Writing in The Hill on Monday, anti-poverty crusader Sister Simone Campbell took Senate Republicans to task regarding their healthcare bill—and the implications it has for millions of Americans, particularly women and children.
"Sister Simone has gained a progressive following—and drawn ire from the Catholic Church—for her staunch support of abortion rights. But today she repeated her belief that a pro-life agenda must prioritize the lives of American women and families, not just unborn children."
Whilst I agree with Sister Simone that Trumpcare is undoubtedly not Pro-life, I cannot agree with her on pro-abortion stance. Her own muddled thinking is the exact reflection of the Trumpcare she lambasts. To be truly pro-life is disarmingly simple: one accords respect and protection to all Humanity from the moment of conception, all the way to death by natural causes. She is in a glass house, chucking rocks. If the pro-Life Catholic Church is angry with her, then that is the least I would expect. Perhaps she would gain more support if her thinking were more consistent, but I doubt it. Somehow inoffensive words like "progressive", "socialist" and "liberal" get hi-jacked to mean all sorts of nonsense. Lets forget such misleading labels and stop trying to put people into specific opinion/ideology camps. One of the wonders lost in such apportioning is that each and every one of us is 100% unique and have the ability to think differently. "Too many people enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. Think again, Sister Simone. There is always room for redemption.
Who died and made you the almighty passer of judgment? Her stance is not "pro-abortion" but PRO-CHOICE...allowing women to choose what is best for their life and the lives of their families. No other human being has the right to interfere with such private, personal decisions. Not even you.
Here we go again. This is only my opinion, which I have every right to hold. You have yours and I respect that. I am not attacking anyone's right to hold an opinion, but am merely pointing out - as Sr. Simone does - that there is some confusion among Republicans who call themselves Pro-Life but can happily support wars ad infinitum which destroy all Human Life, and waging (economic) war on the poor does the same but more slowly. So I oppose muddled 'opinion' which is not based on any thought, but merely a repetition of the tribal chant. I believe, based on unshakeable logic, that Human Life begins at conception i.e. if not aborted, a Human baby will result, not a horse. I hope you agree that Human Life is sacred - at least from Birth. If you do agree, then why do you think that you accord such sanctity to Human Life at all? If premature babies can survive, when ought they to be accorded the same measure of respect? And so it goes...
You do have the right to you're opinion and I respect that too. But I disagree with "confusion among Republicans". Most Republicans are not Pro-Life, they are Pro-Birth, they care not after a child is born.
Dear ReconFire. Pro-Life vs. Pro-Birth? Interesting point. I agree wholeheartedly with you that it is insufficient merely to be "Pro-Birth" but care not after a child is born. To my chagrin, I have fallen into the very trap I abhor i.e. to label people's views based purely on their political affiliation, especially when the Republican/Democrat Left/Right "division" is complete hogwash. As Machiavelli confirmed, to control the people, you simply divide and rule. Throw away the labels and lets start thinking as individuals, and exchanging views in a respectful manner. Though I hate the mind-set that can casually end a Human Life, whether it be 'in utero' or fully fledged, I would be very wary of any argument which sought to suggest that since a child is destined for poverty, it is far kinder all round to kill said child. As a Human Being, I would like to see all Human Life respected and given the dignity we all deserve. The Golden Rule: do unto others what you would have them do unto you.
People not only have the ability to think differently they have the ability to think for themselves and act in accordance. People that enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of though are usually people that have others making those decisions for them and then determining the consequence as to how well they performed. I think the article is about how you can reevaluate belief and still be consistent and without cognitive dissonance, This is the essence of free will.
I think I agree with you i.e. Sr. Simone is a victim of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, she abhors cruelty, unkindness and injustice, but on the other, she condones the worst violence imaginable on those least able to defend themselves. That's pretty dissonant in my book.
It's about time that someone with Authentic Cred took the Misleading, Self Appointed title of "Pro Life" away from the Lying Liars who have, for years, misappropriated it.
Not to diminish George Carlin's brilliant examination of such, from years ago.
(just google "George Carlin Abortion lyrics Part 1".)
Sr. Simone is not a victim of cognitive dissonance, she is acting on her beliefs. I could say that she is part of a system with a barbaric past and uncertain future but this is an issue that is not going away because it can't. That is the why Sr. Simone gives pause to her position. Recorded history if told truthfully tells us this.
I AM NOT PRO-ABORTION. I do not believe that a fertilized egg is the same as a baby, a toddler , a teen, or adult. One third to one half of all fertilized eggs are spontaneously aborted and never become a baby, child, teen or adult. But if you believe that a fertilized egg or an embryo is a baby with a soul, take comfort, the baby who is aborted spontaneously or by choice never leaves the arms of a loving God. Sometimes life gives people very difficult choices, and people, women and men need to be able to make choices that affect their bodies, health, families. Although I have never been in a position to have to make a choice of abortion or birth, women who are near and dear to me have had to. Sometimes abortion is the only merciful option. I withhold judgement.
Speaking of cognitive dissonance, don't you think the Church has its own problems with cognitive dissonance with regard to abortion and war?
I wish I could your reply two hearts.
To me, abortion is a barbaric past, present and future. It is patently absurd for someone to be both pre-life and pro-abortion.
I have nothing to do with the Church's stance on war. Like you, I am agin' it. I agree: The Church is indeed guilty of cognitive dissonance by not opposing war with every fibre of its being.
Interesting moral sleight-of-hand. If 2/3rds do not continue to term, but 1/3 does, then Nature has her own methods and reasons. Some (not all) Expectant Mothers who miscarriage are bereft, and cannot heal properly unless they are allowed to grieve. If a child is alive and whose heart is beating well, then there is a 1/3 chance it may make it? Yet these same beings are fair game in your eyes, if said child is unwanted - for reasons of inconvenience or poverty? My objections to abortion are not as you may suppose connected to any religious belief whatsoever; to me it is simple logic: we were all once just fertilised eggs who were lucky enough to survive to full term, and were wanted or accepted despite our inconvenience. The inescapable part for me is that if we consider Human Life to be sacred, then when do we accord that Human Life begins?
Ah, no. Abortion has nothing to do with "murder," but is little different from removing a tumor. There is no more evidence that a zygote or a blastocyst or an embrion is a separate living entity than there is that an ovum or a spermatozoa are. If you want to argue that abortion is murder, then you have to accept that a woman having a period is also murder. And some guy ejaculating is a mass murderer.
Sister Simone isn't the only catholic nun to make this observation. Joan Chittister, O.S.B made the same observation.
Being pro-birth but anti-PP are incompatible because PP provides more prenatal and post natal care than any other single organization. There is a reason that the neonatal death rate in TX started going up once Gov Dipstick and his band of merry psychopaths defunded PP and failed (aka, didn't even try) to replace it.
"I do not believe that just because you're opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is." - Joan Chittister, O.S.B.
I have just read the article you linked to. My first impressions is that Jesus allegedly said of Judas: "It had been better if that man had never been born" and then the author leaps upon that statement as Jesus sanctifying abortion. That is a leap of logic, don't you think? Wishing someone had never been born is not quite the same as wishing he had been aborted.
However, since you brought Jesus into it (not me) I have often wondered if his defence of the woman taken in adultery ("Let him who is without sin cast the first stone") may have been influenced by his own "Life" experience: his mother was unmarried, engaged and pregnant. Joseph had very right apparently to have her stoned to death, but chose not to. Likewise, the women taken in adultery may have been with child (maybe not); but he considered that her sin of adultery (Human weakness?) was minor, in comparison with taking her innocent life in hideous violence, for a "crime" that is simply a weakness of the flesh...Discuss.