www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall President Obama

CDL
I firmly agree with you anyone despite what party approach they take, who futher the possiblity of abortion are only deluding themselves.
Stephanos I

I repeat, because it seems to be necessary, I don't understand why it is necessary to try to convince Catholics not to support pro (whatever you wish to call them) candidates who support the killing of babies. Why is it necessary to try to convince them at all? We are supposed to be obedient children of the Church. If one does not wish to support the Church then one should not claim to be Catholic.

CDL

I have heard that the Orthodox Church is has not definitively ruled when it comes to abortion if the mother's life is in danger; is this true?

Ryan,

Thank you for challenging us; obviously in the last 36 years we pro-lifers have not been as successful as we hoped. In my local chapter one focus where I think we have been successful is in our annual Life Chain where we have had as many as 1100 people give witness to life on a busy street where we estimate around 800-1200 people have seen our witness. I've watched their faces; it especially impacts young adults....you can see them thinking about the message that they see over and over ... Abortion Kills Children.

But we are looking for additional ways to make an impact. Would you please.....I'm begging you now .... follow this link http://www.priestsforlife.org/images/index.htm and http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

Click on some of the links to the butchery of defenseless human life... let their blood print an image in your mind..listen to descriptions of abortion procedures...let them show you that the Culture of Death is a crime against humanity...worse than slavery, worse than war, and far worse than tax cuts for the rich.

Please!! and favor me with your response, either privately or on this forum. Tell me if you think they will have any impact on an abortion supporter (not you). I would appreciate it very much. I have contemplated contacting a group who exhibits billboard-size pictures of abortion, but I know that there will be much negative feedback. I need to know if they would be a postive or negative teaching tool.

Thank you and may the Holy Spirit guide you.
Fr Deacon Paul

Dear Fr Deacon Paul,

I think you asked this question genuinely, so I will give you a genuine response.

I have not looked at those materials, and I won't. I already know what an abortion looks like --in photos and in videos-- and I don't need to see it again.

Also, I find it repellant that you insist on showing such materials. Yes, abortion itself is repellant. So too is any form of murder and genocide. And I (and others like me) have seen plenty of pictures and videos of unjust killing.

Instead, the issue is about finding a way to communicate about abortion that will actually reduce the number of abortions and lead to it being made illegal again. Gruesome photos and videos don't do that. Dialogue does.

And it is because you are clearly willing to dialogue, I decided to respond with my reasons why looking at gruesome images is not appealing or persuasive to me.

Respectfully yours,

-- John

Dan,

That's a fair question, and I'm sorry that I didn't reply earlier. Let me try to reply now.

-- I don't want the Church's clergy to decide elections.

-- That's because I believe in the separation of Church and State. And I believe in that because history advises me to do so, for all the examples which Joe so ably cited in his earlier posts.

-- And, I don't want the Church to become merely another portion of the "base" of the Republican party. But, especially in the last 8 years, the Church leadership has become too closely affiliated with the Republican Party.

-- So, all of that means I have to make up my own mind when I decide who to vote for.

However . . .

-- Neither U.S. political party completely supports a pro-life position. The Republican Party seems to care only about the pre-born and the infirm. The Democratic Party seems to only care about people who are already born and not yet infirm.

-- Neither party stands up for a consistent ethic of life, as taught by the late Cardinal Bernadin: that human life is like a seamless garment [en.wikipedia.org] that is sacred from conception till natural death.

-- Therefore, in each election, I have to decide which party is going to harm life least and respect life more.

And that is why each party has to be persuasive in every election.

-- John

Dear Administrator John,

I appreciate the points which you are making, and I would like to respond.


That began to change with the election of Bob Casey as a U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania. He is pro-life, and he is a Democrat. He defeated the pro-life Republican Rick Santorum in 2006.

The root of that change was the defeat of the Democrats in the national elections of 2004. The Democrats felt that they *deserved* to win then, because (they believed) they had a better overall view of life and running the country. They believed that their victory should be automatic. And so, they were shocked when they lost. They were stunned and outraged and they couldn't understand. They lost because social conservatives voted against them. It was enough to provide a razor-thin margin of victory in Ohio and thus the entire U.S. election.

(I know because I was one of those social conservatives here in Ohio who held my nose and voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 elections, which gave him his second term as president. It's a decision I still question and often rue. Also, I have friends who are lifelong Democrats, and I observed their reactions to the 2004 elections, which I just reported.)

And so, after enough time to lick their wounds, some of the Democrats decided to get practical. They dispassionately analyzed why they lost -- in order to learn how to win.

Their response succeeded. They came up with a charismatic candidate and an approach which emphasized bridging divides and building unity by appealing to the needs of ordinary voters from diverse backgrounds. That strategy worked for Ronald Reagan and the Republicans in 1980 and 1984, and it worked for Barack Obama and the Democrats in 2008.

Now the tables are turned. In 2008, it was the Republicans who lost. Now, it is the Republican supporters who are shocked and outraged with people like me because we did not vote for their side.

I already listed my reasons for voting for Obama and the Democrats in an earlier post.

But underneath it all, it was the same reason why I and others voted against the Democrats in 2004. The Republicans felt they *deserved* to win. They believed that because (they believed) they had an inherently better view of life and how to run the country. They believed that their victory should be automatic. And they paid for that assumption with defeat.

All of that leads me to your next point, namely:



You must ask yourself the question: Do you want to win? Politics is about winning. And winning in a democracy is about being persuasive. And so, if you want to be persuasive and to win, here are some ideas:

-- Consider curbing your anger. I know that you and your side feel passionately about your convictions. I know you feel outraged that you lost. But your anger isn't appealing to the people you need to persuade. It has the opposite effect.

--Hence, consider changing your language. Look at the language that you are using. It might reflect what you truly believe, and it might be appealing to people who think likewise. But, it is not appealing or persuasive to people who do not share your views. For example, you said "I think the issue here before us who are truly dedicated to life is how to speak to the people who have bought into the pro-abortion rhetoric?" That statement implies that those who disagree with you don't support life -- and that is not very persuasive, in fact it is downright offensive, to those whom you must persuade. You also wrote that those who disagree with you "bought into the pro-abortion rhetoric." That is also not persuasive. I and any others like me voted for Obama and the Democrats *despite* their pro-abortion stance, not for it. Likewise, consider the language of this statement: "all of the compassion comes from the pro-life side." This again is not very appealing to the very people whom you need to persuade. Etc. Do you want to vent your outrage? Or do you want to win? If you want to win, you can't refer to the people you need to persuade in terms that will offend them. Instead, you need to find common ground with them and show that in your language.

-- Finally, consider doing a more complete job of communicating the pro-life message. I refer again to the consistent life ethic, as taught by Cardinal Bernadin. It holds that human life is a seamless garment [en.wikipedia.org] from conception till natural death and, therefore, it must be respected and served in all its stages of life. From such a position, your side could issue a compelling critique of both parties' leadership. You could thereby make a compelling case for being completely pro-life: not solely for fetuses or for the already born, but for everyone.

In brief: Do you want to win? Then consider finding common ground and diplomatic language with those whom you need to persuade, for the goal of being fully pro-life: from conception till natural death.

Respectfully yours,

-- John

John,

I guess that no one would find them appealing but why must they be persuasive to you if you are already persuaded as you claim?

CDL

There is no other term for it. We cannot sugar coat the truth. There is no such thing as "pro-choice". The murdered child does not have a choice. It is pro-death, pro-abortion, and genocide. Sorry if this makes you squirm.

And as John has indicated, you are hiding behind empty rhetoric to justify voting for a pro-death candidate.
If you supported the rights of the unborn, you would not vote for those who support abortion. It is as simple as that. The truth hurts.

No. You did not vote for the side who is being eliminated through genocide.
..And the holy innocent martyrs cry out for justice.
Nobody is angry. We are disappointed that there are Catholics and Orthodox who support pro-death candidates.
Murder is murder. There is no way to soften the impact.

Lord have mercy. John is correct. You, and others like you, truly bought into the empty rhetoric. Do you hear what you are saying? You voted for this man despite his pro-abortion stance? I do not believe there is any rhetoric that can change your way of thinking (and others like you).
Accusing people of anger and outrage is not helping to justify your reasons for voting for Obama.
The photos and visuals (that you cannot bear to watch) are very effective communication. You may think that it turns off the pro-death side. But it rests in the conscience and slowly works toward metanoia.

How wonderful it would be if there were no wars, no euthanasia, no death penalty etc. But 50 million have been murdered in the womb since Roe v Wade. Let us stop the genocide. Vote pro-life!

Here are the facts:

Obama is pro-abortion.

Obama supported letting survivors of failed abortions to die.

Obama is an avid supporter of planned-parenthood and other pro-death venues.

One of Obama's first acts was to sign the executive order to once again begin funding abortions overseas with our tax dollars.

He has vowed to sign FOCA. If he does, the Catholic bishops have vowed to shut down all Catholic hospitals.

If given the chance, Obama will appoint liberal pro-abortion supreme court justices to the supreme court who will continue the genocide for generations.

A new war has begun.

Anyone who is truly pro-life, cannot justify voting for this man. May God forgive everyone who supported him.

Alice, well said!


Joe

Ryan,

Well said!

Joe

"He has vowed to sign FOCA. If he does, the Catholic bishops have vowed to shut down all Catholic hospitals."

We had a good experience with labor and delivery at St. Cathrine's in Houston, it will be a shame to shut it down. But if no exemption is made and they are be forced to perform voluntary abortions then I could understand the closure. We'd have to track down her Ob/Gyn for our next child.

Clearly, this conversation is a waste of time. I'm sorry I contributed to it in the first place and I ask everyone here to help me in upholding a new resolution not to discuss politics on this forum. God bless you all.

Joe