-
Pick Obama’s Brain
May 16, 2013 | 61 comments
-
Remembering Herb Romerstein
May 10, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Obama’s Planned Parenthood Love Fest
April 29, 2013 | 69 comments
-
Happy Earth Day… and Lenin Day
April 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Bill Casey’s Centennial
April 5, 2013 | 69 comments
The Nation's Pulse
Death of the Pro-Life Democrat
It’s now official, and hardly a cause for celebration.
As the 112th Congress is sworn in, an already endangered species is nearing extinction in the Capitol Building: the pro-life Democrat. This increasingly rare bird is in the process of committing political suicide.
That the Democrats took a thumping in the mid-term election of November 2 is, of course, obvious. The dramatic switch from Democrat to Republican control of the House of Representatives is unprecedented in modern times. Over 60 seats changed from Democrat to Republican, giving the Republicans a huge majority.
Less-remarked upon, however, was the switch from so-called “pro-choice” legislators to pro-life ones, which, not coincidentally, accompanied that move from Democrat to Republican. Marjorie Dannenfelser, director of the excellent group Susan B. Anthony List, which seeks to elect pro-life women (from either party) to Congress, counts 38 switches from “pro-choice” to pro-life from the 111th to 112th Congress, plus another 14 seats where “unreliable” pro-life members were replaced with “reliable” pro-life votes. In all, 52 seats were “strengthened” into a more pro-life position.
Congressman Chris Smith (R-N.J.), a longtime pro-life stalwart, celebrates that this January marks “the beginning of the arguably most pro-life House ever.” Smith calls it “another message to President Obama that the American people will not be fooled by the Obama administration’s accounting gimmicks and phony executive orders. They expect their elected officials to stand up for life without backing down.”
This is a clear reference to the “Bart Stupak Democrats,” who voted yes on the “Obamacare” healthcare bill that provides taxpayer funding of abortion; they were duped into thinking that President Obama’s corresponding executive order will ban abortion funding. This was quite a leap of faith for these pro-life Democrats. Recall that one of Obama’s first acts of president was to overturn the Mexico City policy, thereby providing taxpayer dollars to groups like International Planned Parenthood. Most of those pro-life Democrats now find themselves no longer in Congress. Some, like Congresswoman Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA), were defeated in landslides.
Perhaps sweetest justice of all, leadership of the House goes from Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), a tectonic shift in the pro-life direction, from one lifelong Roman Catholic to another — but with only Boehner applying the “social justice” narrative (not to mention the Church’s teaching) to the unborn.
Likewise, the U.S. Senate includes notable gains for the pro-life movement. In Florida, Marco Rubio, rising Republican star, registered a remarkable victory in a three-candidate race in November, trouncing a turncoat ex-Republican endorsed by Bill Clinton, the president who vetoed bans on partial-birth abortion. In Arkansas, pro-life Republican John Boozman defeated incumbent Democrat Blanche Lincoln. In a major upset in Wisconsin, pro-life Republican Ron Johnson defeated Democrat incumbent Russ Feingold, a dependable vote for the abortion lobby. Other significant pro-life wins occurred in North Dakota, Indiana, and elsewhere. In a giant relief in Pennsylvania, pro-lifer Pat Toomey edged out Democrat Joe Sestak, who was atrocious on human-life issues. All of these gains help mitigate the pain of Californians handily re-electing Barbara Boxer, returning to the Senate a woman with a ghastly record on the unborn.
In short, the Democratic Party has descended, yet further, down the death path, with preciously few pro-lifers in the House or the Senate. We’re approaching the point where you may be able to count them on two hands, potentially even one hand. We’re also approaching a point where a serious pro-life Democrat voter will find it increasingly difficult to find a pro-life Democrat politician to vote for.
Alas, I say this with regret. I’m a pro-life Republican, but as one who studies history, I know that the parties, and what they stand for, change over time. I’m far more concerned with the lives of unborn babies than political lives of Republicans. I don’t support “pro-choice” Republicans; in fact, I’ve actively worked for their defeat. I’m an American deeply saddened by the Death Culture thrust upon this great nation through the evil of Roe v. Wade in January 1973.
Ever since Roe, the Democratic Party, in particular, has veered down a tragic path. For a time, in the early years around Roe, it wasn’t completely clear where the two major parties, Democrat and Republican, would align on the matter of unborn human life. It has taken some time, but, ultimately, the progression has been steady toward the Republicans becoming the party of life and the Democrats the party of death. Importantly, there are exceptions to this, but, by and large, and certainly in Congress, we can confidently say that the vast majority of Republicans are pro-life while the vast majority of Democrats are not. If it isn’t quite 90-10%, it’s close.
In fact, a fascinating analysis of Catholic members of Congress, done by the National Catholic Register and National Right to Life, finds that of those with a 0%-5% pro-life ranking, all are Democrats, whereas of those with a 95-100% pro-life ranking, all are Republicans. That’s a stunning religious-cultural-political shift.
Along this descent, there were Democrats who tried to stop the train-wreck. One was a governor in my home state of Pennsylvania, Bob Casey (who was also Catholic), who was distraught over the fact that his party, which prided itself as defender of the “little guy,” the poor, the downtrodden, the needy, was turning its back on the most innocent among us: the unborn child. When Casey pleaded for a speaking spot at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, to share that message, Bill and Hillary Clinton and the self-proclaimed apostles of “tolerance,” diversity,” and “open-mindedness” refused him a platform. Looking back, that was a telling moment.
How telling? If you’re a new voter looking for a political party, choose the Democrats if you want unrestricted abortion, potentially even taxpayer-funded; choose the Republicans, if you don’t. The choice is pretty simple.
It’s a sad development for the culture and the country. It further polarizes the abortion issue, and more starkly along party lines than ever before. For pro-life Republicans in Congress, it’s a loss, as they will need pro-life Democrats as precious allies. No one — Republicans included — should celebrate the Democratic Party becoming the Death Party. No one — Republicans included — should welcome such a moral degeneration of a onetime great political party.
About the Author
Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. He is author of the new book The Communist: Frank Marshall Davis, The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor. His other books include The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism and Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (66) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Paul Kengor
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/01/05/death-of-the-pro-life-democrat
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The (Real) Great Divide
- Self-Righteous Republic
- Inside the Gates of Eden
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 1.5.11 @ 6:59AM
The cynics and the old guys like my late Daddy *Archie Bunker* who said what they thought regardless would point out that the people who are having babies are having Republican/Conservative babies -- so the number of Pro-Abortion Democrats MUST decrease.
It is also being said in places where nobody will hear it and file suit, that the rapidly dropping crime rate has something to do with the fact that the age (and class) group responsible for most crime is also dwindling. Once the preponderance of young people is conservatives who are brought up by Christians, lots of things will change.
As for the Bart Stupaks of the world, they ought to go back and study the story of Jacob and Esau. Selling your birthright (literally in this case) for a mess of pottage is a trick that never works.
Patrick| 1.5.11 @ 12:13PM
On the contrary, the hard left has never relied upon breeding as its main recruitment tool. They have modeled themselves after the Turks, kidnapping the young and turning them into Janissaries.
Perhaps now you see why it is so important for them to control public education?
believer| 1.5.11 @ 6:51PM
Patrick- Perfect comment, short but Brilliant.
old white guy| 1.7.11 @ 4:21PM
a society that kills it's unborn children will not survive.
Brian Mc| 1.5.11 @ 7:01AM
The incremental evil associated with the left is most apparent in this article. The yes's and the no's have polarized; all the while the pile of innocents grows ever deeper. Just try and repeal the right to "choice". It is so ingrained into our society that most would find this undo-able...if not unwise. When a liberal pollster asked why I was pro choice, I told her that it was my hope that by this stand, the left would abort itself from existence and the 'right to life' would return triumphantly, and forever. She was stunned and hung up...I smiled.
Berni| 1.5.11 @ 8:27AM
They are not "pro choice". They are "pro death". Call a spade a spade.
Gran Torino| 1.5.11 @ 9:35AM
Dear Berni,
Your comment was awesome. Let's call a spade a spade. Let's go back to "anti-abortion." The liberals started to refer to themselves as "pro-choice" because "pro" and "choice" sound so positive and right. Then the idiot conservatives followed suit and started saying, "I'm pro-life", because "pro" sounds better than "anti". WE ARE ANTI-ABORTION. Or if you will, ANTI-MURDER!"
"I'm an American deeply saddened by the Death Culture thrust upon this great nation through the evil of Roe v. Wade in January 1973."
Thanks, Mr. Kengor, for making it plain. Abortion is murder. Normal men and women love their children. It's not normal to kill your child. If you don't want your baby, then put it up for adoption. There are plenty of good adults that will love and care for your child.
Louis Jenkins| 1.5.11 @ 8:49AM
Anyone who has expected a change towards abortion by the Obama administration and his electorate must have been sleeping under a rock. The blood runs in rivers, and the dead and dying fetuses are placed in the garbage to be thrown out with the potatoe peelings. Meanwhile Obama is in the blood up to his elbows, and will one day be judged, and those same deceased fetuses, now revived, will sit with God in his judgement. It won't be pretty, but then, politics never is.
Patrick| 1.5.11 @ 12:15PM
*cough*Doug Kmieck *cough*
Chris| 1.5.11 @ 8:50AM
If you list the countries without legal abortion most of them look pretty uncivilised using any reasonable metrics e.g. poverty, corruption, human rights etc. The US is never likely to join these countries by reversing its position on abortion. However, the right-wing will waste a lot of time and energy attempting to do so. I guess self-righteous indignation must be addictive.
Redstateboy| 1.5.11 @ 9:15AM
Chris.. You can delude yourself with high-sounding phrases like "Pro-Choice" but the reality is you prefer innocent babies to be dismembered and discarded as you'd discard a Banana peel.
David W| 1.5.11 @ 9:21AM
Please list the countries. If you are going to rely on facts please state them. Don't just give us a tease (kind of like Obama saying the "climate science is settled" without any proof).
ds80| 1.5.11 @ 9:36AM
Chris: defending the most vulnerable and innocent is a waste of time? Or are you just volunteering to be Poster-Boy for Self-Righteous Indignation?
ann| 1.5.11 @ 1:07PM
Chris: When you consider that women don't like being treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our unborn children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. I am a nurse who has, unfortunately, witnessed abortions. They have sickened me. Perhaps you should sit in on one, maybe then your cavalier attitude will be adjusted.
OperaNerd1986| 1.6.11 @ 2:03AM
Really? Abortion is either completely illegal or legal only to save the mother's life in Ireland, the Philippines, Monaco, Malta, the Dominican Republic, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, the Solomon Islands, San Marino, and Andorra. All of these countries would qualify as "civilized." Also, I seem to recall that the United States was pretty civilized before Roe v. Wade.
Jari| 1.6.11 @ 4:16AM
Chris, if you are asserting that there is a correlation between legalized abortion vs. what you call "civilized", then please explain how America has by any reasonable metric become less "civilized" since Roe vs. Wade.
Even the one thing liberals are justly proud of - the Civil Rights movement - is dwarfed by the increase in real poverty and real injustice in the communities that Margaret Sanger wanted to "help" through eugenics (which continues to this day to be where the majority of the abortions are targeted).
Self-righteousness is IMO when you are casual about disposing of someone elses life because you believe it will improve conditions for those of you who are left standing.
KyMouse| 1.6.11 @ 10:53AM
Chris, more than 53 million babies have been killed by abortion in America alone since 1973. Do you really think that our trying to save them has been a waste of time and energy? Do you really believe that so many babies don't deserve the chance to live out the lives they have begun?
"Safe and legal" abortion kills not only babies, but mothers as well. Google "Synthia Dennard" and "Lou Ann Herron" to read about two mothers who died at the hands of abortionists who didn't give a damn about them.
Charie| 1.6.11 @ 11:52PM
Chris, are you saying that we must follow in the path of those European countries who are in their death throes now? How long do you think it will be before these "civilized" (I say barbaric) countries will sink under a pile of aborted babies of their own ethnicity while they welcomed Muslims, who had many children, to their country with open arms and who are still having many children.
Do you not see possible bad repercussions from this practice? I see all kinds of bad ends, one of which will be the loss of a country's ethnicity which will be taken over by Muslim ethnicity. Do I have to spell out what that will be?
I think it will be the end of western culture altogether.
Richard Baker| 1.5.11 @ 9:03AM
Chris:
I believe the words in the Declaration of Independence are "LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Waste time? How, by trying to live up to THE Founding document? I guess it must also be a waste of time to adhere to the Constitution, as well. Would you rather we adopt the Code of Hammurabi?
Brad| 1.5.11 @ 9:36AM
Did anyone else read the NY Times column, the link posted by Mr. Antle in the blog a couple days ago, "The Paradox of the Unborn"? I thought it was a good, worthwhile read, but I was somewhat saddened by the first comment that insinuated that incidents of child abuse was rising, not because there were so many abortions, but because there were not enough. Sad. Reminds me of what Chris said above. They think abortion is civilized, when it is in fact the most barbaric act man can commit.
Nick| 1.5.11 @ 11:16AM
Brad,
I was going to refer to that story, if you had not.
I found myself, as I read Ross Douthat, constantly looking at the top of my screen, to make sure that it was really the New York Slimes I was reading.
Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01.....ef=opinion
Liberty or Death| 1.5.11 @ 3:08PM
I too have heard the same defenses from the death crowd at my job. One guy actually gave me a book to read (regretfully, I forget the title), which showed the statistical evidence of a major crime drop, nationwide, proceeding the passage of Roe- as if suggesting there is less crime because single, unwed, mothers (mostly minority) were killing their young (future miscreants).
It's pretty sick. And if there is such a link, it has more to do with the fracturing of the family, than the murder of their children.
There is no such thing as a pro-life democrat; not in my lifetime. Anyone claiming to know Christ and vote for one, is a fool (and I would not want to be in their shoes on Judgment Day).
Jari| 1.6.11 @ 4:18AM
How come we don't class abortion as child abuse, anyway?
I mean, how paradoxical is it to say that abortion somehow reduces child abuse? (I just hope they don't start thinking to try that logic on toddlers - or teenagers for that matter)
KyMouse| 1.6.11 @ 11:10AM
A callous disregard for life inside the womb leads to disrespect for human life outside the womb.
A few years ago, a mother named Renee Nicely, in New Jersey, had a mental breakdown the day after she aborted her baby, and beat to death her three-year-old son, Shawn. She later told the court psychiatrist that she "knew that abortion was wrong" and that she "should be punished for the abortion." Poor little Shawn became the victim of her pain and guilt.
Martha Shuping, M.D., a psychiatrist who has worked with mothers who have aborted their babies, found that the mothers often are afraid to bond closely with their living children, because they're afraid that those children will be harmed somehow as punishment for their mothers' abortions.
In some cases, children born after a sibling's abortion may be expected to be perfect. Parents may think, "The child we aborted would have behaved better than this one (or would have achieved more, etc.)," thereby putting unreasonable demands on the living children. When those demands aren't met, the parents may become angry and abusive.
Abortion is, indeed, the ultimate form of child abuse toward the baby who is killed -- but it also may be followed by some form of abuse toward surviving siblings.
Alert1201| 1.5.11 @ 10:48AM
Any comments from those fiscal concervatives who keep harping about our need to drop social issues? So far I've heard nothing but cricketts.
Emanuelle Goldstein| 1.5.11 @ 11:43AM
Excising pro-life members has been a long-term goal of the Democrat party. Back in 2000 while I was in grad school, a Democrat acquaintance tried to recruit me to run for a local office. The deal? The Democrat party would fund my campaign ONLY if I agreed to support pro-gay and pro-abortion policies. I don't make deals with the devil. I turned the offer down and re-registered as a Republican. I realized that I had nothing left in common with what the Democrat Party had morphed into.
Clint| 1.5.11 @ 12:19PM
" Pope Benedict XVI issued what Catholic pro-life advocates are calling an unprecedented request for prayers worldwide from all pro-life people against abortion.
The head of the Catholic Church began Advent by celebrating a solemn “Vigil for all nascent human life” at St. Peter’s Basilica on Saturday, November 27.
The call was not limited to Catholics as the Pope that “all Diocesan Bishops (and their equivalent) of every particular church preside in analogous celebrations involving the faithful in their respective parishes, religious communities, associations and movements.”
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.5.11 @ 12:29PM
Clint,
I thought that was cool as well.
JP| 1.5.11 @ 1:44PM
The Pro Life Dems took big drop circa 1990-2004. However, thier numbers surged after the 2006 elections (esp in the House). Rahm Emmanuel consciously recruited Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Democrats in a brilliant move that allowed the Dems to build significant majorities from 2006-2008. It was this majority which gave Obama his lock on ObmaCare. The lesson here is obvious; the Dems can reinvent themselves in conservative leaning districts. And the so-called Pro Life Dems cannot be trusted. In fact they've proven themselves to be nothing more than political stooges.
The GOP's lurch Leftward circa 2001-2006 should be a lesson as well. Ultimately it was Bush's Compassionate Conservativsm that resulted in the 2006-2008 Democratic takeover.
Vasu Murti | 1.6.11 @ 4:31PM
Pro-Life Dems: Down, but not Out!
JP writes:
"The Pro Life Dems took big drop circa 1990-2004."
Yes. Because, oddly enough, *denying* rights to certain classes of beings under the guise of "choice" has become a trendy sound bite synonymous with being liberal and open-minded (rather than fascistical), abortion-rights advocates tend to be found left of center of the political spectrum.
In 1989, around the time of the Webster decision, however, there was talk among the Democratic Party leadership of dropping abortion-rights from the Party platform.
Molly Yard of the National Organization for Women (NOW), and other feminist leaders, spoke of forming a third party, dedicated solely to women's issues.
It was Kate Michaelman of NARAL, who urged abortion-rights advocates to stay in the Democratic Party and fight for their cause.
Within a couple of years, Kate Michaelman was given a starring role at the Democratic National Convention, while pro-life governor Robert Casey was not allowed to speak.
(Apologists argue the real reason Casey was not allowed to speak was because he didn't support the Clinton-Gore ticket.)
The abortion issue, once a serious human rights issue on the Left as well as the right, was quickly marginalized and regarded as sectarian.
On USENET in 1986, when pro-life student John Morrow of Rutgers University compared abortion to slavery (denying rights to humans because of age and developmental status, rather than because of skin color), Dave Butler of Tektronix in Oregon, responded:
"Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human. If you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"
("Not even close" has become a popular slogan with abortion advocates. It was the headline of San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in November 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected.)
A response to Dave Butler: "If you believe racism is wrong, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"
To those of us in the veg and animal rights communities, it's self-evident that animals are persons and have rights.
But, I digress. The fact of the matter is that (within the Democratic Party, anyway) the abortion issue was marginalized and depicted as "sectarian."
Pro-lifers on the Left AND right, having seen the abortion issue marginalized and depicted as sectarian (i.e., only an issue for born agains, Catholics, fundamentalists, etc.), must realize it's wrong to similarly depict animal issues (especially veganism) as "sectarian."
JP writes further:
"However, thier numbers (pro-life Dems) surged after the 2006 elections (esp in the House).
Yes, but to be fair, it must be remembered that Governor Howard Dean spoke favorably of pro-life Dems around 2005, for having stood with the Party through thick and thin.
Unfortunately, around that time as well, the Democratic Party website refused to provide a link to Democrats For Life, calling us a "fringe group."
In 2006, however, it was reported on the Alternative Lifers e-mail list that a link was provided.
(Left-of-center pro-lifers can be found in abundance on alternative, consistent-ethic and pro-animal e-mail lists. And because our core values differ from the right in this regard, we tend to avoid Republican politics.)
JP writes:
"Rahm Emmanuel consciously recruited Pro-Life, Pro-Gun Democrats in a brilliant move that allowed the Dems to build significant majorities from 2006-2008. It was this majority which gave Obama his lock on ObmaCare.
The Democratic Party supported Bob Casey in PA as well! I contributed to his campaign in 2006. At the time, it seemed the Party had learned its lesson from the defeat of 2004.
As for "ObamaCare" as you so eloquently label it, we Democrats have been calling for health care since Harry Truman. The U.S. is one of the few nations in the industrialized West which failed to provide for its citizens in this regard.
JP says:
"The lesson here is obvious; the Dems can reinvent themselves in conservative leaning districts. "
Is it "reinventing" or just being realistic? On the Democrats For Life e-mail list in 2003 or 2004, Jay Ware, a black Democrat out of Illinois noted that the Republican Party throws its support (financial, getting the president to campaign, etc.) behind pr0-choice Republicans like Rudy Giuliani and Arnold Schwarzenneger in "blue" states like CA and NY, where pro-lifers can't win.
Jay said the Democratic Party should similarly be supporting pro-life Democrats in "red" states, where pro-choicers can't win. Again, this is just being realistic, and for Democratic Party leaders, it should be an obvious strategy!
"And the so-called Pro Life Dems cannot be trusted. In fact they've proven themselves to be nothing more than political stooges."
No, I think we've found ourselves caught between a rock and a hard place.
"The GOP's lurch Leftward circa 2001-2006 should be a lesson as well. Ultimately it was Bush's Compassionate Conservativsm that resulted in the 2006-2008 Democratic takeover."
Bush's talk of "compassionate conservativism" in 2000 reminded me too much of Bush Sr.'s "a thousand points of light" from 1988. Bush called Jesus Christ his favorite political philosopher, despite the fact that Jesus' message was otherworldy and one of self-renunciation. I personally prefer Thomas Jefferson -- the architect of American democracy -- in this regard.
The aftermath of hurricane Katrina gave us a look at Bush's "compassionate conservativism" in action.
Charie| 1.7.11 @ 12:20AM
Interesting post,Vasu. Of course there are things I disagree with you about. You seem to equate abortion with veganism and animal-rights. Why do you think I care what you put in your mouth? Or is it that you're trying to force me to put in my mouth what you put in yours? Is that the problem? I'm a Conservative and I say you can eat anything you want, but leave me out of it.
"Animal-rights" ? Sorry, I don't believe animals have "rights". I believe people should take good care of animals and not mistreat them, but they have no more "rights" than the big rock next to my driveway. Lest you think we would harm animals, my husband "rescued" a feral cat, took her litter (at much pain to himself - scratching, biting, peeing, screaming by the kittens) to the Humane Society and, again at more personal sacrifice, trapped the mother cat and took her to a vet and had her spayed. We believe in good treatment for animals. We're also giving food, drink and a shelter to the cat. She will never come into the house but we watch out for her.
Are you a Buddhist? This sounds like the precept that all living things are equal.
You know what? Your beliefs are just that, your beliefs and as long as they aren't illegal or immoral, it makes no difference to me. Why did you think that Republicans wouldn't be as tolerant as Democrats in this regard?
Vasu Murti | 1.9.11 @ 4:25AM
Is it ethical to do to other animals what we would never do to other human beings?
The animal rights movement is not concerned with what people put in their mouths, per se, as issues like fur, circuses, and animal experimentation have nothing to do with diet, eating, or food.
However...
You say people can eat anything they want? Does this mean cannibalism is okay?
If you say, "No, because cannibalism involves taking another human's life," remember eating meat means taking an animal's life! Taking the life of a fellow creature.
You say you do not believe animals have rights? Isn't that just *your* unprovable religious belief?
Aren't the rights of animals merely being witheld by the hand of human tyranny?
The crux of Peter Singer's argument in his 1975 book Animal Liberation:
"The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans; it is a prescription of how we should treat humans. Thomas Jefferson saw this point. He wrote in a letter to the author of a book the notable intellectual achievements of Negroes in order to refute the then common view that they had limited intellectual capacities:
" '...whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the property or person of others.
"If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose?"
...is just recycling the moral arguments of Thomas Jefferson; the architect of American democracy.
Singer merely takes Jefferson's egalitarian philosophy one step further by asking why should our concepts of equality and justice towards others end with the human species?
Species membership as the criterion for personhood is discrimination, comparable to racism or sexism. *Sentience*, or the ability to feel pleasure or pain is a valid criterion for personhood which transcends species barriers.
Someone on USENET commented in the 1980s that, "...it doesn't take much to be sentient."
YES! That's the idea. If *sentience*, rather than membership in the human species is the criterion for personhood, we have to extend our circle of compassion to include animals and (at least) the unborn once they're sentient.
Animals are highly complex creatures, possessing a brain, a central nervous system and a sophisticated mental life. Animals actually suffer at the hands of their human tormentors and exhibit such "human" behaviors and feelings as fear and physical pain, defense of their children, pair bonding, group/tribal loyalty, grief at the loss of loved ones, joy, jealousy, competition, territoriality, and cooperation.
Dr. Tom Regan, the foremost intellectual leader of the animal rights movement and author of The Case for Animal Rights, notes that animals:
"...have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; and emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference and welfare interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, logically independent of their being the object of anyone else’s interests."
In determining a boundary between sentient and insentient life, Peter Singer in Animal Liberation suggests that "somewhere between a shrimp and an oyster seems as good a place to draw the line as any, and better than most."
Humans resemble the frugivorous primates. The healthiest populations with the longest lifespans — the Vilacambans of Ecuador, the Abhikasians of the former USSR, and the Hunzas of Pakistan — live almost entirely on plant foods.
Whereas a gulf of difference can be found between plants and animals, none of the differences between humans and animals seem to be ethically significant.
Animals are just as intelligent and communicative as small children or even some mentally defective adult humans. If we do not eat small children and mentally defective humans, then what basis do we have for eating animals?
C.S. Lewis and other Christians have even acknowledged that denying rights to animals merely because they do not exhibit the same level of rational thought most humans exhibit upon reaching full development justifies denying rights to the mentally handicapped, the senile, and many other classes of humans as well.
Christian author C.S. Lewis put forth a rational argument concerning the resurrection of animals in The Problem of Pain. His 1947 essay, "A Case for Abolition," attacked vivisection (animal experimentation) and reads as follows:
"Once the old Christian idea of a total difference in kind between man and beast has been abandoned, then no argument for experiments on animals can be found which is not also an argument for experiments on inferior men.
"If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we're backing up our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reason.
"Indeed, experiments on men have already begun. We all hear that Nazi scientists have done them. We all suspect that our own scientists may begin to do so, in secret, at any moment.
"The victory of vivisection marks a great advance in the triumph of ruthless, non-moral utilitarianism over the old world of ethical law; a triumph in which we, as well as animals, are already the victims, and of which Dachau and Hiroshima mark the more recent achievements.
"In justifying cruelty to animals we put ourselves also on the animal level. We choose the jungle and must abide by our choice."
John Stuart Mill observed, "The reason for legal intervention in favor of children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves— the animals."
In his book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, Reverend Andrew Linzey, an Anglican priest, notes:
"In some ways, Christian thinking is already oriented in this direction. What is it that so appalls us about cruelty to children or oppression of the vulnerable, but that these things are betrayals of relationships of special care and special trust? Likewise, and even more so, in the case of animals who are mostly defenseless before us."
You ask if I'm a Buddhist? I'm not, but in secular politics, one's religious identity should be completely irrelevant.
Christians in the West are enjoying the past 500 years of *secular* social progress: democracy and representative government in place of monarchy and the divine right of kings; the separation of church and state; the abolition of (human) slavery; the emancipation of women; birth control; the sexual revolution; LGBT rights, etc.
It's odd they would suddenly turn around and become an obstacle when it comes to animal issues.
But Christians are the first to cry "MOVE" ! when confronted with secular arguments against harming or killing animals.
It's the other side that hides behind their religion to justify their exploitation of animals!
There might be religions that give their sanction to killing and eating animals, but some religions have practiced human sacrifice, too!
If there were a holy book claiming only the "weak" refrain from child molestation, for example, we--in our modern, secular age--would reject that book as so much garbage.
Are Christians using secular arguments and the secular and / or political arena to protect the unborn themselves exempt from secular arguments and activism to protect animals?
I DON'T THINK SO!
Vegan author Victoria Moran entitled a book, Compassion: the Ultimate Ethic.
Compassion for animals to the point of not killing them, like opposing war, capital punishment, or abortion, is, in itself, an *ethic*, not a religion.
But just as there have been persons or religions in the past, like pacifists, morally opposed to militarism, war, and violence, so have there been vegetarians and vegetarian religions throughout history--morally opposed to killing animals and humans.
Nonviolence toward animals, in itself is merely an *ethic*; not a religion, has served as the basis for entire religions and philosophical traditions. Buddhism, Jainism, the Pythagoreans and possibly early Christianity all come to mind.
As an ethic, vegetarianism has attracted some of the greatest minds in history.
In the Table of Contents to Rynn Berry's 1993 book, Famous Vegetarians and Their Favorite Recipes: Lives & Lore from Buddha to the Beatles, Pythagoras is described as an ancient Greek religious teacher. Gautama the Buddha is similarly described as an ancient Indian savant and religious teacher. Mahavira is described as the historical founder of the world's oldest vegetarian religion---the Jains of India.
Plato (and Socrates) are described as Pythagorean philosophers who are the founders of the Western philosophical tradition. Plutarch is described as an ancient essayist and biographer, famous for his Lives of notable Greeks and Romans.
Leonardo da Vinci is described as an "Italian Renaissance man; Leonardo is one of Western Civilization's greatest geniuses." Percy Shelley is described as a "scientist, classicist, aesthete, Shelley was probably the most gifted English Romantic poet."
Leo Tolstoy: "Nineteenth century Russian author, Tolstoy is considered to be the world's greatest novelist."
Annie Besant: "Nineteenth century English social reformer and spiritual leader...at once a feminist, a labor leader, a theosophist, a freethinker, a devoted mother and a founder of the planned parenthood movement. She is one of the most remarkable women of modern times."
Mohandas Gandhi: "Indian civic and spiritual leader; inventor of the hunger strike; architect of Indian independence; father of modern India."
George Bernard Shaw: "Celebrated wit; peerless music and drama critic; essayist and dramatist of genius."
Bronson Alcott: "American transcendentalist philosopher; father of Louisa May Alcott; founder of the first vegetarian commune, Fruitlands."
Dr. John Harvey Kellogg: "World-class surgeon, pioneering nutritionist, and food inventor extraordinaire. Kellogg invented peanut butter, flaked cereals, and the first meat substitutes made from nuts and grains."
Henry Salt: "Venerable figure in the vegetarian movement; author of such vegetarian classics as Seventy Years Among the Savages, andAnimal Rights."
Frances Moore Lappe: "Author of Diet for a Small Planet (1971), Lappe's two million copy bestseller put vegetarianism on the map, and awakened Westerners to the nutritional and economic benefits of a vegetarian diet."
Isaac Bashevis Singer and Malcolm Muggeridge are described as the first major literary figures in the West to turn vegetarian since Tolstoy.
Brigid Brophy: "Noted for her formidable intellect, Brigid Brophy is an English novelist, biographer, and critic of the first rank. She is the first major woman novelist to become a vegetarian."
Ethical considerations influenced Benjamin Franklin, who became a vegetarian at age sixteen. Franklin noted "greater progress from that greater clearness of head and quicker apprehension." In his autobiographical writings, he called flesh-eating "unprovoked murder."
The poet Percy Shelley was a committed vegetarian. Shelley's interest in vegetarianism began when he was a student at Oxford, and he and his wife Harriet took up the diet soon after their marriage.
In a letter dated March 14, 1812, his wife wrote to a friend, "We have foresworn meat and adopted the Pythagorean system."
Shelley, in his poem "Queen Mab," described a world where humans do not kill animals for food.
"It is necessary to correct the error that vegetarianism has made us weak in mind, or passive or inert in action," wrote Mohandas Gandhi. "I do not regard flesh-food as necessary at any stage."
Gandhi wrote several books in which he discussed vegetarianism. His own daily diet included wheat sprouts, almond paste, greens, lemons, and honey.
He founded Tolstoy Farm, a community based on vegetarian principles.
In his Moral Basis of Vegetarianism, Gandhi wrote, "I hold flesh-food to be unsuited to our species. We err in copying the lower animal world if we are superior to it...I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants."
Kim Bartlett of Animal People in Clinton, WA, similarly writes:
"Something to think about: We believe that the Golden Rule applies to animals, too. We don't accept the prevailing notion that 'people come first' or that 'people are more important than animals.' Animals feel pain and suffer just as we do, and it is almost always humans making animals suffer and not the other way around. Yet in spite of how cruelly people behave towards animals -- not to mention human cruelty to other humans -- we are supposed to believe that humans are superior to other animals.
"If people want to fancy themselves as being of greater moral worth than the other creatures on this earth, we should begin behaving better than they do, and not worse. Let's start treating everyone as we would like to be treated ourselves."
Food expert Frances Moore Lappe, author of the bestseller Diet for a Small Planet, once said in a television interview that we should look at a piece of steak as if it were a Cadillac.
"What I mean," she explained, "is that we in America are hooked on gas-guzzling automobiles because of the illusion of cheap petroleum. Likewise, we got hooked on a grain-fed, meat-centered diet because of the illusion of cheap grain."
As it stands now, about half of the harvested acreage in America and in a number of European, African, and Asian countries is used to feed animals. If the earth's arable land were used primarily for the production of vegetarian foods, the planet could easily support a human population of twenty billion or larger.
I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism... which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling.
Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.
"To stand for Christ is to stand against the evil of cruelty inflicted on those who are weak, vulnerable, unprotected, undefended, morally innocent, and in that class we must unambiguously include animals. There is something profoundly Christ-like about the innocent suffering of animals. Look around you and see the faces of Christ in the millions of innocent animals suffering in factory farms, in laboratories, in abattoirs, in circuses and in animals hunted for sport."
---Reverend Andrew Linzey, Anglican priest, 1998
"A great wickedness of the Christian tradition," observes Reverend Linzey, "is that, at this very point, where it could have been a source of great blessing and life; it has turned out to be a source of cursing and death. I refer here to the way Christian theology has allowed itself to promulgate notions that animals have no rights; that they are put here for our use; that animals have no more moral status than sticks and stones.
"Animal rights in this sense is a religious problem. It is about how the Christian tradition in particular has failed to realize the God-given rights of God-given life. Animal rights remains an urgent question of theology.
"Every year," says Dr. Linzey, "I receive hundreds of anguished letters from Christians who are so distressed by the insensitivity to animals shown by mainstream churches that they have left them or on the verge of doing so. Of course, I understand why they have left the churches and in this matter, as in all else, conscience can be the only guide. But if all the Christians committed to animal rights leave the church, where will that leave the churches?
"The time is long overdue to take the issue of animal rights to the churches with renewed vigor. I don’t pretend it’s easy but I do think it’s essential—not, I add, because the churches are some of the best institutions in society but rather because they are some of the worst. The more the churches are allowed to be left to one side in the struggle for animal rights, the more they will remain forever on the other side.
"I derive hope from the Gospel preaching," Linzey concludes, "that the same God who draws us to such affinity and intimacy with suffering creatures declared that reality on a Cross in Calvary. Unless all Christian preaching has been utterly mistaken, the God who becomes incarnate and crucified is the one who has taken the side of the oppressed and the suffering of the world—however the churches may actually behave."
KyMouse| 1.7.11 @ 9:45AM
"...Dave Butler of Tektronix in Oregon, responded: 'Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human....'"
If Mr. Butler took the time to do a little basic research, he would learn that, at the moment of conception, DNA from the mother and the father combine to form the human baby's unique DNA. If that baby growing in the womb isn't human, what is it? Canine? Feline?
Concerning slavery: The Dred Scott Decision claimed that, although slaves were biologically human, they were not human persons. The same is claimed about unborn babies today.
Slaves became legal persons only when they were freed. Today, unborn babies are (in most cases) not considered legal persons until birth.
I doubt that any of us would have said, in say 1849, "If you don't like slavery, don't own slaves," because black people would still be enslaved by others. If so much as one person is enslaved, there is one more person who should be freed.
Similarly, it isn't enough to say, "Don't like abortion? Don't have one," because babies are still being killed by other people.
How can anyone say that there are children who don't deserve to live?
Vasu Murti | 1.9.11 @ 4:44AM
In an article on animal rights entitled "Just Like Us?" appearing in the August 1988 issue of Harper's, Ingrid Newkirk, Executive Director of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) said:
"You cannot find a relevant attribute in human beings that doesn't exist in animals as well. Darwin said that the only difference between humans and other animals was a difference of degree, not kind.
"If you ground any concept of human rights in a particular attribute, then animals will have to be included. Animals have rights."
"Although I may disagree with some of its underlying principles," writes pro-life activist Karen Swallow Prior, "there is much for me, an anti-abortion activist, to respect in the animal rights movement.
"Animal rights activists, like me, have risked personal safety and reputation for the sake of other living beings. Animal rights activists, like me, are viewed by many in the mainstream as fanatical wackos, ironically exhorted by irritated passerby to 'Get a Life!'
"Animal rights activists, like me, place a higher value on life than on personal comfort and convenience, and in balancing the sometimes competing interests of rights and responsibilities, choose to err on the side of compassion and nonviolence."
During 1986 - 1988, when I had access to USENET, a nationwide computer network linking corporations, military bases, think tanks, universities, etc., I paid close attention to the abortion debate. The subject of animal rights always came up, albeit indirectly.
The mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but rather some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights.
When a pro-lifer discussed the potential humanity of the unborn, a pro-choicer replied, "MY CAT has more potential than that!"
One pro-choicer said sarcastically, "Maybe the kid (the fetus) should be raised as a vegetarian. After all, don't cows have the right to life?"
Another pro-choicer, Oleg Kiselev, upon hearing the pro-life argument that brain waves can be detected in the unborn as early as six weeks, pointed out that animals also have brain waves.
He then added, "Excuse me, while I eat my veal stew."
In the spring of 1988, Stephen Carrier, a grad student in Mathematics at UC Berkeley, pointed out that chimpanzees share 99 percent of their DNA with humans, and so, to argue that species membership alone makes life worth protecting "is to fetishize DNA."
A pro-lifer responded: "If it'll please you, I will agree to protect anything that is 99 percent human."
To this, Stephen responded: "Okay. How about 50 percent? That would probably bring quite a few species into the net."
Stephen Carrier admitted, "I don't know what makes it acceptable to kill animals for meat. Some people think it's wrong, and I have no logical answer for them. But it's not murder, and I believe abortions are analogous. Yes, it's killing--but it's not murder."
Stephen admitted his argument was "not a mathematical proof, but there is no mathematical proof that will resolve the abortion debate."
In the fall of 1986, pro-life student John Morrow of Rutgers University compared abortion to slavery: Roe v. Wade denied rights to an entire class of humans merely on account of their age and developmental status, just as the Dred Scott decision of 1857 denied rights to an entire class of humans based on the color of their skin.
Dave Butler of Tektronix in Oregon responded: "Abortion and slavery? Not even close. A fetus isn't human. If you believe it's wrong to eat meat, should your morality be imposed upon everyone else?"
"Not even close" has become a popular slogan with pro-choicers. It even appeared on the headlines of most San Francisco Bay Area newspapers in November 1992, when Bill Clinton was elected.
"Not even close" is not a new slogan. Peter Singer writes in Animal Liberation that when Mary Wollstonecraft, a forerunner of today’s feminists, published A Vindication of the Rights of Women in 1792, "her views were widely regarded as absurd."
Thomas Taylor, a distinguished Cambridge philosopher, tried to refute Mary Wollstonecraft by demonstrating that if women could be given liberation, then animals could be given liberation, too.
And since this is "absurd" it must be equally "absurd" to give women liberation.
Taylor called his parody, "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes."
"Not even close" is the "A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes" of the late 20th and early 21st century, because it takes for granted the insurmountable prejudice that other animals couldn't possibly have rights.
It is this prejudice which we in the animal rights movement are struggling to overcome.
The pro-choice mentality hasn't changed since then. On AlterNet (a liberal headlines e-newsletter), on February 20, 2009, in an article entitled "why get freaked out?", pereztx writes on the subject of abortion:
"the thought of killing an innocent little life form and tossing them in an incenerator or trash might be the hang up other than that I cant think of why they might freaked out. This article writer probably then sheds tears during a PETA meeting about a chicken being killed"
Again, the mentality of the pro-choicers was that the fetus wasn't human, but some kind of lower life form--and that lower life forms couldn't possibly have rights.
This led me to conclude that if there's any group out there which ought to be sympathetic to animal rights, *it's pro-lifers*.
PattyMor| 1.5.11 @ 4:10PM
It does tell you that Miss Pelosi and Dick Durbin are CINO's (Catholics in name only). You might as well call the Demon Party the Party of Death and Deviancy. They cling to abortion (especially partial birth abortion), death panels and gay militancy, all the while they and their judicial appointees work to push Christitanity out of the town square.
Nick| 1.5.11 @ 7:08PM
PattyMor,
This is because their leader is Satan.
Tex Expatriate| 1.5.11 @ 4:32PM
From 1840 to 1964 the Democratic National Party consisted of men and women who believed in individual liberty, States Rights, and federalism, classically understood. Beginning with Woodrow Wilson the Democrat Party became home to disaffected socialists and fascists, and after 1964 they combined with the nutcake environmentalists to co-opt the party. Lyndon Johnson, Billy Carter, Bill Clinton, and now Obama have contrived to turn the party into America's socalist party, an ideology that has always embraced death.
Paul Kegnor writes as if there ever were any genuine "pro-life" Democrats in the past forty years. There weren't. There were just poseurs.
Renaissance Nerd | 1.5.11 @ 5:23PM
You forgot slavery, Jim Crow/Segregation, etc. The Democratic Party is and always was a criminal syndicate dedicated to buying votes. They sometimes allow starry-eyed dreamers to be their front men (William Jennings Bryan) but at the local level the machine always wins. Abortion is right in line with their history, an obvious successor to their early crucial plank (slavery) and their second crucial plank (segregation). Democrats have only ever talked the talk, but when walking time comes their legacy is bribe-for-votes corruption at best.
gene hauber| 1.5.11 @ 4:40PM
THE DEMOCRATS/LIBERALS LITERALLY "ATE THEIR BABIES" .
I HAVE NO USE FOR THEM AND I SUPPOSE NO GOD, WHOEVER HE, SHE OR IT, MAY BE , WILL HAVE ANY USE FOR THEM EITHER EXCEPT AS FUEL FOR THE HELL FIRES.
IT COULD NOT BE MORE JUST....AND THE SOONER THE BETTER.
THE MAGGOTS OF THE 60'S AND 70'S HAVE COME AND SOON WILL DISAPPEAR FROM THE SCENE .
YOU GUYS WERE EVER SO STUPID, WHOEVER YOU ARE, TO HAVE SUPPORTED THEM IN AMERICA.....THIS IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY AND A BEACON OF LIGHT TO ALL THE WORLD,
GOD BLESS AMERICA.
da monk| 1.5.11 @ 5:56PM
Nobody, but nobody,should tell my wife, my wife, your wife your daughter what to do with THEIR BODY!
Nick| 1.5.11 @ 7:05PM
We're not.
We're telling them what they can do (read kill) to the unborn baby's body (fetus in Latin.)
Jari| 1.6.11 @ 4:21AM
Just because it's YOUR HOUSE doesn't mean you can invite someone in then do whatever you like to them inside that house.
Likewise, if you don't want people inside YOUR BODY, don't put them there.
But once you've invited them in, you should make sure they get out again safely.
Murder isn't the way a good host treats his guests.
Charie| 1.7.11 @ 12:24AM
Fantastic analogy!
KyMouse| 1.6.11 @ 11:24AM
Da Monk, a baby is connected to his or her mother's body, but isn't part of it in the same sense that a tooth or kidney is. A mother is always female, yet her baby may be male -- a boy. How is that possible if they have the same body?
Each baby has a unique genetic code (DNA) made from the father and mother's codes, but uniquely the baby's. And the baby has a heart that is not the mother's, a brain that isn't hers, and so on.
None of us has the absolute right to do whatever we please with our bodies. We are not, for example, allowed to drive our bodies down the street at 100 miles per hour, because we might kill someone. Abortion, too, kills someone -- the baby (and sometimes the mother, even in legal abortuaries -- Google "Synthia Dennard" and "Mary Lou Herron").
Your belief that "nobody should tell [a mother] what do to with their body" is ironic, since as many as six out of every 10 abortions aren't the mother's choice at all, but the result of coercion by the baby's father, the mother's parents, or other people.
And if the mother won't kill her baby, the father may kill the mother. Murder is often the leading cause of death for pregnant women. "Pro-choice" men are the number-one perpetrators of violence against pregnant, pro-life mothers.
The "right to choose"? Many women are, through intimidation, denied the right to choose to give their babies life. The RIGHT to abort has become the OBLIGATION to abort.
KyMouse| 1.6.11 @ 11:25AM
In my reply above to Da Monk, I should have typed "Lou Ann Herron."
David| 1.5.11 @ 6:04PM
Gran Torino, I have to correct you. I remember well that it was the anti-abortion folks who started the verbal gymnastics with the abortion issue. The did not like being called "anti" because of the negative connotation. So they wrongfully chose to refer to themselves" pro-life" which prompted the pro-aborts to adopt the meaningless and idiotic term "pro-choice".
That was mistake. We should refer to them as pro-abortion or pro-death and us as anti-abortion.
I will not vote for any politician who is pro-abortion. It disqualifies them for leadership if they can't get that basic issue right. It does not mean that being anti-abortion automatically qualifies someone for leadership, but that supporting abortion is a disqualifier.
Vasu Murti | 1.6.11 @ 4:40PM
David, you wrote:
"... it was the anti-abortion folks who started the verbal gymnastics with the abortion issue. The did not like being called 'anti' because of the negative connotation. So they wrongfully chose to refer to themselves 'pro-life' which prompted the pro-aborts to adopt the meaningless and idiotic term 'pro-choice'."
Yes. Dr. Rick Lippin a physician in Pennsylvania, stated on AlterNet a few years ago, that the term "pro-life" originally referred to opponents of capital punishment, but anti-abortionists stole the label and claimed it for themselves.
The "consistent-ethic" movement; pro-lifers simultaneously opposed to capital punishment, is big on the religious Left.
David| 1.5.11 @ 6:07PM
And it is a good idea to point out the fake Catholicism that most democrats practice. They are not Catholics, but sinners of the worst kind, and Repubs will not suffer at the polls for calling them on it.
Bob K.| 1.5.11 @ 6:17PM
It is interesting, Mr. Kengor, that you bring up the name of Bob Casey, former Governor of PA. As you know his son is now a US Senator from PA. The Dems have no qualms describing him as "Pro-Life" when they need a smoke screen but I have never seen them describe him as "Anti-Abortion." I wonder what his Daddy would think of this?
Mimi| 1.5.11 @ 7:17PM
In the 1800's it was slavery that divided the Nation. In the 2nd half of the twentieth century the great divider has been ABORTION!. In both cases it was ..WHO was deserving of inclusion to democracy and rights. This nation must do the work as was done for " CIVIL RIGHTS " to include protection for the unborn. Many people suffer a delusion....to quiet their conscience... to their detriment! This conflict is hurting the country. I have always been PRO-LIFE...with NO APOLOGY!!!
Dan| 1.6.11 @ 1:28AM
ENOUGH about former Governor Casey from Pennsylvania.
That guy was a much a fraud as his Senator son.
When former Senator John Heinz died in a helicopter crash, it fell to then Governor Casey to appoint his successor.
Casey made a big thing about his going on a search for a "pro-life Democrat."
But who did he appoint?
Did he appoint a reliable and genuine pro-lifer?
Of course not.
He appointed that pious fraud Harris Wofford, {who was subsequently defeated by then Rep. Rick Santorum}.
And how did Wofford vote?
You know how he voted.
He voted straight party line for that party of death, the modern Democrat party.
So cut the crap about former Governor Casey, he had his chance to put his money where his mouth was, and he failed. And what's more, he knew exactly what he was doing when he appointed Wofford.
Yosemeti Sam| 1.6.11 @ 1:39AM
" ...Bob Casey (who was also Catholic), who was
distraught over the fact that his party, which prided itself as defender of the "little guy," the poor, the downtrodden, the needy, was turning its back on the most innocent among us: the unborn child. When Casey pleaded for a speaking spot at the 1992 Democratic National Convention, to share that message, Bill and Hillary Clinton and the self-proclaimed apostles of "tolerance," diversity," and "open-mindedness" refused him a platform...."
Thus there is political fellowship and then there is the fellowship of CONSCIENCE.
From "A Man for All Seasons":
Sir Thomas More:
"And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? "
dadfly| 1.6.11 @ 3:34AM
thank god for people like marjorie and her group. i will continue my support as i believe that her activism was a big component of our victory last november. and she is active and on the ground in washington, where the enemy, "the death party" as you say, rules.
yes, i did say enemy. and i will shed no tears for the "collaborators and enablers" of the death party. this party needs to be destroyed, utterly. the course of political nature will replace it but it and the people running it must be defeated or they will surely complete their destruction of us, we who value our liberty above all else.
fredo terminello| 1.6.11 @ 11:04AM
I am an anti abortion democrat who believes abortion wrong under any circumstances, because i have a problem with the term pro-life. Pro-life means pro-life and i find too many people who oppose abortion are in favor of the death penalty. That is sheer hypocracy. I find others who are for a woman's right to choose who are against the death penalty. You can't have it both ways.
KyMouse| 1.6.11 @ 11:35AM
Fredo, it is not hypocritical to be against abortion yet for the death penalty. Babies who are butchered in the womb are innocent -- they have not committed any crimes that deserve capital punishment.
If their mothers decide to kill them by abortion, the babies have no appeals process that might prevent their execution. In my own state, Kentucky, the appeal process for convicted killers can take more than 20 years.
Do you really seen no difference between the killing of innocent babies by the decision of their mothers, with no limitation or exceptions, and the execution of murderers by the authority of the state, after a legal trial and conviction of guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
Nick| 1.6.11 @ 2:13PM
Mr. Terminello,
I'm assuming you would also have a problem with those who call themselves "pro-life" being in favor of a military and police force?
Does that make any sense?
All the term Pro-Life connotes is that no one has the right to end an innocent human life.
Charie| 1.7.11 @ 12:36AM
****too many people who oppose abortion are in favor of the death penalty. That is sheer hypocracy***
There is a difference between killing and murder, you know. Look it up.
How can you possibly compare an innocent unborn or almost born baby with some murderer who has slain a dozen people?
This sounds like one of the neatly packaged specious truisms the Left trots out whenever the subject of abortion comes up.
I can't fathom why people would pay any attention to such an egregiously erroneous statement.
David| 1.6.11 @ 1:05PM
KyMouse, people like Fredo will never understand that distinction. Why? Because has already proved his idiocy by belonging to the Democrat party. That's all we need to know to understand why you had to explain to him the glaring distinction between an abortion of an innocent child and the execution of the worst type of criminal.
Ernie Taormina | 1.6.11 @ 3:01PM
I would say the Democrat party has morally degenerated in more ways than this one. This is merely a reflection of a deeper corruption. It is nearly beyond hope.
Phil| 1.6.11 @ 8:38PM
Where is the Senate? We are hell and gone from any kind of pro-life nation. The pendullum has swung. People have voted their financial futures a postponment of the destruction that is eminent. It's a precious moment to see a significant prolife increase in the congress. Boehner appears to be a breath of fresh air. Take a deep breath and thank God. Enjoy this moment. I predict gloomy days ahead for our nations babies. Keep up the CAUSE. Educate all and Pray, Pray, Pray. I have heard we are at 54% prolife. I'm in one of the most prolife states and I hear "prolife" but what I see is very very "suspect".
May God have mercy on us all.
Always Right| 1.6.11 @ 10:23PM
As a fourth generation native Californian, I want to apologize to America for the know-nothing demented Californians who voted for Brooklyn carpetbagger American-hater Barbara Boxer. The majority of California schools are drop out factories and people in California have a very high (and covered-up) illiteracy rate. Even those graduates from the once renowned and now defunct and irrelevent University of California systems are basically high school graduates with PhDs due to grade inflation that rivals that of Harvard and Yale and Howard colleges. That and the fact that California is the most gerrimandered state, second only to Illinois and some other crime states, like Massatwoshits. And, California voting is rigged by corrupt and criminal registrars of voters. So, I just want to apologize to America. Those of us in the right tried to block Boxer, but union crooks and other crooked democRATS control the voting process. Sorry!
Adidas | 8.11.11 @ 6:02AM
is good
العاب بنات | 4.10.12 @ 12:29PM
is good