Kreeft, Dawn Eden, William Doino, The New Theological Movement, Frank Beckwith, Fr. Pavone, John Zmirak, Christopher Tollefson and the host of prolife Catholics chewing over this problem—are friends of the unborn, serious disciples of Jesus Christ and lovers of the Catholic Faith.  We all want what’s best for both the Church and the unborn. Hurling epithets like “Pharisee” and “Cafeteria Catholic” or presuming malice instead of honest moral disagreement is destructive.  So: a word to those who agree with me: These matters are *hard*.  Everything is *not* cut and dried.  Those with grave misgivings about my points are good people, not fifth columnists bent on subverting the Church.  Peter Kreeft ended his essay (which I urge you to read) by saying, “I could be wrong.”  Permit me to say the same.  I could be wrong. But I don’t think I am and I am therefore obliged to speak my conscience as best I can just as those who disagree with me are.  For that reason, I also ask those who disagree with me: cut some slack to those with moral qualms about lying and don’t presume we are stupid or evil.  If you feel compelled to make the Pavlovian charge of “Pharisee” to those troubled by Lying for Jesus bear in mind that the Pharisee you are attacking is, in my view, Paul, who has tart words for consequentialist reasoning: “But if through my falsehood God’s truthfulness abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just.” (Romans 3:7-8).

“If it wasn’t one party fully supporting the legalized slaughter of small children, and the other opposing it imperfectly, they’d find some other reason!”

Because we all know that not being absolutely perfect in opposing a wrong is just as bad as actively supporting that wrong.

Steven, if abortion were made illegal, I’m sure the right-wing firing squad would come up with another target.

Abortion has only been legal since 1972 here, so before, there was always some movement to get behind, say lowering taxes, or limiting government.

If abortion is made illegal, I will invite you to come play your piano in my saloon. Can’t say that you’d be safe from those firing other rhetorical guns, but I definitely would come unarmed if your tune positive, true, and full of hope for the unborn.

I laid them all out. Sorry if you folks need political glasses.

Again, no specifics Steve.  It’s the same tired boilerplate that I hear all the time.  If it makes you feel proud and superior, by all means rage on with your bad site.

@Paul Zummo: Sir, if you haven’t been noticing the encroachments of libertarians, whom Russell Kirk, a real conservative’s conservative, called “chirping sectaries” (and he had a few more things to say about them); not to mention Bill Buckley’s disdain for libertarianism, then you haven’t been watching the development of what used to be a noble ideology. I am quite familiar with the conservative movement, having interned at the National Journalism Center (Spring ‘83.) But I must admit, the conservative movement I used to recognize as truly conservative, was a more genteel movement that truly respected all human beings as the image of God, not just those who happened to agree with their ideology.
  Why do I even bother? Well, I care for the unborn too much to want to see legal abortion continue unabated. But it will so long as the PLM keeps backing prolife candidates who talk prolife out of one side of their mouths and out of the other side, talk like they don’t give a rip if there’s no safety net to help out the poorest of the young mothers who are bravely giving their children life, all the while knowing there are politicians who would even pull the floorboards of hell out from under them in a heartbeat so as to demonstrate their “fiscally conservative” credentials.
  I’ve been called by volunteers for such politicians. Between this bunch and the liberals with their “personally opposed, but” mindsets, prolifers who want no more abortions are stuck in limboland with nobody to vote positively for. For the love of God and those children and our nation’s future, start putting up credible candidates (with clean records and stellar private lives)who don’t come off as tight-fisted righteous holy rollers.
  If I’m such a disgrace as Jasper says, well, it’s not the first time I’ve been called that. Sometimes it takes a renegade “disgrace” to wake people up; and the PLM needs a lot of waking up.
  Otherwise, enjoy your ever-looming encounter with the circular firing squad. Personally speaking, I’m dead on sure that the professional Washington based, smooth as glass PLM operatives don’t want to see abortion made illicit. Too many nice jobs on The Hill would have to be “sacrificed.”

Excellent article, Pat. Maybe next year the majority of the Catholic vote won’t go the party of Death, Depression, Depravity, Defeat, and Deception.

Incidentally, someone should be deleting 1000-word comments from this combox. If you want to post an article, submit one. Heaven knows Steve’s rants are obnoxious enough in small doses.

“@James, I’m not going to dispute your numbers, but when the cuts that were made are taken into context as to what they mean to administrators, states, municipalities, et al, and most importantly, individuals depending on them, those cuts loom very large.”

Well at least you admit there’s no “there” to the claim of gutting programs.  Now all we need to do is start looking at how useful such programs are and how much is truly a sacrifice.

Since we’re talking anecdotes.  I was on a state committee that worked with different child care issues.  When the stimulus was passed, the guidelines that went around were that no projects that would require continued funding past the two years of the stimulus were to be done.  Spending was only for one time needs.

Of course, one public administrator went against this directive and set up a whole social service office with six employees.  Now that the stimulus money is running out she is talking about how she doesn’t have money to maintain it and that she will have to “cut.” Of course this is a deceptive lie as she didn’t have the authority to do this and was misusing public money.

This ‘Steven’ character is just what Pat is talking about. What a disgrace you are Steven.

To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn’t leave the conservative ranks. Instead what’s become known as contemporary conservativism today seems to resemble a ship whose moorings have been cut deliberately by libertarians in the pilot house who’ve also tossed out any governors on the motors and all steering equipment. No regulations, no care, hey, it’s “I’ve got mine, tough luck for you if you don’t.”

If this were actually an accurate assessment of the GOP and its current state, then perhaps this comment would be appropriate.  Instead it is, like so many of the opposing comments on here, a strawman caricature. But that’s the problem with so many of Pat’s critics.  Rather than engage in real issues, they raise the specter of this evil, Machivellian organization, plotting in the background to fool those pro-lifers while simultaneously doing all they can to destroy those meddlesome lower- and middle-class individuals.  Don’t bother asking for specifics - they’ll just repeat tired cliches about “budget busting billionaires’ tax giveaways,” thinking that this is some profound insight into the political scene.  How sad it must be to be so profoundly swindled by media caricatures, all the while convinced of one’s own moral superiority.

@Kevin:
The Rule of Law is a legal maxim that states no person is immune to law, and no one can be punished by the government (tell that to the child who has been executed) except for a breach of the law.
When a government harms a person without following the exact course of the law it constitutes a due process violation which offends against the rule of law…thus abortion cannot be legal…the 14th amendment specifically the Equal Protection Clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States…

@Cathy: During his last speech given just before he died in 1977, Hubert Humphrey said, “The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
  If we can’t or worse, REFUSE to take and meet THIS “moral test of government,” our straits are far more direr than I could’ve imagined we’d ever slip to accepting as our approach towards governance and looking out for each other as Christians (for this website), Americans and human beings in general.
  To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, I didn’t leave the conservative ranks. Instead what’s become known as contemporary conservativism today seems to resemble a ship whose moorings have been cut deliberately by libertarians in the pilot house who’ve also tossed out any governors on the motors and all steering equipment. No regulations, no care, hey, it’s “I’ve got mine, tough luck for you if you don’t.”
  If you don’t perceive “government to be the ... centralized distributor of wealth” then perhaps you should call your Congressman and Senator if he or she voted for that budget busting billionaires’ tax giveaway last December and ask why. Or better yet, ask him or her when that all that wealth will be trickling back into your local economy ... if ever.

Should the US Supreme Court rule that life begins at conception, and that an unborn baby is a person subject to all the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Does anyone have any views on this?

Bob:
What Bp Fulton Sheen once said of the nazis can be said for you and anyone who is NOT Pro-Life “Call it fanaticism, call it diabolism, the fact of the matter is that the Nazis (obama, democrats bob, and planned parenthood), for example, are men of faith; they have faith in the primitive purity of their race, faith in their Messianic call to be the masters of the world. From that faith has come those un-Pentecostal fires which in the course of less than ten years built them the strongest army the world has ever seen.”
“...it has been a fault of the Western world to ridicule zeal for religion. Tolerance which should have been applied to persons was transferred to truths, so that men became indifferent to right and wrong, to truth and error. But zeal which men should have for the true God could not long be kept chilled and frozen by indifference and by our so-called broadmindedness; it finally swept up through the surface and came out as fanaticism for false gods.”
Bob…do you see a chilling comparison?  Do you (can you) find anything in the Gospel (assuming you know what I mean by that)  If you don’t agree with Pro-Life and work for Life may God have mercy on you.

Love it!!! Thanks, Pat.

Did Jesus give us governments to feed the poor, clothe the naked, visit the sick and imprisoned, or did He give us to the world to provide these mercies?  I guess maybe I’m kind of radical, I expect the government, in justice, to protect the lives of the unborn from murder as much as I expect the government to protect the lives of the born from murder.  This is the moral obligation of a just nation.  I just don’t perceive government to be the centralized arbiter of charity or a distributor of wealth and jobs. 

I have witnessed the children of poor people rise to wealth and the children of wealthy people reduced to poverty.  I have yet to see government create a child or provide all that is necessary to sustain a child.

@Liseux, in between working in my woodshop and water vacuuming out my basement, in the aftermath of a drenching storm compounded by a massive snow n’ ice melt-off, I happened to put in some time expressing some of my disatisfactions with Pat Archbold’s article and express disappointment with some of the actions taken by politicians in the PLM. Where’s the “HAVE” coming from? I’m very concerned and active in my own way. If you want to ask Him to rescind them because what I wrote offended you. You’re perfectly within your right to do so. In my previous post, I cautioned against the circular firing squad. Hmmm, I’d better not play piano in any saloon in your town. lol.
  Pat did strike a chord, but the “chord” was a very rash and judgmental criticism of the PLM and people who don’t measure up to his personal expectations. That’s the impression his article left me. My biggest complaint is with the political end of the movement. It’s very big on producing dog n’ pony shows such as that sneak move of putting the Pence Amendment in with the list of the other programs to be gutted. Oh, yeah, we showed PPF! We just cut their funding with CSPAN’s cameras rolling (and psssst, those shots of us debating this will be copied on YouTube, distributed and how great we’ll look for the movement and folks back home ... but better still, not just abortion.)  Both sides pull this, I realize that. But let’s be honest, NONE of the GOP Leadership and Mike Pence believes for a second that his own amendment will make it past the Senate and of course, Obama’s veto pen. This is nothing but a cynical play on the voters’ and PLM members’ heartstrings by politicians who engineered it to show them that they “honored” a campaign pledge or more and with that done and over with, they’ll be on their way performing other legislative tasks.
@James, I’m not going to dispute your numbers, but when the cuts that were made are taken into context as to what they mean to administrators, states, municipalities, et al, and most importantly, individuals depending on them, those cuts loom very large. In some cases they even hurt businessmen in the private sector as one gentleman I know who’s a very devout Christian realtor who also provides Section 8 housing in his community. He loses out, too. The problem with the cut n’ slash approach towards budget cutting, especially in the wake of a very contentious election where a lot of neophytes, especially Tea Party politicos, were bankrolled by outsiders (no thanks to the Citizens United decision.)
  I’m still awaiting to see if any of the two parties will wake up and see what abortion has done fiscally speaking along with the many horrible personal tragedies this has caused in its wake.
  Although I enjoy watching CSPAN, I can’t also help thinking Speaker O’Neill was right on the money when he grumbled about the prospects for more displays of demagoguery and what that could do to our political system. Of course, Tip had that great exemplar of civic and family values, Newt Gingrich, to contend with—and back during the 80’s, nobody in the GOP played the CSPAN demagoguery game better than Gingrich.

All can also pray more. In fact, that is the most important action.

The ONE thing that every Catholic can do for the unborn is simple - If you are registered to vote as a Democrat, remove your name from the pro-abortion party’s registration rolls; go Independent or whatever, but stop giving them your name as a supporter, they use their registration numbers as proof of the correctness of their policies.  And if you still have some time and energy after that, then write a postcard or letter saying you have removed your name from their rolls until they end their support for abortion, and send it to the Democrat Party state chairman.  The postcard or letter may cost a little money, but it is doable for even the poorest Catholic.  Finally, if you want the gold medal of being an armchair, prolife Catholic, stop voting for the pro-abortion party, TOTALLY.  Then you can return to your armchair and resume doing nothing - knowing you have done the MOST important thing you can EVER do for the unborn.  You may be exhausted after doing all of that, but guess what, you’ll discover there is life - after being a Democrat.

I’m sorry the author has such hatred for those who try to apply consistent moral logic to all of their actions.

I’m sure the Army of God feels the same way about people who would stop short of assassinations as this author does about those who refuse to lie.

I just wanted to let him know that his childish invective hasn’t changed my mind one bit about the morality of lying, or the goodness of submitting all of our actions and assumptions to rigorous moral analysis.

You can say “armchair” all you like. It doesn’t matter if you make it from the armchair or from the frontlines, either an argument is true or it is false. I don’t care if you’ve protested at the abortion clinic every day of your life for the past 20 years. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for such an excellent post.

“What happened that weekend earlier this year when the Pence Amendment was tossed in with the orgy of budget cutting, excuse me, GUTTING of the social safety net did not do the the social conservatives much good, nor did it substantively serve the cause of the Unborn.”

Let’s see.  The proposed cuts are about 60 billion of a 3.7 trillion dollar budget.  That’s abut 1.6% cut.  That means 98.4% of the budget is in place.  That of course after the huge INCREASES of of FY2009-2010.  Please explain how this is gutting.

Wow! Flame on in here. Pat, you raise a great point perhaps too vehemently but I appreciate passion. It is one of the things I can respect about pro-choicers. They are relentless driven.

Paul

I dunno, html markup works just fine for me.

I’m using only i‘s and b‘s though.

Priest’s wife

You are 100% right.  Political activism is just one avenue.

If someone does all you describe, even if they disagree with me about the Republican thing, could hardly be described as armchair prolife.

Pat- good question.

Steve, thanks for what you HAVE done for pro-life movement.

But I tell you what, if you have all the time to type this long response and list of excuses and cheapshots back at members of the PLM and the author of the blog…..

you could be doing much more!

It took more time to write your defense of inaction than it did to say a few prayers for the children and mothers of the children.  I’d like to think that you are praying anyway.

Pat must have struck a cord with you, thus the long reply.

Steve, the tide is turning in America, and in American Catholicism. We want the corruption, the lies, and the killing of children to end.

Keep it up, Pat.  God bless you. I see the Holy Spirit in your work, because it will bring much GOOD fruit.

On a somewhat tangential note - how do you manage to get italics, bold, and line spacing on NCR comments?  HTML doesn’t seem to work for me.

I always vote for the Pro-Life candidate—even the ones I don’t really care for (last Presidential election). I have noticed that the 4 Hispanic “catholics” in my office voted Democrat. I guess they ignore Church teaching and think it does not matter…

Thank you, Patrick! I’ve been trying for years to relay these same facts to my family ( all Democrat lovers). I heard and still hear the same things…..“they’re all alike, and the Republicans do nothing for pro-life or the poor, etc”. A couple of my family have changed from the Democratic Party to an “Independent”....because heaven forbid they become a Republican or ever vote for one!

I am active in the pro-life ministry at my parish, but have found all too often we are fighting not only the abortionists and PP, but our own clergy and fellow “Catholics”! If our priests/deacons do say anything about abortion in a homily (only after begging them to for pro-life month in Oct or March for Life in Jan) It is usually cloaked in the “seamless garment or social justice” mantra! I’ve said and continue to say that the USCCB needs to stop being the arm of the Democratic Party and start acting like real Bishops. The scandal of pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage Democrat “Catholic” politicians is doing more harm by not being disciplined by the Bishops. (there are some very good priests and Bishops who are not afraid to speak up….but not enough)

@Bob:  You must have quite a big truck to haul all the straw you need for all those straw men.

Your gist is clear:  you support the killing by abortion of 40 million babies per year worldwide, for any reason or no reason, and by the cruelest means imaginable.

Jesus tells us that the poor will always be with us.  The Catholic pro-abort tells us that we can’t oppose abortion until we’ve defeated poverty.

...just a thought…in order to NOT be an ‘armchair pro-lifer’- it means we have to DO something, right? This doesn’t always mean marching or doing sidewalk counseling. At this point in my life (homeschooling 4 young kids, etc)- I make meals for new moms and babysit for them, organize baby clothes for centers, and do the 40 days for life activities. Political activism has taken a back seat for now. I think the writer’s point is that every pro-lifer needs to do something.

another point- the K of C rocks- I can give loads of examples from my husband’s group, my brother’s and my father’s- yes they give money to support Pro-life causes but they also donate time and work- like my dad setting up every year for the January rally at the state capital- my brother painting the local crisis pregnancy center, etc, etc- another thing the K of C does is encourage men being family men- and if men take responsibility, then there will be less women ‘in trouble’

When I called all the Chapters in my area, every single one noted this brand new ultrasound machine that was just recently purchased.  BIG WHOOP!  Who the heck cares, we need soldiers at the front line and all we have are women. The power of the image of MEN praying in front of the abortion clinics for the women who are going into make the worst decision of their lives while their boyfriends drop them off as if she’s getting her nails done, IS PRICELESS and PROFOUND!

Exactly! These men aren’t doing anything else during the 9-5 workday, and have nothing else to do but drop everything to go get their “good Catholic” card punched in front of an abortion clinic! Why on earth should they spend time earning the bread that feeds their children when the greatest Civil Rights crisis of our era is down the road, take a right at the third light, good luck finding a parking space within walking distance?

Don’t get me wrong: I’ve demonstrated in front of an abortion clinic; I’ve been addressed by the police; I’ve worked soup kitchens; I’ve tutored the poor for free; I’ve given company to the elderly and to the sick; I’ve taken another man’s son into my household; I’ve tried to be everywhere that life needed helping. But that was when I was young, in school, and single. Now I have a family that depends on me and a job that requires my presence (such things exist, you know).

So if you don’t see me at the local demonstration, perhaps you could spare a mite of charity and think it’s because I’m trying to support life, not because I tacitly support death.

Although I’m pro-choice, STEVEN’s view makes logical and consistent sense from a PRO-LIFE view (which I used to hold.) The USCCB, a bunch of sheep given intellectual cover for cowardice by Robert P. George of Princeton, have abandoned the needy, the poor, and even the middle class, with their single minded focus on abortion. As Steven points out, this WILL have consequences on children after they’re born. It does little good to parrot your devotion to life then place children in the crosshairs once they’re born by cutting the social safety net that almost every other advanced nation provides its children AND its middle class.

There’s a choice between helping the poor and protecting the unborn? Funny I thought they were one and the same since abortions are generally pushed upon poor unwed mothers. The bible does have Jesus saying that the poor will always be with us and this I have no doubt of as long as man is greedy. Government programs never help the poor they only propagate systems that keep people poor. The only way to truly help the poor is through education. I agree with my friend that went off one day on how many religous orders abandoned their primary function of teaching to work on “social justice issues” only to deteriate in spirit and numbers. Catholic schools were there for the immigrants to educate and give them a leg up and now the poor and working poor need that same kind of education to make it in this world. For those reading this that feel that the money is needed to prevent “unwanted” pregnancies need to take the rose colored glasses off. Planned Parenthood knows that the sooner they get kids sexually active the sooner those children will be pregnant and in a position to force an abortion on them. The pill has to be taken at the same time every day and no doses ever missed. These kids can’t remember to pick up their rooms let alone be consistant taking a pill and the abortionists like Planned Parenthood know this and count on it.

Looks like Pat Archbold has pal working for some asphalt company who could spare him an extra bucket of tar because the columnist sure used it. Just because not everybody is out there protesting against PPF, marching at prolife rallies or working on behalf of prolife candidates … it doesn’t mean that the ones not involved in these activities aren’t doing their best with the talents, resources and time they have. Not everybody can go all out like others are able to.
  The people who have the energy, the wherewithall, means and time to put into campaigning for the defunding of Planned Parenthood and prolife politicians deserve beaucoup public thanks and praise. Dumping on those who for one reason or another “don’t seem to be measuring up” and who “must be held accountable” for their purported “want of activities” isn’t the way to attract people to the movement no matter how strongly they might agree with the goal.
  For the sake of argument, I admit to stressing “accountability” factor here because it seems to be one of our latest buzzwords that’s taken on a judgmental tone far and beyond what the word was ever intended to mean. Whatever happened to just being responsible and a stand-up man or woman and let their actions speak for themselves, but only if they promised to do or provide x, y, or z service and item to assist the cause? Sadly, (and I’m just referring to Catholic ranks here) there seems to be a growing group of Catholics who, for all the best intentions and heartfelt reasons in the world, are also at risk of losing the bigger political picture here as a result of their well-deserved impatience with the law and politicians in particular.
  Forming circular firing squads won’t help either ready on stand-by to eliminate the “armchair” folks and other people who might be considered slackers or compromisers. Oh good heavens, we mustn’t have any of those, even if by demonstrating their skills in the art and craft of practicing cautious, deliberative and sensible legislative action, they are making headways to reduce the amount of abortions to as few as possible whilst never taking their eyes and hearts off of the real goal which is to get rid of it entirely.
  I used to have this “take no prisoners” attitude until I woke up and realized that in order to become a good all-around solid legislator … whose primary job is to represent his district or state … with in mind, a statewide or national perspective, versus being the representative of the academics, the senator of prolifers, the assemblyman of public unions or the U.S. Senator of defense companies. Unfortunately, due to excess lobbying influences, regional influences, single-issue influences and ideological influences … plus all the pressures they bring to bear on our state and national legislators, and of course, compounded by the press ever eager for that juicy red-meat sound bite . . . much of the overall good these public servants perform, not to mention the many mundane and mind-numbing tasks they perform (depending on what committees they’re assigned to by their respective leaderships) . . . not to mention the routine . . . horse-trading and returning legislative chits they all have to and should make to move certain pieces at least out of committee to a floor vote, the “take no prisoners” attitude/approach makes absolutely no sense. In fact, it further isolates the person who practices it into becoming an utterly ineffectual legislator.
  What I’ve just written will no doubt irritate the daylights out of the purer-than-thou Catholics. But if they want ineffectiveness as the price for their favorite pols’ soap-box stature, that’s exactly what they’ll get, and at the worst time when they have a good piece of legislation – that they and especially their hard working staff have poured hours into shaping – which will go nowhere.
  In the meantime, there’s another danger for the purer-than-thou ideolgue, especially if he or she’s a fiscal conservative as well. That’s to find themselves to become known as one of those “prolifers who love the fetus before it becomes a baby and then vote for budget cuts that’ll cut off good programs designed to make sure every child has a fair shot in life.” I’m talking about childhood nutrition programs, housing assistance for the parents, any and all programs supporting the social safetynet which (of course) don’t contradict our Church’s teachings on faith and morals.
  What happened that weekend earlier this year when the Pence Amendment was tossed in with the orgy of budget cutting, excuse me, GUTTING of the social safety net did not do the the social conservatives much good, nor did it substantively serve the cause of the Unborn. I believe Mr. Pence had a great idea. Planned Parenthood has been gouging us for years getting by on the excuses that it provides services other than abortion. They’ve been using their reliable friends in the Democratic Party to argue against commonsense by seriously expecting the voters to believe that public funds which have made their way into PPF’s bank accounts won’t be fungible. And did they ever get caught short on that argument. The Republicans and their few stalwart Democratic friends exposed PPF’s arguments as shallow and disengenous.
  But I have serious reservations about the way Pence’s Amendment was tucked into this budget cutting orgy where even PBS was cut! What are we going to do, tell kids they should be watching Fox & Friends instead of good informative and entertaining shows in the morning? Read Cong. Ed Markey’s (D-MA) scathing counter-arguments to that petty legislative gutting. And for all the arguments put forth by the Republican leadership that these cuts would create jobs, what did even the Pence Amendment have to do with job creation any more than pulling the plug on Big Bird, or the EPA, which was a Republican creation of Richard Nixon’s!
  I believe the intentions of Pence’s amendment are noble and right. If PPF needs money, it has plenty of liberal and some conservative pals like former Senator Alan Simpson and WH Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles for starters. But that night was not the time or place for a truly stand-alone-issue such as abortion. The Pence amendment wasn’t written to stop pap smears, and other non-abortion services PPF offers out of the (cough, sputter, gag) goodness of its heart. Still, the Pence Amendment could’ve been scheduled for a separate debate and vote.
  This was chicken crap late night politics at its worst, and as an Independent supporter of prolife legislation, I was embarrassed to see something this important tucked into a huge number of other cuts, with the debate pushed off until late in the evening.
  Another reason I believe this timing to be chickencrap politics is that since it was tucked in with budget cuts slated to be rubber-stamped on other valuable social safetynet programs . . . thus carrying with it all the ideological baggage one could imagine coming from this recently elected GOP-Tea Party House of Rookies … was that I never heard one single voice decrying the funding for PPF and tax-payer-funding of abortions . . . uttered to describe impact of the loss of 50 million would-be fellow tax-paying American citizens on Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid.
  The Republicans, especially those who don’t believe in the Ponzi-Scheme slander against SSA, would’ve had the Democrats in a vice they could’ve never escaped. But no, they blew it because to say what the loss of so many Americans on a system that the behind the screen boyos who are concocting all these ideological “talking points” for their other plans dealing with SS … would’ve derailed their other goals, which that night seemed more paramount than saving innocent human lifes. That other goal is the slow, if necessary, but the eventual utter destruction of the crown jewel of FDR’s New Deal. I confess I’m not aware of the arguments, if any, were put up by the few Democrats who crossed party lines to vote for the Pence Amendment, but the Democratic Party House Leadership would’ve been dealt a severe head-knockin’ wake-up call.
  Both parties have blood on their hands. I left the Democrats last fall because they didn’t fight hard enough for the programs worth saving and they’ve held on far to the one not worth saving for another second; legal abortion. But I couldn’t join the Republicans either, not with knowing what their economic ideas will do to the middle class and the social safety net programs which have kept so many people from falling further behind. And the GOP bank blackmail of the President last year, an $800B bailout for individual billionaires on inheritance tax-giveaways that our children and their grandchildren will be paying off for years. Yet, all through that budget cutting orgy, I lost count of how many GOP reps who were balling on and on about leaving debt due to government spending to their kids and grandkids.  What possesses them to think the $800B giveaway in tax benefits to BILLIONAIRES isn’t government spending?
  Finally, that comment about the Knights of Columbus was way out of line: The Knights of Columbus has donated billions of dollars raised to help women keep their babies through their donations to wonderful organizations such as Birthright, just to name one charity. To toss in the cheapshot about the tootsie rolls and suggest that they’re spineless “AMOEBAS” is just plain dishonest and disgusting.
  If anybody wants to get involved with saving unborn children’s lives but don’t feel at home in the political arena, there’s no better place to start than Birthright, which is decidedly NON-political.

Thank you, Kathy.

Excellent!  Thank you!

To Paul Zummo ~

THANK YOU for all you and your fellow Knights of Columbus do to defend the unborn!

*blink* And here I was expecting to feel even more like crud, because we don’t have the resources to be as active in pro-life activities as we wish; about all we can do is spread information and/or encouragement.

It’s nice to see someone finally yelling at the folks who ignore the life-and-death part in favor of sounding reasonable or taking more money to be wasted in horrible inefficient programs.

For the person talking about soup kitchens-
there are other ways to feed the poor, especially the working poor—you know, the families of those kids dems think should have been aborted?
and
I was taught it’s rude to bring up politics in a non-political situation.  Liberals, I notice, have no such restraint.  I can’t count the number of times people have assumed I’m a dem simply because I was doing something they thought only “nice” people—which they define as Democrat—would do.  (Libertarians have a similar tendency; part of what turns me off about their philosophy.)

“When I called all the Chapters in my area, every single one noted this brand new ultrasound machine that was just recently purchased.  BIG WHOOP!  </i>

First of all, they are Councils, not Chapters.  More importantly, those ultrasound machines that you scoff at are an incredibly effective tool.  When pregnant women see the unborn child in their womb they are vastly more likely to keep their child. So yeah, big whoop - they have probably saved more lives than your comment box carping.

“The power of the image of MEN praying in front of the abortion clinics for the women who are going into make the worst decision of their lives while their boyfriends drop them off as if she’s getting her nails done, IS PRICELESS and PROFOUND!”

And I am proud to say that my Council and several other Councils have been there in the front-lines praying, sending color corps to pro-life Masses to signal their support for the unborn, handing out rosaries, etc.  Admittedly not every Council is as active, but those that are not are not the norm.

“Money means nothing… give HIM your blood, sweat and tears and then claim to be a soldier for HIS cause.  Money?  Whatever! “

Really?  So providing money to crisis pregnancy centers, for ads in major newspapers, for charitable donations to assist expectant mothers, and other millions spent for the cause are worth nothing.  Again, I’d suggest that it’s worth more than combox complaints.

Excellent article!  Thank you!

I wish that was the “norm” here and in many other locations we have tried and failed to engage the KOC in ACTIVELY supporting the Pro Life movement.  Anyone can throw money at a cause, but to actively fight against those who murder the innocent takes a real man and there aren’t many of those in the KOC where I am.  When I called all the Chapters in my area, every single one noted this brand new ultrasound machine that was just recently purchased.  BIG WHOOP!  Who the heck cares, we need soldiers at the front line and all we have are women. The power of the image of MEN praying in front of the abortion clinics for the women who are going into make the worst decision of their lives while their boyfriends drop them off as if she’s getting her nails done, IS PRICELESS and PROFOUND! Money means nothing… give HIM your blood, sweat and tears and then claim to be a soldier for HIS cause.  Money?  Whatever!

I’m an arm-chair pro-life—so to speak. I’m never in an arm chair. I’m very busy. But, I agree. I need to send the letters to my congressmen and I don’t because I hate politics. But, you’re right. I need to help on these lines, too, to save the babies.

Thanks for being so frank,
Lisa

Kevin you forgot the other party in an abortion.  The MAN.  Who gets off the hook?  Who Gets the guilt?  All the so called father has to do is sign a check. When the men take responsibility   part of the problem will go away.

To LisaS,
I just feel the need to stick up for the good men in the Knights of Columbus that I know…these men are very active in pro-life work.

All the Catholic churches in my area have a “tomb for the unborn” as a visible reminder, because of the Knights of Columbus.  My husband is a Knight, and speaking only for our local group, Pro-Life work is where the majority of their money goes.

Speaking on the other side of the issue, as someone very active in my counties Right to Life chapter, I can say that the Knights of Columbus are our biggest contributors, AND are always ready with a “YES” to anything we ask of them.

I have no doubt that you have a reason for your poor view of the Knights that you know, but please realize that they are NOT the norm.

Here’s the website that gives a quick overview of the Knights Pro-Life work:

http://www.kofc.org/un/en/prolife/index.html

Without naming political parties, I wish messages like this could be addressed at the pulpit.

Thank-you, triple thanks to you. Great article.

You’re a champion, Pat.

We need more reasonable men like you to stick their necks out for the unborn.

The women of the pro-life movement will cover your back side when we are aware that you are under attack.

So often I hear that men have no business sticking their noses in the abortion debate and that they should butt out.

Ironcially, that is only said to the men who disagree with them. Those that say abortion is fine are not told to butt out.

Bravo Patrick!

“.seems most folks are more concerned with my ‘faith’ than with addressing the issue. “

What issue?  You post was a blathering, nonsensical diatribe about Republicans killing little children by their policies.  You made no valid points, engaged in no substantive commentary, and just generally proved yourself to be a bore.  Next time come with some logic and then maybe we’ll engage you.  Otherwise, we’ll just pity you for your ignorance.

Hmmm….seems most folks are more concerned with my ‘faith’ than with addressing the issue. Which is kind of what I expected. It’s easier to ignore the results and the evidence by denying they exist, rather than confronting the contradictions in your own beliefs.

All it costs, of course, is children’s lives. The very lives pro-lifers say they are concerned with.

Excellent article!

Bravo!!  This is what I feel about the Knights of Columbus who are SOLDIERS and would rather pass out tootsie rolls than to rally their troops in defense of another human being at Planned Parenthood.  I have not known ONE who is willing to support and fight against abortion!!  AMOEBAS!

Wonderful post.  Brings up an idea.  I think from now on when I meet someone who is Catholic and pro-life, I will ask enthusiastically, “And which pro-life organization are you working with?”

“I have no doubt this post will either never be posted or will be deleted shortly after it’s posted.”

Nope. Unfortunately for you, your ignorance is here on full display for all to see.

Bob wrote: “Republican kill children by denying them healthcare”
...“Being ‘pro-life’ mean yielding to the rich and powerful while using the govt. to control the poor”
Bob I hope that you are not Catholic.  (We have too many bad examples already) If so, you have no understanding of our faith whatsoever.  Pat’s article is directed at people precisely like you, (poorly educated in the faith) so we can assume that he has hit a nerve.

Bob you are deceived by the liberal media or just an idiot…possibly both.

Always willing to have a big govt solution to the issue…outlaw abortion. More govt. More rules. More regulation

Are you willing to feed her children? No. Educate them? No. House them? No. Republican kill children by denying them healthcare, or kill them by refusing to regulate the food production industry, resulting in the poisoning of children (e.g. Sen Tom Coburn of OK.), because it costs MONEY for a big corporation. But he’s pro-life, you see.

Being ‘pro-life’ mean yielding to the rich and powerful while using the govt. to control the poor. That’s what your religion does. It did so when it sheltered pedophile priests. And it’s doing so today under the guise of ‘pro-life’.

The pro-life movement is just another way to kill and victimize the children of the poor while justifying the rapacious rich.

You’re a bunch of hypocritical killers.

I have no doubt this post will either never be posted or will be deleted shortly after it’s posted.

Good points in your article.  The DEMOCRAT - PARTY of DEATH - has not changed.  We must remember that pro-abortion (murder of babies) is even in their National Platform. Regarding Lila Rose, the Eighth Commandment is - “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor”.  She exposed the lies and deceitfulness of Planned Parenthood, and has helped in the effort to stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to PP for the killing of babies.  Undercover “stings” are not sinful.

Well said!! Those disagreeing with you seem to be stung by the truth.

“...and who have tirelessly written, taught, lobbied and publically prayed outside of abortion clinics….”

@Peter

I know bishops and priest who are registered in the pro-abortion party and vote for them over prolife, Catholic Republican legislators with 100% prolife voting record. And I’ve seen one of those bishops at a vigil outside an abortion clinic.  A pastor of a local Catholic church said to me he could not vote for a friend of mine who was prolife, Catholic and the Republican nominee for governor in CA because he, the priest, was a Democrat.  Then he said, “Besides, I’m not worried about the babies, they’re in heaven.”  This is a parish where the prolife movement was started in O.C. under the approval of the previous pastor, who was moved a year or two later to a smaller parish by the bishop and replaced with the one there now. 

The biggest supporters of the unborn are Catholics.  But the biggest obstacle to giving the unborn a constitutional right to life, ending abortion, are also - Catholics, clergy and laity, alike.

R.C.,

I’d just like to point out that (a) people in European social democracies aren’t exactly starving, and (b) I’ve worked in a LOT of soup kitchens, and never found a gun-toting Bible thumper. I was generally the most conservative guy there, and I haven’t been a “conservative” in over a decade.

In fact, my most memorable encounter with a gun-toting Bible thumper on the subject of abortion was when I mentioned to a roommate that a student was pregnant, and asked him to pray for her to make the right decision. “Isn’t it a little late for that?” he snarled.

Now, I know not all gun-toting Bible thumpers are of that inclination, but there are a lot more of them than one might expect from reading your rant.

Pat Achbold ~ THANK YOU for telling it like it is!

I wonder if you would count Robert George, one of these who had reservations about Lila Rose’s tactics, as a member of the “armchair pro-life”.  Some people have serious concerns about the liceity of lying, and base this concern on the theologies of Augustine and Aquinas, not to mention the Catechism.  Dismissing this as “sniffing” at “unseemliness” is a really unfortunate characterization that betrays a lack of intellectual honesty and charity.

This outburst is really below your dignity.  I’m embarrassed for both of us.

Peter,
Your comment makes no sense.

I set a number of criteria for what I deem the “armchair” pro-life.  How would those actively engaged in “40 days for life” qualify for this moniker?

They wouldn’t, would they? Since the first criteria I list is that they are not actively engaged.  Perhaps you “ought to be ashamed of yourself” for poor reading comprehension skills.

@Beth

You are absolutely right - prolifers are not interested in making the pregnant woman the criminal in abortion.  We want the medical act of abortion criminalized again, i.e., the persons performing the abortion is the criminal.

“...but your attempt to avoid that actual moral debate of the issue….”
“...because they happen to call you on a moral issue.”

@Peter

What are you talking about?

~~Very well said!!  Bravo!

Well said!  Thank you.
Look, I’m not crazy about the Republican party, and trust no politician, but we have to work with what we’ve got, and when they do something right, we should let then know.
God bless you.

@Kevin O’Mahony
The woman undergoing the abortion is not the only actor in the situation.  She indeed may be under duress, but the doctor, nurse, clinician, etc., is not in that state. Others who might carry guilt would be the circle of friends or family who coerce the woman to abort.  Anne Hendershott has done research on this.  Do some research and you’ll find that when abortion was illegal, almost always is it was the abortionist who faced charges and was convicted, not the woman.

Pat Archbold:

If abortions in the United States were outlawed, what criminal sanctions (if any) would you propose to introduce for women who procure illegal abortions?

I am unsure who this straw man you call “armchair Catholic” is but your attempt to avoid that actual moral debate of the issue by demonising your opponent in debate smears the character of all the pro-life people I know who are currently preparing to begin the “40 Days for Life” campaign, and who have tirelessly written, taught, lobbied and publically prayed outside of abortion clinics most of their lives (some of them even as babies in the mothers womb as SHE prayed.)

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for such a juvenile outburst using such a slanderous dismissal of Catholics in good standing and impaccable records in pro-life simply because they happen to call you on a moral issue.

There may be ‘armchair Catholics’ apposing your views but the attempt to sum up all your opponents as morally bankrupt or pathetic no-shows in the pro-life war is unjust and uncharitable.

Mr. Archbold, the end justifys the means, or so you are saying. Just how often do you lie to achieve what you want?

Hear, hear!!!

Can’t wait to read the responses of the blogging armchair handwringers.

Calah:

I have had the same experience as a convert.

The traditional association between “helping the poor” and “voting Democrat” is (of course!) insufficient reason to vote for Democrats now: nearly 40 million murdered infants outweigh that traditional association in such an extreme way that anyone who brings up the one in the same breath as the other ought really to be embarrassed at their own foolishness and lack of a sense of proportion.

That would be the case, even if the traditional assertion had any truth in it.

But of course we know better, now: The association between the political left and compassion for the poor is increasingly and justifiably broken in the modern mind. These days, we know that voting for leftists is one of the surest ways to keep the poor stuck in poverty…and it’s all the nastier if one has an attitude of self-congratulatory “I’m helping the poor” piety while doing it!

First, we are more historically aware than our grandparents were how leftist economics systematically tends to burden or destroy an economy…and the poor fare worst in a bad economy. Pardon the dated comparison, but it remains instructive: the poor in Soviet Russia starved while the poor in the United States bought Walkmen and Air Jordans. One of the chief chronic health problems plaguing the poor in the United States is obesity. What other civilization has ever made that boast? Certainly none of the centrally-planned Marxist economies, and few of the more moderate social-democracies of Europe.

Second, we are now painfully aware of how leftist economic control is generally implemented: Not in a way that helps the neediest persons; but rather, in a way that benefits any program directed by or for the benefit of the political allies of leftist politicians!

The Welfare State turns out, in the end, to be a vote-buying and fundraiser-reward system. It also transforms a market economy, where business owners are rewarded according to their ability to fulfill the needs of consumers, into a “meritocracy of pull,” where the business owners who succeed are those who have the most “pull” with the government, because they are able to influence legislation so as to produce a regulatory environment which helps them, hurts their existing competitors, and creates barriers of entry to stave off any future competitors who might consider competing in their market.

Thirdly, we are aware that conservative/right-wing/red-state voters are, IN GENERAL, more compassionate towards the poor than leftists are…when it comes to how they voluntarily give money and volunteer their time.

Conservatives give about twice as much money to the poor as leftists, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of their incomes. This is true at every income level. They also volunteer more. They give blood far more. Find me a soup kitchen: The paid director or city supervisor may be a leftist, but the unpaid volunteers serving the soup are more likely to be red-state gun-owning Bible thumpers.

In short, the myth that the Democratic party cares for the poor has been dispelled. They care about the SEIU and the NEA and Planned Parenthood, because these are political allies. Sure, their voters voluntarily give to the needy sometimes, but at only half the rates and amounts of the voters who make up the Republican base, so the relative stinginess of the Democratic base in these matters can hardly be given as evidence of their concern for the poor.

Finally, the sexual libertinism and opposition to traditional values and welfare dependency which is so much a part of left-liberal culture is one of the things which leads to broken hearts and broken homes; this in turn leads to poverty and various other social maladies. Show me an advocate of homeschooling and abstinence-based sex-ed and traditional marriage, and I’ll show you someone whose philosophy and culture, when normalized within a society, largely PREVENTS poverty.

This means, in the end, that our choice is NOT between a pro-life party which is bad for the poor, and a pro-abort party which is good for the poor.

No, our choice is between an (admittedly sometimes inconsistently) pro-life party which is good for the poor, and a (frighteningly consistently) pro-abort party which brags a lot about its compassionate intentions but ends up bad for the poor in the end.

Not a difficult choice, is it?

In 2008, I was rather tempted to vote for Barak Obama, because he was black. But I resisted the temptation: Not only because he was pro-choice, but also because he was a leftist, and I wouldn’t have wished to stab the needy in the back that way.

The best analysis of this issue I have read in a long time.

THANK YOU. I was raised a God, guns and George Bush Texas Protestant, and after the agonizing yet wonderful choice to convert to Catholicism, I’ve been horrified by the number of Catholics who insist that they vote for Democrats because “Republicans don’t do anything about abortion either.” When I try to explain that yes, they do, but they can’t overturn it all at once and the vast majority of Republicans are steadily, faithfully hacking away at abortion laws, I get criticized for not loving poor people. Hello? Babies are dying. By the millions. That should be the deciding factor in how we vote and who we support. I can’t understand why it isn’t for so many people. Thank you for a fantastic, wonderful article. Thank you for not pulling any punches.

As a wise woman once told me, “You have to order off the menu.”  Many of my Catholic friends do their Mercutio (“a plague on both…”), and vote for the Glen Beck Party, or Catholic First Party, or some such third party…in doing so they simply evacuate the field and leave it to the people who show up.

Or worse….simply enable the Dems to continue unabated, and the Republicans to continue to ignore us.

The namesake of my avatar had a conversation with a very fictional Caesar in “Gladiator.”  The exchange is apropos, just replace “Rome” with “America.”

Maximus: I’ve seen much of the rest of the world. It is brutal and cruel and dark, Rome is the light.
Marcus Aurelius: Yet you have never been there. You have not seen what it has become. I am dying, Maximus. When a man sees his end… he wants to know there was some purpose to his life. How will the world speak my name in years to come? Will I be known as the philosopher? The warrior? The tyrant…? Or will I be the emperor who gave Rome back her true self? There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish… it was so fragile. And I fear that it will not survive the winter.

Oh that there were a Marcus Aruelius and a General Maximus for America.  How I yearn for them.

Thank you.  So well said.

Well said, Pat!