www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ann Rice: Pro-Life and Pro-Hillary Clinton?

http://annerice.com/

I found this interesting. I certainly applaud her uncompromising stand for life. But I fundamentally question her prudential judgment in her selection of parties and candaitates.

Which of the two major parties has done more - the Republicans or the Democrats - to limit the scourge of abortion?

Which party has worked to defund federal subsidies for abortion, especially overseas?

Which party is explicitly pro-life and anti-abortion in its platform?

Which party has works hardest (now, let me be clear) to get pro-life judges on the bench?

Which party will defend the rights of the disabled NOT to fear drinking their orange juice in the nursing home or work hard to prevent the offical recognition of gay marriage across the country?

The answer to these questions is obvious.

The Republican Party.

That said, I would never say it has done a perfect job by any means, nor is it always consistent with the application of its pro-life ethic. NOR am I deluded into thinking that there are no Republican politicians who are self-declared pro-life, but function (if only moderately) as pro-choice.

But if she believes that the party to end abortion is the Democratic Party and that she will accomplish this by getting Hillary Clinton elected, I think she'll be sorely disappointed.

In ICXC,

Gordo

I don't get the impression that she fully comprehends the moral consequences (or obligations) in seeing the unborn as fully human.

She says, "I am not sure that Americans should give up the right to abortion" and thrice rests her case on her opinion that she is a student of history. It's ironic that she says that, for there were times in history where the case for brutality rested on the legal and cultural rights of the powerful. In Plato's Republic, Thrasymachus perceives justice in a similar fashion: might makes right.

If the genesis of unborn life is seen as a co-creative act, in which we participate but are not the author, then we could hardly support the destruction of such a sanctioned act and be in harmony with our Lord.

I was angry that Rudy Giuliani came to my school and made very similar arguments which Anne Rice made in her letter. The administration at Houston Baptist University appreciated the news coverage they received, but I am very disappointed to have "pro-choice" be linked to "Houston Baptist University" (link [google.com]). I would be equally disappointed if I were an admirer of Anne Rice, I see little distinction between their arguments except that Ms. Rice claims to be pro-life, and Mayor Giuliani admits to being "pro-choice".

Terry

I think anyone who places their hopes in the Democratic Party as it currently exists to end abortion borders on being delusional (and I say that as someone who is a Democrat). I also would say that I believe that anyone who places their hopes in the Republican Party as it currently exists to serve as the moral savior of this nation, or to institute anything that comes even remotely close to an ethic shaped by the Gospel is going to be terribly disappointed.

Ryan

"Put not your trust in princes, not in a son of man, in whom there is no help." Psalm 145:3

I agree that abortion is a horrible crime against humanity, but would you really vote for a candidate solely based on their position on abortion if it meant pushing the country into war ruin, or a dictatorship?!

I agree, very well stated, Indigo. I must disagree with my very good friend Gordon.

I do not think the Republicans have done all that much to end abortion anyway- they have made it inconvenient, cut funding for abortions in some instances- I do give them credit for partial birth abortion ban, but even a lot of pro-choice people voted for that, being such an egregious form of abortion.

But neither of the Bushes or Reagan ever introduced or championed a bill to flat out end abortion. No, the abortion stance is simply a way of winning votes from Catholics and Evangelicals. President Reagan had 8 years, President Bush Senior had 4 years, and now President Bush will have had two terms. When have we seen George Bush at a prolife rally? NO, the presidents have always had other priorities.

This administration has usurped non-constitutional powers for themselves, and have gotten us into an unjust war and debacle.

But this thread is not about the war or the Patriot Act. It is simply about abortion.

And quite simply, when comparing party to party there is no doubt which party has the better record defending the rights of the unborn. As I said, it is not a perfect record, but it is - relatively speaking - miles ahead in the opposite direction of the Democratic Party.

I see that as extremely unfortunate given the Democratic party's strong Catholic roots. You are right, Lance, as far as Reagan and the Bushes not outlawing abortion outright. Some Republican politicians do simply treat the life "issue" as a way to court Catholics and Evangelicals. But Reagan and the Bushes have done far more. The Clinton record was absolutely abysmal on this issue, since the Democrats - more so than any Republican - are beholden to Big Abortion - a global multi-billion dollar industry.

It is hard for me to see how this mess can be cleaned up in the DP. We Catholics in the RP also have our work cut out for us, but at least our platform is pro-life. (Thank God!)

As to whether it should be a decisive issue, how a society treats its most vulnerable - especially when it involves protecting and even subsidizing their murder - seems to me that it should be a pretty weighty issue on any Catholic or Orthodox voting conscience. I have absolutely no idea what I am going to do if Rudy Guliani gets the nod. I may receive my own first presidential vote - or perhaps my wife, Xena the Warrior Princess.

God bless,

Gordo

PS: Athanasius - I agree with you. Neither party are really saviors in any way, shape or form. But I do see the Republicans as having the high ground on this pivotal issue.

I'm not sure about Anne Rice....can't trust her....she's written books about Vampires...demonic stuff...etc...not good topic to write about...plus her son is very openly gay...writing odd books himself too.

Eeehh.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Spundas,

I know that she has publicly repented for her previous writing and has now dedicated herself to writing about Christ (she even mentions this in her post above). I don't want to hold something against someone who has repented.

As to her son, not sure what you would expect there. A public renunciation?

My sense is that she is on the right path in returning to her Catholic faith.

God bless,

Gordo

I found Interview with the Vampire interesting. It was a little silly, but certainly nothing to apologize for. The only thing to apologize for is that so many of us actually read bubblegum fantasy like that when we're riding the subway. I myself did my penance by re-reading Moby Dick for the next several weeks of commute. (Melville goes on about how whales are fish at one point, the high point of the book in my estimation. Wasn't big on taxonomy I see.)

As to Miss Rice's son, if we've learned anything from Jesus' parables it is that the prodigal son should expect a welcome home from his parents. Parents are to love their children. That doesn't mean approve of everything they do. But love is gentle and kind as the Scriptures tell us.

And I certainly think Miss Rice, like anyone, is entitled to her political opinion. I don't think either party can "solve" abortion. It's been a tragedy played out through all human history, not just since 1972. Personally, I go with whomever is most likely to listen to the pro-life viewpoint. And for me, that is the thresshold issue I focus on. If you don't believe or are not open to those who hold the belief that all humans have a right to be, then anything you tell me you believe about any other rights rings very hollow. You've already chosen who gets to share in those precious inalienable rights you believe in and your list of those so entitled to protection is shorter than mine from the get-go.

Gordo and Annie,

Both of you made good points. Thanks for showing me a perspective that I haven't yet considered.

If one repents, then I'd have to say to myself, "Let it go, Let G-d" and you are right, I should not have judged.

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

I have personally attended pro-life rallies where President Reagan and the current President have addressed the group by satellite hook up or by recorded message. Because of the volatility of abortion as a political issue, its difficult for any national politician to be as openly pro-life as many of us would like, just as before (and even during the early part of) the Civil War, being openly abolitionist was viewed as an extremist position even by those who were not necessarily pro-slavery.

And as far as legislation meant to ban abortion, there have been many attempts at both the federal and state level to ban or limit abortion, but our federal courts have always shot them down as unconstitutional because of the precedent of Roe v. Wade. We have not seen much of this in the last 20 years because the legal precedence for this was battled over in the late 70s and early 80s -- and the abortion limits were always struck down.

You do realize that the recent upholding of the partial birth abortion ban was the first time a federal abortion limitation has been upheld in the Supreme Court. And how did this happen? Because the judges our current President appointed formed a majority that supported a limitation on abortion. The lasting legacy that George W. Bush will ultimately have is the Roberts era on the Supreme Court. For our only hope to stem the tide of abortion is to have Roe overturned, and then the battle becomes a state by state legislative concern.

To say that the Republicans were ineffective or insincere in efforts to stop abortion is simply not true. IF they were ineffective, it was because of the federal courts. They did not lack for trying.

If you wish to disparage the President for the war, fine, but it has nothing to do with his convictions on abortion. By appointing the Supreme Court judges he has appointed, George Bush has done more for the pro-life cause than any person with political power since the Court handed down the Roe decision.

As for Ann Rice, I think her tendency towards demagoguery blinds her. Her book about Jesus was well intentioned, but to write a book about Jesus where the Lord speaks subjectively, in first person, revealing His inner thoughts, is pretty presumptive. I wonder if someone who would think that way has a little messianic complex herself. Of course, I think Ms. Rice's change of heart and attitude is wonderful -- I would just suggest that her faith journey is a work in progress (like all of us), and that some of her conclusions may still be rooted in her old ways of thinking.

Soxfan59 and my other friends:

I appreciate your arguments here, but I am still not convinced that the GOP is as committed to the Pro-life issue as people on this forum are. I have read for instance, that Ronald Reagan chose pro-choice conversatives over pro-life liberals in some of his federal bench appointments, when he had the chance.

I also believe that because some of the recent court appointees are strict constitutional constructionists they are going to be reticent to overturn Roe v. Wade which upsets precedent; this is especially the case for Roberts. If you will forgive the pun, the jury is still out on the legacy of the Roberts court. But I sincerely hope I am wrong and you are right, at least in terms of the abortion issue.

I also want to take exception, knit pick at one small thing here- criticizing the President's policies is not "disparaging him." I take exception to that, because I feel that supporters of the President think that people like myself "hate" the president, or go against him because we do not like him personally. I often feel that is a way that others use to try to minimize our arguments, or to write us off. Also, do not assume that those of us who are critical of the Administration's policies automatically love the Democrats, they are doing a horrible job. I give the Republicans an "F" and the Democrats a "D-"; the only reason I do not give them an F too, is because I want to give them a chance.

It may be true I admit, that some of us do not care for his actions and policies, but at least in this forum, my criticisms are against his policies, not his person. I am not a talk radio personality. I am disagree with the President philosophically, and disagree with his policies. That is not the same as disparaging him personally.

I do believe that this President Bush at least has a genuine concern for the unborn. I give him credit for that. But I think that if other presidents were to follow in his footsteps, that we would move the presidency in the direction of an autocratic office. I do not think that pre-emptive war is just, moral, or a good practical policy for this country going forward. It will have dire consequence for the future of the country.

I do not think that because a politician is pro-life that they should get a free pass on everything else, even granting the priority of abortion in the heirarchy of issues. There are very grave constitutional and moral issues to consider in the shadow of this administration.


Blessings,

Lance

Lance,

Thanks, my friend, for your post. You and I are in agreement here on many things. I for one do not agree with President Bush on everything. In fact, I do not think him conservative enough! (I'm a states-rights Virginian by birth, remember! )

The war is a separate matter, which can (and should) certainly be debated.

And I've never read or heard you say anything disparaging against the President personally. I cannot say the same for myself with President Bill Clinton, however. I think you are far more virtuous than I am!

God bless,

Gordo

Gordo and Lance,

Even as a Governor as Texas, President Bush was a moderate on domestic issues. I had to remember this when he signed the prescription-drug plan and by how he was pushing for immigration reform. For his pro-life stance, I would not use my favor of his position to mask what I consider to be blemishes in his policy.

For a candidate like Hillary Clinton, her pro-choice stance is not the only domestic issue I would gripe about if she is elected president in 2008, which is most likely to happen if the current temper in politics holds out for her.

As Republicans in general go, I am not blindly idealistic in claiming a favorable judgment on their hearts. I was courted enough by the GOP in my first days of college to be annoyed by the role power-politics has on those who wish to seek office. Often these people form a certain mindset which is incompatible with independent thought and courage. There are individual Republicans I deeply respect and there are individual Democrats I respect, though the latter fewer in number than the former.

Terry