Can there be common ground on abortion?

The Waltonian ^ | 10/2/08 | Campolo, Tony

[HaplessToad]

In books and speeches, I have often said that God is neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I have contended that to make either party "The God Party" is idolatrous. This does not mean that Christians should abandon political activism. It has been said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

Consequently, I have long called for Christians to be involved in both political parties, striving to be the "leaven" that permeates both parties with biblically-based judgments and values derived from Christian beliefs.

Taking my own advice, this year I became involved in politics by accepting an appointment to the platform committee of the Democratic Party.

In this role, I played a part in framing the abortion plank of the party's platform. I helped the party to take what some have called an "historic step" by having the party become committed to abortion reduction.

More than 60 percent of all abortions are economically driven. The reality is that without provisions for hospital coverage, pre- and post-natal care, maternity leave so that a woman giving birth will not lose her job, and nursing assistance to help single mothers transition into parenthood, millions of women who want to carry their pregnancies to term will not do so. I became a member of the Democratic platform committee to address these concerns.

The good news is that, with help from Jim Wallis, author of God's Politics, and others, the party platform now calls for these needs to be met. It also calls for education programs to reduce unwanted pregnancies, including the teaching of abstinence, and asks for government agencies to make adoptions easier.

These achievements were lauded by Democrats for Life and by the Catholic Alliance for Life. While at the Democratic National Convention, religious leaders of other faith traditions personally thanked me for my efforts. Even leaders of some pro-choice organizations hailed this compromise, claiming that at last they could find some common ground with pro-life advocates.

Purists, on the other hand, have had hard words for me, claiming that I should not have been involved in any way with a political party that is pro-choice. While I understand their desire to settle for nothing less than the overturning of Roe vs. Wade, I nevertheless believe that my decision to work for abortion reduction was a good one.

Consider these questions: If ten children are drowning in a swimming pool and you can only save six of them, should you save the six? Or should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?

To my Christian brothers and sisters who are part of the party that has a pro-life platform, I have to ask whether they are willing to hold the Republican Party to its pro-life commitments. For several years, the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress and had a Supreme Court wherein seven of its nine judges were Republican appointees. Yet no effort was made to overturn Roe vs. Wade-and very little pressure to do something about this was put on Republican leaders by the Evangelicals who had given them 82 percent of their votes in 2004.

In addition, are they willing to demand that provisions such as I worked for in the Democratic platform become policies of their party? To fail to do so would be to protect the unborn child and then abandon the child and the mother in the delivery room. And do not raise the matter of how much money these proposals will cost. We all know better than that.

For those who condemn any compromise on this divisive issue of abortion, may I suggest that they consider not paying their taxes, since they are financing a government that supports a woman's right to have an abortion-and in some instances even gives money to organizations that perform them.

There are legitimate concerns about my actions, but I decided that if some of the unborn could be saved, it would be wrong for me not to do what I could to save them.

[kanawa]

Appears to me that he deserves some credit for taking the Democratic Party a step in the right direction.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

You want to compromise with the planned (first degree)
murder of the most helpless?

[brushcop]

Weep and pray

Yes, and we do but let me interject a bit of light in this darkness. Sarah Palin's photo of her holding baby Trig on stage (you know the one) has set the standard and has made a "statement" that absolutely shouts out that unconditional love, courage and FAITH is the standard.

She has set this country on its ear, God bless Sarah Palin and the women like her who have not had the same forum and are not visible but certainly have the same strengths and besides, God sees them and KNOWS them...

[victim soul]

Democratic Platform Promises More Abortion Overseas/Republican Rejects Pro-Abortion UN Treaties

http://catholicexchange.com/2008/10/04/114070/

The platforms of the two major American parties show a stark difference in how each presidential candidate would approach United Nations (UN) issues. The Republican platform explicitly rejects various UN treaties while the Democratic platform makes clear its support for the agenda of wider access to abortion and a strengthening of the UN system of enforcing abortion rights.

The Republican platform rejects by name two UN treaties that have been used by UN Committees, UN agencies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to promote abortion — the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child — and supports the continued defunding of groups overseas that promote or perform abortions.

Specifically the GOP platform says, “Because the UN has no mandate to promote radical social engineering, any effort to address global social problems must respect the fundamental institutions of marriage and family. We assert the rights of families in all international programs and will not fund organizations involved in abortion. We strongly support the long-held policy of the Republican Party known as the ‘Mexico City policy,’ which prohibits federal monies from being given to non-governmental organizations that provide abortions or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other countries. We reject any treaty or agreement that would violate those values. That includes the UN convention on women’s rights, signed in the last months of the Carter Administration, and the UN convention on the rights of the child.”

This is the first time the Republican platform has specifically rejected these treaties and is likely a reflection of the increasingly radical rulings of the committees empowered to monitor state compliance with them. CEDAW has been used repeatedly by its committee to promote abortion.

The Democratic platform does not explicitly support either treaty but, according to the National Organization for Women, Democratic nominee Barack Obama supports United States (US) ratification of the CEDAW treaty, as does vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden. The platform explicitly supports the ideas contained in these treaties and resurrects a slogan used by Hilary Clinton at the Beijing Women’s Conference, “Human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights.” This was a rallying cry for abortion at the Beijing conference in 1995.

The platform states “We must make the United Nations human rights organs more effective, energetic, and effective.” Critics charge that the human rights bodies at the UN are already too energetic and even aggressive in promoting a left-wing social agenda. Critics further charge that these human rights bodies undermine international law by ceding power from sovereign states to bodies made up largely of NGO representatives.

The Democratic platform also promises to begin funding pro-abortion groups overseas by overturning long-standing US policy against it. The platform also promises that the Democratic president would return to funding the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) which the US Government defunded because of the agency’s links to China’s coercive one-child policy.

This article is courtesy the “Friday Fax” of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (C-FAM).

[frogjerk]

Consider these questions: If ten children are drowning in a swimming pool and you can only save six of them, should you save the six? Or should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?

Consider this proposition: Domestic violence should be legal because it is a private matter between the man, woman and God.

The logic of abortion is so warped.

This guy did such a bang up job about promoting the supposed plank reducing abortions that we haven't heard anything about it from the O man himself. GREAT JOB!

[Popman]

Consider these questions: If ten children are drowning in a swimming pool and you can only save six of them, should you save the six? Or should you wait until help arrives that can save them all, even if you know that the six you could save will be lost in the meantime?

That insults my intelligence.

Situational ethics is for the weak minded and weak of spine.

[TASMANIANRED]

There is no middle ground on abortion.

Murder is murder.

[mrcasual]

I cannot agree more.

[Salvation]

Red = blood

No middle ground.

Abortion is murder.

[Salvation]

Any Catholic who supports the dimocrat ticket by voting for any dimocrat at all is supporting abortion and thereby excommunicating themselves from the Catholic Church. Here's what 26 out of 56 bishops say:

Updated: American Bishops who have spoken against Pelosi

Here is the complete list of American bishops who have responded to Nancy Pelosi's comments so far:

1. Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver was the first American bishop to respond
2. ... Bishop James Conley, his auxiliary, joined him
3. Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington DC responded twice, first in a press release and second in a statement to The Hill. He has also appeared on Fox News, I am told.
4. Cardinal Justin Regali of Philadelphia, chairman of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities, issued this statement through the USCCB website...
5. ... Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, chairman of the Committee on Doctrine, joined him
6. Cardinal Edward Egan of New York publised a strongly worded statement of his own
7. Bishop Samuel Aquila of Fargo issued a letter correcting Pelosi's claims
8. Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh and...
9. ... Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs have chimed-in
10. Archbishop Jose Gomez of San Antonio, CNA reports has added his voice ...
11. ... Bishop Oscar Cantu, his auxiliary bishop, has joined him
12. Bishop William Murphy of Rockville has published an extensive letter
13. Bishop Edward Slattery of Tulsa has a detailed response
14. Bishop Kevin Farrell of Dallas has joined the USCCB's efforts
15. Bishop Gregory Aymond of Austin is on-board
16. Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston mentions the USCCB on his blog
17. Bishop Thomas Wenski of Orlando has written at length
18. Archbishop John Nienstedt of Saint Paul/Minneapolis challenges Pelosi's statement
19. Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, President of the US Bishops, has weighed-in
20. Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker, OR publishes in the Catholic Sentinel
21. Bishop Jerome Listecki of La Crosse, WI responds in a word document
22. Bishop Richard Lennon of Cleveland, OH will comment in his September 5th column (PDF)
23. Bishop Ralph Nickless of Sioux City, IA has one of the very best responses I've read
24. Archbishop George Niederauer of San Francisco has invited Pelosi to a "conversation"
25. Bishop Glen Provost, LA: "Catholic Church clear on when human life begins"
26. Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn: "Judging the Candidates"

{Last updated on September 10th.}

Notes:

• Previous #23 has been removed. Bishop Joseph Gossman of Raleigh, NC is actually the bishop emeritus, and the new bishop, Michael Burbidge has not, to my knowledge, made a personal statement.
• Previous #16 has also been removed, it was an erroneous duplication of current #13.
• #26 was added September 10th, although he published his column September 6th

[Mobile Vulgus]

Uh, no go Tony. This concept of “not abandoning the baby and mother after birth” is NOT a “Christian” idea it is a SOCIALIST idea.