Support Torture or the Baby Gets It!

Mark Shea has some interesting things to say about the election of Scott Brown and the Pro-Life movement over at Mark expresses some doubts I have about the leadership and direction of the movement. His conclusion:

So it's come to this: the Big Thinkers of the Thing that Used to be Conservatism at NRO are commending Massachusetts voters for not being held "hostage to extremists who would rather lose than support a pro-choice candidate" while simultaneously concluding that the takeaway message from Brown's victory is "Waterboarding wins."

Translation: Elect pro-aborts -- as long as they're also pro-torture.
Incredibly, the election of a man who posed nude and supports torture and the damnable Roe is gushed over as a pro-life victory by multiple pro-life talking heads, while the buzz on Drudge and other "conservative" sites on the day he is elected to the Senate is about the feasibility of packing the guy off to the White House. And all just in time for Roe v. Wade Day!

"Scott Brown for President: Support Torture or the Baby Gets It!" Has a nice ring, don't you think?

King Pyrrhus, pray for us. If the pro-life movement has many more such victories, it will be undone.


Mr. Piccolo,  Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 4:00:00 PM CST  

Instead of swearing fealty to either major political party, I think the pro-life movement ought to support individual candidates from any political party, so long as they are honest about being pro-life, and don't just use pro-life talking points to pick up Catholic votes, or pro-life votes generally.

Becoming chained to one major party or the other is a good way to become a "taken for granted" interest group: "Oh, those pro-lifers will always vote for us, because the other guys are even worse!"

I would also like to see the pro-life movement broaden its scope to include stronger support for policies that will actually reduce the number of abortions. I know there are already some good folks out there trying to do just that, but sometimes I feel that the pro-life movement is too obsessive about Roe v. Wade, given the sad reality that that decision is unlikely to be overturned in the near future.

Anonymous,  Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 4:25:00 PM CST  

Excellent point, Mr. Piccolo. If I may not be too bold, I think our blog's article by our editor, Mr. Nicholas Wansbutter, may be worth looking at.

Anonymous,  Tuesday, January 26, 2010 at 7:22:00 PM CST  

Mr. Piccalo, both Archbishop Chaput and I agree with you.

Archbishop Chaput Warns Pro-Life Catholics in the U.S. over Aligning too Closely with Either Party

I must say his warning is much more objective than this

and Shea's sour grapes post.

I for one was one of those who was greatly relieved at Scott Brown's victory, but not because he’s pro-life – but because Obama, Sibelius, Emmanuel (both of ‘em) and the vast bulk of the Democratic Party led by Pelosi are pro-death and Brown would be a fly in their ointment. In that regard it was a most sweet victory indeed. In fact I would say it was probably even divine providence. There is an African American preacher who agrees with me. Pastor Luke Robinson spoke near the end of the recent March for Life rally in DC. It was a most passionate and eloquent speech and he nailed it to the wall when he shamed Obama as he said:

“We have been challenged by some of the most radical and ungodly ideas in folks that have ever hit this nation. Instead of health care this administration has offered us death care. This radical administration and congress chose that the abortion of children was more important than genuine health reform. President Obama and the members of his political party could have put together a reasonable reform that could have benefitted the whole nation, for they control both houses of congress and they also control the White House.

Let America not be deceived, it was their resistance to the dropping of the funding of the killing of children is why three is no health care for us today. They work secretly behind closed doors, leaving out the people of America and some of the members of their own party for their own devious deeds. However in spite of their cover-up, God began to move and reveal to the nation what the culture of death was planning. People began to stand up and say no. You and I must stand up and say no… they began to stand up and said no in Virginia…they said no in New Jersey, they even said last Tuesday in Massachusetts – they said NO, by defeating one of the surest proponents of abortion.

Click the link and move the timer to 105:44 to hear the speech – it’s well worth it and its only about 5 minutes long

THE point is – for all the wailing and gnashing of teeth over the Republicans “stranglehold” over the pro-life movement – THIS was the Democrats chance to pass health care reform, but abortion was too important to do that. With control of the White House and both houses of congress, they could have passed it in the house with an overwhelming majority if they had just included the Stupak Amendment, but as the pastor pointed out – they had another agenda.

Bart Stupak is my new hero – and a Democrat of all things! Who would have ever guessed?

As for the Democrats ineptness in passing health care – is it not ironic that the pro-death “Kennedy Seat” was the one that ended up bringing down health care, especially in light of the fact that that seat would have been filled by an appointment by the Governor, but – at the request of Kennedy himself – the rule was changed because they were so sure that Kerry was going to win the White House and they didn’t want a Republican Governor putting a Republican in the “Kennedy Seat”.

John Stewart summed it up best (the night before the election no less):

Mass Backwards

Chris Campbell Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 8:08:00 AM CST  

JimB-who cares about flies and ointments?-you are playing the shame of the "liberal vs Conservative" false paradigms...the guy has publicly stated he will work to reduce abortions and increase adoption...this is Clinton lingo that did not go over with pro-lifers then or now, except I guess when said candidate has the all powerful and important "R" after his, will not work to stop abortions, overturn Roe,or any other method.....

He has voiced support for gay "marriage", for neocon wars of aggression, torture,, Christ-less fly/ointment is not the way to go and not a Christian choice in Mass. at all, not the Dem, not Brown, the new Neocon great white hope of the hr(move over Palin..wait, maybe a ticket there, hmm..)

I agree with another poster about stopping the idol worship of the 2 party (really,only one actually)system..

Distribs need to think outside the box-look at candidates...and this takes courage...from (wait for it) OTHER PARTIES!!!! and those with no party...

The lesser of 2 evils is an evil adn Christ-less arguement...

Mass. did not win anything really, just a different face, slightly different msg, but still riding hellshod over hte cliff into the abyss..

Chris Campbell Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 8:11:00 AM CST  

by the way, there is no role in Federal Govt for "healthcare", let alone to reform it.want reform, lets have a real monetary system where individuals, churches, civic groups,etc provide for health care....

Distribs in USA and Britain opposed the New Deal, they did not expect the Govt to do things that would control our lives in such intimated decisions such as health...a Govt that has a long track records of thanks...

Anonymous,  Wednesday, January 27, 2010 at 8:36:00 AM CST  

Chris you mistook my comments against the Democrats as an endorsement of Republicans - it was no such thing. My moral support of Brown was opposition to Obamacare, nothing more.

I am in complete agreement with Mr. Piccalo above who said "Instead of swearing fealty to either major political party, I think the pro-life movement ought to support individual candidates from any political party, so long as they are honest about being pro-life, and don't just use pro-life talking points to pick up Catholic votes, or pro-life votes generally."

I'd be all for a distributist party that carried that banner. The reality is that would exclude 98.9 % of Democrats and probably 70 % of Republicans.

There are some Democrats who would have you believe that the pro-life part would take care of itself if we just get the "social justice" right, and Republicans who think that "social issues" get in the way of the "real" issues" - both flies in the face of Church teaching.

There is a large contingent floating around out there on both sides who are fed up and looking for a new place to call home - makes for interesting discussions.

Chris Campbell Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 7:29:00 AM CST  

Sorry about mistaking your comments earlier, though Brown is a nightmare and I would-if in Mass.-still not support him....the other things he supports are unacceptable.

None the less, you have my apologies for misreading or misunderstanding your does indeed make for interesting discussion!! A grace filled ay Jim!

Anonymous,  Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 2:24:00 PM CST  

Hillary Clinton Exports Obamacare:

Secretary Clinton Announces 5-year Funding Push, Including Abortion

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) In Washington last week, United States (U.S.) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the United States would engage in a massive funding push over the next five years to promote “reproductive health care and family planning” as a “basic right” around the word. Clinton has previously stated for the record that this includes abortion. The plan includes potentially siphoning off funds currently directed towards fighting HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis and malaria.

Commemorating the fifteenth anniversary of the controversial International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo, Clinton said there were only five years left to achieve ICPD’s goal that “all governments will make access to reproductive healthcare and family planning services a basic right.”

Despite the economic downturn, Clinton announced that “The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. …the largest allocation in more than a decade.” The “centerpiece” of the Obama foreign policy, she said, would be the Global Health Initiative. She said the initiative “commits us to spending $63 billion over six years.” This will link the reproductive rights agenda to high profile global health concerns.

John Médaille Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 3:59:00 PM CST  

Jim, I still don't get it. Why the anger to Obama and Clinton and the pass given the Brown?

Viking Thursday, January 28, 2010 at 11:59:00 PM CST  

Hi all, could I bring up something in the news recently? It seems that star Florida Gator quarterback and his mom are planning to air a commercial during the Super Bowl that implicitly opposes abortion. (The word is apparently not mentioned during the commercial.) I've already heard one "pro-choice" woman denounce it as hateful. Comments, anyone?


Viking Friday, January 29, 2010 at 12:09:00 AM CST  

Oops, sorry, I meant to write the name of the "star Florida Gator quarterback". It's Tim Tebow, for those who want to google the matter.

Viking, apologetically

John Médaille Friday, January 29, 2010 at 12:12:00 AM CST  

It's an example of modern censorship, isn't it? I haven't seen the commercial, but considering the fact that most of the other commercials will be at least vaguely obscene, the reasons for objecting to this one don't make any sense; but ideology never does, particularly the ideology of death.

Howard Friday, January 29, 2010 at 9:00:00 PM CST  

The enemy of my enemy may not be my friend, but he is at least the enemy of my enemy.

Anonymous,  Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 3:10:00 PM CST  

@ John, I’m not giving Brown a pass, just pointing out that his 1 vote in the Senate compared to the Obama death machine is small potatoes.

@ Viking:

The New York Times is no bastion of pro-life thought and has taken a consistently aggressive pro-abortion stance over the years. In what may come as a shock to pro-life advocates, the liberal newspaper issued an editorial today taking abortion advocates to task for blasting an ad featuring Tim Tebow.

The New York Times weighed in on the debate in an official editorial titled "Super Bowl Censorship."

Anonymous,  Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 3:18:00 PM CST  

I'm glad that CBS has changed it's position on advocacy ads. This ad was rejected by NBC for airing during the Super Bowl last year, and CNN during coverage of President Obama's first State of the Union Address. It represents the spirit in which the Tebow ad was done.

Imagine Spot 1

The radical feminists at Now / NARAL are attacking the Tebow ad as an "in your face" rejection of abortion - it is nothing of the kind - and how would they know ? They have yet to see it

Chris Campbell Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 2:19:00 PM CST  

John, to your "i dont get it omment", some-not implying at all those posting here-but some are willing to make any excuse or ignore any fault as long as the candidate/office holder has a "R" after their name.That rank hypocrisy is why the "Christian right" is a joke now...they lost all credibility in supporting GOP do or die.

again, not implying this to anyone ehre nor maligning anyone here....

John Médaille Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 2:44:00 PM CST  

Chris, Absolutely, and the enthusiastic support given the to the pro-abortion Brown and denied to the pro-life Lynch was a case in point. Guess which one had an "R" after his name?

Viking Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 8:20:00 PM CST  

John, guess I have a short memory. Remind me, who is the "pro-life Lynch"?


Anonymous,  Thursday, February 4, 2010 at 6:21:00 PM CST  

Here is a link to a search on "Stephen Lynch" the Mass Right to Life Committee's blog. All the postings regarding Lynch are for calls to either contact him on voting, or to thank him for his pro-life vote.

I'm assuming MA has a closed primary system, meaning Lynch would have have been eliminated in the Democrat primary which leaves Republicans out of the equation.

According to this guy it was women Democrats that ended up selecting the Dem candidate to put "one of their own" in office.

What Mass (and the rest of us) got in Brown was the lesser of two evils, but one that had the vote to stymie Obamacare so the pro-lifers (and R's) got a tactical battle win.

It's a shame Lynch didn't get in, once again it appears that Democrats shot themselves in the foot.

Chris Campbell Friday, February 5, 2010 at 8:13:00 AM CST  

By the way, my apologies for mis-spellings

Viking Friday, February 5, 2010 at 8:43:00 PM CST  

Jim, thank you for that. Don't recall reading the name "Stephen Lynch" before, here or elsewhere, that's why I asked. It probably is a tough road ahead for pro-life Democrats in most districts and states, even if they're not in Massachusetts. That's why the Republicans can keep the pro-lifers securely in their pockets, and without much to show for their (pro-lifers') support. Too bad.


Post a Comment

  © Blogger template Werd by 2009

Back to TOP