Originally Posted by KarissaMann05

Originally Posted by jillio

Scary, how? I'm not sure I understand.

Originally Posted by jillio

Pro-life? Look at the fruits
by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen
advertisement


I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.
I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.
Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).
Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.
I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).
Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.
How could this be? I see three contributing factors:
First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.
Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.
Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.
The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back. My wife and I know - as does my son David - that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling, and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, father, and child needs public and family support.
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, child care, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need policies that provide jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers. Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, and the co-author of Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context, Christianity Today's Book of the Year in theology or ethics.

The Catholic Church teaches that all life is sacred. A candidate for office must understand that the Church stands against any policy or course of action that diminishes life, dignity or the rights of the human person: abortion, capital punishment, war, scandalous poverty, denial of healthcare, mistreatment of immigrants and racism, to name but a few. SojoMail

The Democratic Party's strong commitment to human rights leads naturally to a pro-life position. Just as we care about the welfare of children, the disabled, and the elderly, we care about unborn children and their mothers. The Democratic Party was for years the defender of the powerless and spoke for the voiceless. Democrats work to find lasting solutions for women and families who face the choice of abortion because often that choice comes from desperation. As supporters of the party of tolerance and free speech, we are confident that our pro-life voice within the party will be respected. As pro-life Democrats who care about our party, we choose to work within the party to foster respect for all human life, from beginning of life to natural death. This includes, but is not limited to, opposition to abortion, capital punishment, and euthanasia. You can be pro-life and a Democrat. In fact, it is essential to the pro-life movement and to the Democratic Party that Democrats who are pro-life stay in the party and make their voices heard. We hope you will join us.
North Carolina Pro-Life Democrats

Published on Wednesday, February 2, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
The 'Pro-Life' Lie
People should be judged by the ideals they most loudly profess
by Daniel C. Maguire

OK, 'Pro-Lifers,' here goes.
Archbishop Tutu (would that we had even one bishop like him in the United States!) writes:
'Some 2 million children have died in dozens of wars during the past decade. This is more than three times the number of battlefield deaths of American soldiers in all their wars since 1776. Today, civilians account for more than 90 percent of war casualties.'
Children are the prime casualties of modern war. As Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University writes:
'Children in urban war zones die in vast numbers, not just due to violence, but also from diarrhea, respiratory infections and other causes, owing to unsafe drinking water, lack of refrigerated foods, and acute shortages of blood and basic medicines in clinics and hospitals.'
Pregnant women and their fetuses suffer from these same lethal deprivations and pregnant women and their fetuses are being bombed in their homes. If you who sanctimoniously wear the 'pro-life' banner were really pro-life-and pro-fetus, that would bother you and we would be hearing your voices raised powerfully in peace protests around the world. We don't. Therefore we must conclude that you are not 'pro-life' and that if you say you are, you are liars. American military leaders in Iraq have been quoted as saying 'we don't do body counts.' (Interesting, since even 'the mob' does body counts.)
The respected British journal The Lancet did a body-count of civilians killed in Iraq. They concluded that there are more than 100,000 civilians deaths, most due to U.S. Military action. President Bush is responsible for those murders because he entered this war without the Declaration of War that the constitution (Article one, Section 8) requires. A cowardly Congress in a week of infamy (October 3-10, 2002) limply handed over their war-declaring rights to him, giving the president open-ended authority to use unrestricted power, which could mean nuclear weapons whenever he alone deemed it appropriate. How did those who call them selves 'pro-life' respond to this appalling assault on the Constitution and on life. They voted en masse for George W. Bush, the slaughter-master of Iraq, the killer of civilian men, women and children, including pregnant women and their fetuses in a war that Pope John Paul called a 'defeat for humanity.' Mr. Bush said he saw their vote as an endorsement of his war. He was right. The election was a chance to vote against that war, but, overwhelmingly the so called 'pro-life' vote was for war.
Can you understand why we call you liars? Sister Joan Chittister writes of a front page, large four-color picture in The Irish Times of a small Iraqi girl. 'Her little body was a coil of steel. She sat knees up, cowering, screaming madly into the dark night. Her white clothes and spread hands and small tight face were blood-spattered. The blood was the blood of her father and mother, shot through the car window in Tal Afar by American soldiers while she sat beside her parents in the car, her four brothers and sisters in the back seat.' Indifference to this and to all those war crimes like it, on the part of anyone is criminal and sinful in the extreme. Indifference to it by those who canonize themselves with the 'pro-life' insignia shown by their recent vote for more of it, is even worse. Such hypocrisy should be called by its name. Its name is fraud. Its name is lying, lying under the very banner of 'life.' Daniel C. Maguire is a Catholic Theologian and Professor of Moral Theology at Marquette University. He can be contacted at maguired@juno.com



The 'Pro-Life' Lie

Originally Posted by KarissaMann05

Originally Posted by jiro123

They are what I called - idealists. Don't we all wish the world's fair and friendly?

Originally Posted by jiro123

They are what I called - idealists. Don't we all wish the world's fair and friendly?

Originally Posted by jillio

No, the Catholic Church does not deny healthcare or condone the mistreatment of immigrants. As part of their pro-life stance that all life is sacred they word for better health care for all and speak out against the mistreatment of immigrants. In other words, they do what is necessary to improve the sanctity of life for all human beings.

Originally Posted by KarissaMann05

Originally Posted by KarissaMann05

#270 post...

I'm a consistent ethic of life for pro-life yet you called them, inculding myself, "not pro-life" or this post calls me a lair because what I beleive for. Nonsense!

Look.. Let me tell you something.

I donate some moneys with my anonymous name to poor shelters for homeless families.
I donate some moneys with my anonymous name to some hospitals for cancer patients.
Probably, next year, I will give up one of my own kidnseys to any one who need it and I can get one fake kidnsey for me.
I personally did a few things to give them because this life does matter to me.
I sign up to stop animal cruelity a few times.

Now, you tell me that I can't be pro-life. That's so much friendly fair for you to tell me a "no". :Sighs:

Originally Posted by jillio

Where exactly did I tell you that you can't be pro-life? I think you have misunderstood again.

I refer to that links you post it.

I'd be careful about donating a kidney on the hopes that you will get a "fake one" for yourself. There is no such thing as a fake kidney. Once you donate one, you ave only one left for the rest of your life.

Yeah, I knew it.. Somebody else claimed there is some fake kidneys and I debated with this person but I gave up. But, I glad you mention it so I will tell him once again. There is no fake kidneys. Aha..

EDIT: I still am gong to give up my own kidney to give somebody who need it.

And post #270 is not composed of my words. I provided the websites from which they were taken.

Originally Posted by KarissaMann05

#270 post...

I'm a consistent ethic of life for pro-life yet you called them, inculding myself, "not pro-life" or this post calls me a lair because what I beleive for. Nonsense!

Look.. Let me tell you something.

I donate some moneys with my anonymous name to poor shelters for homeless families.
I donate some moneys with my anonymous name to some hospitals for cancer patients.
Probably, next year (or two years), I will give up one of my own kidnseys to any one who need it and I probably can get one fake kidnsey for me.
I personally did a few things to give them because this life does matter to me.
I sign up to stop animal cruelity a few times.

Now, you tell me that I can't be pro-life. That's so much friendly fair for you to tell me a "no". :Sighs:

Originally Posted by jiro123

Don't we all wish the world's fair and friendly?

Originally Posted by Angel

No, She was speaking of Cheri simply because she support the "death penalty"

Originally Posted by Angel

No, She was speaking of Cheri simply because she support the "death penalty"

Originally Posted by KarissaMann05

Originally Posted by jillio

Thank you, Karrissa. Post # 270 was not in reference to any singualr person. Especially since the originators of these documents don't know anyone on AD.

Originally Posted by jillio

Angel, if it is your intent to make accusations simply to cause trouble, then I suggest you take it somewhere else. As has already been stated, these words came from 3 different website, and I doubt seriously that any of them even know or care who your sister is. Likewise, I did not mention your sister's name in my post at all, and for you to assume such is going a bit above and beyond.

Originally Posted by Angel