My letter to a pro-life leader

[AngryOldDem]

I feel like this is a horribly self-indulgent thread to start. But an observation posted here yesterday by Cyantite concerning the question of why so many "pro-lifers" are also pro-death penalty and pro-war really struck a nerve with me. So today I sat down and wrote the following, which I intend to send to the founder of an active pro-life group within the Catholic Church.

I feel that it's time that we begin to call such groups on their hypocrisy. I hope this is not too long, and I hope that by reading it I will show that not all Catholics are in lock-step with groups that pretend to speak for them.

My letter:

As an occasional reader of this forum, I feel compelled to make the following observations.

1) How do you rationalize the following paragraphs, taken from the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2267? After acknowledging the state’s right to impose the death penalty against “unjust aggressors,” the CCC goes on to note:
“If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person.
“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitively taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically non-existent.’” (Quote from John Paul II, Evangelium vitae.)

The CCC is quite clear. The Church recognizes a state’s right to impose the death penalty, because it cannot dictate how a state conducts its affairs. However, it is quite clear that the Church does not approve of such means to control “unjust aggressors.”

I also find it rather peculiar that you seem to fully trust the state’s wisdom in imposing a sentence of death, when in fact it has been proven time and again that the criminal justice system is a far-from-perfect institution, and that there have been instances where innocent people have been condemned to die through spurious means. It is also true that the death penalty often involves minorities and those from lower economic classes who most often do not have the means for adequate legal representation. In addition, the United States is among such dubious international company as Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Singapore, and Jordan in its continued imposition of the death penalty as a means of justice (Amnesty International).

Does none of the above penetrate your conscience as a pro-life leader? Does it not bother you that whenever the switch is pulled, or the drug injected, an innocent life may be taken? Does it not bother you that we, as fellow human beings, truly do not have the right to decide who lives and who dies? Can’t you see that the right-to-life argument – if it is to have ANY validity – must be concerned with issues other than abortion?

2) I admit that I am still stunned by a question posed here about a week ago concerning the coverage of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict. A writer was concerned about the amount of coverage this war was getting in the media, when there was so much more death occurring through abortion. Again – does it not bother you that many more civilians than combatants have been killed in this conflict so far? Thirty-five children alone died in one attack on July 30. How many more have been orphaned or made refugees is anyone’s guess. And I won’t even begin to address the larger, global implications of this crisis. For you to tacitly agree with this writer is simply incomprehensible to me.

3) With all the talk and concern about abortion, what do groups such as ALL do for those children already here? I work at a homeless shelter, and currently we have about 20 children ranging in age from 1 month to 15 years staying there with their families. Not once – ever – have I seen any pro-life group offer assistance to these families, most of which are headed by single women. Indeed, when I tried to get baby supplies for a woman who would not otherwise be allowed to take her newborn home from the hospital, I was refused such supplies from a local “pro-life” group because the woman had not gone through classes at its facility. (Luckily, another group came through for me.) Since when, I wonder, did the “pro-life” movement set conditions on its help? Shouldn’t that help be forthcoming to any woman who asks for it, regardless of her circumstances? I used to financially support this organization; I do not anymore. The seeming indifference toward the children already among us is a glaring defect to many who observe pro-life activity. So – my question: What do you do, other than to advocate for the birth of children? Don’t you think that helping those children already born should also be the concern of all pro-life groups?

Recently, on another Internet forum, the question was asked: “Why is it that so many so-called ‘pro-life’ people are pro-war and pro-death penalty?” Good question – one that I have asked myself several times over the years, especially since stumbling across this site. My answer to this question was simple: Apparently, some lives are just worth more than others. The child in the womb is seen as more valuable than a death-row inmate, a 1-day-old Lebanese bombing victim, or a poor child in a homeless shelter.

As a Christian, and a Catholic, I find such a view abhorrent and pathologically myopic, and directly opposite what the Church and Christ teach. I also think that it invalidates the pro-life movement as a whole. Until those who are speaking out so stridently for the protection of the unborn come to see – and truly believe – that all life is sacred, their message will continue to fall on many, many deaf ears, and make a mockery of whatever good works these groups are doing.

In close, I won’t say (as many do here) “keep up the good work,” because I don’t see groups such as ALL doing much of anything to work toward social justice of any kind. And trust me – I am not alone in that assessment. The late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin was right – life is a seamless garment, valuable and deserving of respect and protection from cradle to grave, regardless of circumstance or degree of perfection. I just wish more of the visible pro-life groups felt the same way.

[sgxnk]

1. "pro-war"

believing some wars are justified does not make one "pro-war" any more than believing abortion is justified when a woman desires it (imo on demand in first semester) makes one "pro abortion"

one can believe that some wars are just. that does not make one "pro war"

you are engaging in the EXACT same rhetorical trick that somebody who said YOU or I was "pro-abortion" is doing

amazing the way that people are the same, regardless of the issue

[AngryOldDem]

2. You missed the point

The concern of most of these groups are pre-born life. The fact is, these groups seem to care little about that life once it is out of the womb.

[sgxnk]

3. i understand the point

but i find the "pro-war" rhetoric just as dishonest as the "pro-abortion" rhetoric

i am pro-choice

i have some friends who are not, and who are also exceptionally "pro-life' in the sense you mean. they donate a lot of money to charity, they donate things to the poor every christmas (they adopt a family and get presents for the kids) and do all sorts of other wonderful things to try to make people's lives better

there are good people on both sides of the debate

personally, i also support the death penalty. i think these are different issues, and i think the comparison, while common, is not really fair. i was against the death penalty for along time. but reasoned debate and personal experience changed my mind.

i guess i differ from a lot of pro-choicers, in that i totally respect the viewpoint of those who are not. that's partly because i know people who are against abortion, and yet who are decidedly NOT anti-woman, or stupid, or mean, or any of that. they just honestly believe it is very wrong, and i can respect that

i guess that's a way i differ from a lot of people here.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

4. "i also support the death penalty"

"i was against the death penalty for along time. but reasoned debate and personal experience changed my mind."

So what reasoned debate and experience caused you to loose your morality?

[sgxnk]

5. lol

ok, not much of a response to THAT :)

i read a lot of philosophy over a few years

i also dealt with some murder victims, i interviewed a few murder suspects, and some other stuff

i don't "like" the death penalty. death sux. but i think it's a legitimate state action.

fwiw, there's a lot of people on the other side of the abortion debate who feel similarly about "lost morality", much like your accusation about me vis a vis death penalty. makes debate largely fruitless when beliefs are that strong

you have yours about lost morality and they have theirs

my mind is open, and will ALWAYS be open to alternative viewpoints

[Freedom_from_Chains]

6. And I have had a spouse who had attempted murder committed

against her, along with being raped, by someone who's previous victim was murdered, worked with inmates, and other victims of abuse.

But I also have a philosophical view in the sanctity of life, not just when it is convenient, and find it impossible to support a methodology that does not achieve it's goal, mainly that being to reduce homicide. If it at least accomplished that I would reconsider my position.

[sgxnk]

7. i respect that

totally

i just don't agree with it

but again, you feel the need to inject biased rhetoric, about "just when it was convenient"

i also agree that it is arguable AT BEST whether the dp has a general deterrent effect

that does not, imo, make it an unjust policy, though

[Freedom_from_Chains]

9. Nothing biased about it, just the way it is.

The masses have always enjoy a little blood letting to relieve their anxiety, makes them feel safer weather they are or not.

There is no augment as to weather the death penalty is a deterrent or not. Study after study has shown that it has no appreciable effect. At one point in the 17th century, England had over 200 capital crimes in it's law with pick pocketing being one of them. But they had to suspend public executions because the crowds it created drew too many pick pockets.

[sgxnk]

10. there is bias

in referring to "when it is convenient".

i repeat - regardless of the general deterrence effect, i think cp is a justified policy.

it certainly has 'specific deterrence'

the deterrence factor is not where i see justification drawn from ,though

[Freedom_from_Chains]

11. Well I can see you think it is justified, but apparently you have

nothing to support that view.

Now that is biased.

[sgxnk]

13. again. false

you assume (wrongly) that general deterrence is the only justification for the dp

i disagree

we both agreed (from the beginning) that there is not evidence that it is a general deterrent. we agree. nifty.

why don't you ASK me what my justification is, instead of assuming? first, you used a moral argument, claiming i had lost my morals, and now you make unjustified assumptions

general deterrence was YOUR thang you brought up

in answer to the unanswered question, i am for the dp for two (primary reasons). 1 is justice. justice is somewhat of an abstract concept of course. the 2nd is specific deterrence. if you do not know the difference between specific vs. general deterrence - look it up. it's criminology 101

fwiw, one case that in my opinion SCREAMS out for the death penalty is the recent murders at the seattle jewish center

i'm not some kind of hyoooge advocate for dp. iow, it's not a litmus test issue for me.

but i am for it

[Freedom_from_Chains]

18. Whatever, You'll just have to forgive me as

I am not one who participates often in rationalizations for murder.

[sgxnk]

19. i love

your biased 'beg the question' phraseology

the first example is "rationalization' which automatically means that these are not justifications at all

the second is calling it "murder"

again, you are a fine user of rhetoric, but i prefer to discuss political concepts while trying to be as free as possible from begging the question, and rhetoric (telling me i lost my morals was your first) that does little to forward honest debate between people with opposing pov's

you do (again) the EXACT same thing as many anti-abortion folks do

put your words in their mouth vis a vis abortion telling you why you are wrong to be pro-choice

"I am not one who participates often in rationalizations for murder."

that's certainly a tactic for ENDING any rational debate.

again, i love this stuff, because it just reaffirms the fact that those on ALL sides of issues and the political spectrum are EQUALLY prone to using rhetorical tricks, moral absolutism, cognitive dissonance, question begging, and a flight from logic when their viewpoints are questioned

people on the left ONLY see it when people on the right do it. people on the right ONLY see it when people on the left do it

it actually makes me feel warm and fuzzy because it reaffirms my belief in the nature of man and that neither side has some sort of stranglehold on the truth or rationality

THAT is why i will always retain an open mind on any issue and listen to diverse arguments in order to hope to better understand issues, and change my mind when appropriate

[AngryOldDem]

21. When you are hiding behind religion to justify your moral absolutism

...then you make yourself fair game when you basically contradict the tenets of the religion. To my mind, that is what many religious-based pro-life groups do. They get outraged when an abortion is performed, yet have absolutely no issue with the death penalty, or innocents (especially children) dying in war.

Even though the world is a nasty place, I think you can still hold true to basic beliefs and be consistent, especially when you cloak yourself in the guise of being religious.

[sgxnk]

23. first of all,

i am hoping the "you" does not refer to ME. i am cataloging what other's believe

i am not speaking to personal belief, except to proclaim i am pro-choice

i think i gave a pretty good explanation why what you claimed is inconsistent is not inconsistent.

if you disagree, fine

i explained the translation of the 6th commandment, etc.

[AngryOldDem]

26. Well, actually, no, you haven't provided a good explanation,

...but I'll agree to disagree with you anyway.

Do you not think that groups that proclaim to be "pro-life" should be consistent in that belief, especially when the religious body with whom they are affiliated is consistent in said belief?

And what is a bigger inconsistency than fighting for someone's right to be born, and then not doing anything to protect or improve the conditions of that life once it's here?

Can THAT be any clearer?

Argument for argument's sake is a big waste of time and gets old might damned fast.

[sgxnk]

27. not really

i think the term "pro-life" is just as problematic as pro-choice

neither are particularly descriptive or correct.

generally speaking, they are political rhetoric

and i totally disagree that people who, for instance, are for the dp 'do nothing to protect or improve the condition of that life once it's there'

sounds pretty holier than thou, and discounts a lot of good work that a lot of good people do

like i said, i have friends who do not support abortion rights. otoh, they give to charity and do MANY other things to improve the lives of children and others purely out of charity

but i DID correct the previous assertion that being pro-dp somehow conflicts with the 6th amendment. the 6th amendment IS improperly translated in most common usages where it says 'thou shalt not kill'. so claiming people are being inconsistent with the 6th amendment was bogus, considering you apparently did not know the actual translation

i tend not to use the term pro-choice. i say that i support abortion rights. it's not as brief, but i think it is much more descriptive as to my stance

[gemdem]

28. It's commandment, not amendment...

...and yes, I did know the actual translation.

And your "tricks" with semantics are just as intellectually dishonest as those on either side of the issue. The discussion is an honest one, and a difficult one. I'll cede the point on political rhetoric, but whatever terms are used someone will take exception to, and then we can get into yet another debate about semantics -- which does nothing to advance the discussion.

Perhaps the national discussion needs to be reframed -- why abortion, why death penalty, why euthanasia, why war? What are the reasons? What are we trying to accomplish? What alternatives are there?

Life is as difficult as it is precious. At the simplest level, it seems that there should be some consistency about this. But nothing is ever simple, is it?

Let's just leave it at that.

[VOX]

24. Okay, you support the DP. Here is a rifle. Line up on the firing party.

Think of it as fulfilling your appreciation of "justice" or "specific deterrence." Since you believe execution is a "legitimate state action," you should be willing to participate in directly supporting and acting on those beliefs, the way most citizens serve on jury duty.

You pull the trigger. Aim carefully at the felt heart pinned on the condemned person's chest.

Or, in keeping with modernization of technique, you strap the condemned person to the gurney. You insert and push the plunger on the syringes. You watch as the proscribed time interval passes. You check the condemned person for signs of life. You make the formal announcement that the individual is dead.

And beforehand, please carefully review the condemned person's criminal, personal and medical history -- to ensure that, in terms of legality, due process and capacity, that individual's presence in the death chamber is truly legitimate, fair and appropriate. Sign all the necessary legal documents attesting to these facts.

Thank you for serving the state by supporting your beliefs with direct participation.

[AngryOldDem]

12. The argument is very basic

While these points are very well taken on both sides, it comes down to "playing God," which is what most pro-life groups accuse those who favor abortion of doing. The state can handle dangerous criminals with ways other than "playing God" and taking life, which is, according to the pro-lifers, is given and can only be taken away by one Being. I was once pro-death penalty myself. But I think enough evidence has accumulated over the years that make it an unacceptable way to deal with crime. Even if only one person is wrongfully executed, that is one person too many to justify this kind of punishment in a society that considers itself to be "civilized," and a beacon of "justice" for the entire world to emulate.

You nailed it when you said that all life must be respected regardless of "convenience." That's where I think some pro-life groups lose their argument. Debates about life get mighty damned complicated after the womb. But that is when these debates have the most importance, in my opinion.

[sgxnk]

14. excellent post

"according to the pro-lifers, is given and can only be taken away by one Being"

this is where you go astray, imo

fwiw, i know one ARDENT pro-lifer who is a "fanatical atheist" to borrow a term

MANY others do *not* believe it is wrong for the state to take a life. this is not a doctrinal 100%er for theists, or non-theists.

certainly, if somebody says 'the state does not have the power to take life', then one should be anti-death penalty and *arguably* anti-abortion (since the question becomes - is it HUMAN life in the meaning referenced)

but you are pigeonholing all pro-lifers into the "only god can lawfully/morally take a life" camp

fwiw, i also think that (and this is arguable) there is more clear justification for dp in the jewish religion than the christian religion. it's that whole pesky "new testament" thang

not that christians can't (consistently) be anti-abortion AND pro-dp, just that imo it is much "easier" (so to speak) if one takes away the new testament. so to speak

and then (speaking of taking life), there is the whole "just war theory thang"

that's a WHOLE other issue

[gemdem]

8. Cardinal Bernardin was right

It's a matter of consistency. "Life is a seamless garment, valuable and deserving of respect and protection from cradle to grave, regardless of circumstance or degree of perfection."

The question is whether one can be "pro-life," and also "pro-death penalty," and/or also "pro-war" (outside of the guidelines of Just War).

With regard to abortion, we can debate when life begins -- fertilization, implantation, first heartbeat, quickening, etc. Even though I'm pro-life, there's enough gray area that early in a pregnancy, I can cede some ground to those who are pro-choice. That said, beyond a certain point there has to be agreement that there is life. Putting the abortion debate aside for now, how does one justify the taking of a life of one who is walking and talking among us -- whether a criminal or someone in a war zone (in a war where one can rightly question it validity)? For too many, it's about pro-birth, and that once life outside the womb is achieved it is disposable.

As the billboard says, "What part of thou shalt no kill do you not understand?" It seems that many are willing to justify it at one point or another to satisfy some political agenda.

[sgxnk]

16. that';s groovy but... supported with neato keen cites of greek translation

first of all, the issue is not necessarily a matter of religion . also, the translation of "thou shalt not kill" is a false translation, and i provide cites for that at the end of this post

maybe that's because of my friendship with an anti-abortion atheist, but i don't assume that the opposition to abortion NECESSARILY comes from religion

second of all, is the issue just with "terminology". all these terms are problematic, and are more political than descriptive. i include "pro-life" and "pro-choice".

certainly, it is a reasonable argument to say that if one is pro-dp and anti-abortion, then one is not "pro-life". but that's a semantical argument. it says little to the consistency of a position that believes (and this is not MY position. i am pro-choice) "don't take fetal life (without justification) but it's ok to take the life of a sentient being that chose (for example) murder, and has been justly tried"

also, as to your last sentence

there is near universal agreement that the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing is properly translated as 'thou shalt not murder'. that is relatively easy to look up. if it truly meant 'thou shalt not kill" (and we are assuming the subject of the verb kill is human beings, or else we couldn't eat a sandwich due to to all the murdered wheat), then any believer in the 10 commandments would have a hard time justifying ANY just war theory, let alone the dp

here is evidence to support these people's position (note that *i* am not justifying ANY political position based on religious teachings in this discussion. i am speaking about other's beliefs. i am pro-choice and that decision has exactly ZERO to do with religion of any sort)

cites follow
http://www.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/001102_ThouShaltNotMurder.html
"Those of us who are familiar with the original Hebrew text of the Bible find frequent occasion to whine about inaccuracies and misleading expressions in the translations that are in use among non-Jews. Many of these discrepancies arose out of patently theological motives, as Christian interpreters rewrote passages in the "Old Testament" so as to turn them into predictions or prefigurations of the life of Jesus. Some of the mistranslations, though, are harder to account for.

For me, one of the most irksome cases has always been the rendering of the sixth commandment as "Thou shalt not kill." In this form, the quote has been conscripted into the service of diverse causes, including those of pacifism, animal rights, the opposition to capital punishment, and the anti-abortion movement.

Indeed, "kill" in English is an all-encompassing verb that covers the taking of life in all forms and for all classes of victims. That kind of generalization is expressed in Hebrew through the verb "harag." However, the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing."

http://www.greeklatinaudio.com/capunslap.htm

[AngryOldDem]

20. What don't you get?

And perhaps this is "my bad" for not putting my post into better context, although I thought I did by making it clear that some groups, especially those that affiliate with the Catholic Church and have a wide following among the faithful, basically contradict Church teachings when they claim support the "sanctity of life" and the "dignity of life." Far too many of these people have such a myopic definition of "life" that it makes their arguments invalid right off the bat.

If you put my post in the context of Catholic Social Teaching and Catholic tradition and belief in general, I think you'd have a better sense of where I was coming from.

If you are for the death penalty, great.
If you are for war, great.

But strictly speaking the Church is not, and I am tired of groups that pass themselves off as faith-based getting away with their hypocrisy.

Analyze this until the cows come home. But that is where I am coming from.

I'll find the post from a few days back that prompted me to post my letter. You can go there too and argue with the folks there.

Here it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1784382

Maybe that will help frame this discussion a little better.

[sgxnk]

22. fwiw

the catholic church does not view opposition to the iraq war as doctrinal, as they do with abortion

i am paraphrasing here, but the pope basically said he could not support the iraq war, but that individual catholics could support it, and not be counter to the catholic church

otoh, he said that no catholic could support the choice to have an abortion and not be counter to the church/doctrine

i have no idea what the church says about the death penalty, so i'll take yer word

my post was in response to what u said about thou shalt not kill n stuff

that is clearly not what the 6th commandment says. it says thou shalt not murder, bogus translations notwithstanding

and of course, being faith-based and being catholic are not the same thing

obviously

nifty. i learned something today. i did not know what the church's position on the DP was

[AngryOldDem]

25. Whatever.

Really.

While there is more of a gray area for individual Catholics to disagree on the morality of a particular war than there is on the issue of abortion, by the standards set for Just War by the Church to judge conflict, the Iraq war meets none.

>>and of course, being faith-based and being catholic are not the same thing

obviously>>

What? Care to explain this one?

It just stands to reason that "pro-life" should include respect for all life, from beginning to end, as well as opposition to anything that can take or otherwise diminish that life, such as war, poverty, etc. But then, I'm a pretty straightforward person, and my logic oftentimes reflects that.

[Toots]

15. Almost no war is justified and absolutely no "War Profiteering" is

Ninty five percent of wars are not in any way justified IMO. Just becasuse you may wish for one does not make it justified.

[Midlodemocrat]

17. Beware the Military Industrial Complex.

War for war's sake.

[cgrindley]

29. I'm anti-death penalty and vaguely pro-life

I do not believe in the death penalty for any crime whatsoever. Not for Saddam. Not for Bin Laden. Not for anyone.

I am morally opposed to abortion, but readily believe that a woman should, with some limitations, have a right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. I readily confess, for example, that I would support the abortion of a fetus that would be handicapped or have some other birth defect, or one that resulted from rape or incest.

I suppose that there are a large number of people who mirror my views. I don't like abortion, don't support abortion on demand, but feel that sometimes it's a necessary but nevertheless sad evil.