March for life 2007
Mentioned in news reports, but not as much as earlier years, was the annual march on Washington by those opposed to the taking of a life through abortion. News reports this year tended to follow a storyline about how much more relaxed those who support the taking of lives through abortion are this year with democrats holding a majority. They have no fear this right will be taken from them as much as they did other years, that's the news theme anyhow.
But, Barbara Curtis was there yesterday and took many pictures which she put on her site as a slide show. As she titled her post, "March for Life 2007-see it for yourself!". Young people and middle age people and people representing all religions as well as people of no religious stripe, out on the Mall. Great photos, I was especially glad to see the young people looking like young people anywhere especially after the snide throw away line by Wonkette this morning.
Barbara Curtis writes: "As a former radical leftist, I attended many demonstrations in Washington, DC. Now having attended the March for Life two years in a row, I'm amazed at how under-reported the March for Life is - and all too aware of how that under-reporting contributes to the rampant stereotyping of pro-lifers as middle-aged white males. I actually saw very few of those today! What I saw were hundreds of thousands of people willing to brave the cold (DC had its first snow of the winter the night before) to affirm that a baby in the womb is not property to be destroyed, but a person that those committed to human rights must defend. It's a child, not a choice!"
Thanks to Kim at Wizbang for this link
i could never understand how the liberal/progessive democrats could advocate abortion. every effort should be made to point out the emotional and physical problems associated with abortions. watch for hillary to try to take a position in the center by favoring the right of women to chose to abort, while advocating abortion should be reduced. of course, he voting record will be in line with the liberals/progressive on the issue.
Posted by: ron | January 23, 2007 at 04:33 PM
I'm sure Hillary will be right where Bill was. His quote is the best I'd heard to discribe how many of us Pro-Choice Americans feel: "Abortion should be legal and rare."
Now, can any of you who oppose abortion yet support the death penalty explain to me how that works? Why don't you hold the death penalty with as much contempt as you do abortion? Particularly with so many convictions now being overturned, TWELVE of which occurred in one Texas county alone.
Posted by: rand | January 23, 2007 at 05:52 PM
Rand, turn your question around, How can you oppose the death penalty yet support abortion?
To answer your question, you assume everyone who opposes abortion is in favor of the death penalty. This is one of those myths that keep popping up by those who want to believe that pro life people are hypocrites. The truth is that group is pretty well divided on the death penalty.
There is also a difference between advocating the death penalty, supporting it whole-heartedly, promoting it, and accepting the death penalty as "the sword" of government in a society.
Posted by: diane | January 23, 2007 at 06:34 PM
First, I do not assume everyone who is pro-choice is pro death penalty - I prefaced my comment with "any of you who oppose abortion yet support death penalty." I'm not assuming anyone's position on this blog one way or another and apologize if my post read that way.
For me there is a difference and you can't just turn the question around. There is a gray area (for me) as to whether a fetus is a separate entity. I will never be in a position to have make that decision and would never counsel someone in either direction; but within friends and family I would support them whatever decision they would make.
I hate that 'choice' is such a 'lithmus test' for Democrats; it's such a personal issue that I do think we should be more inclusive. Locally I've seen pro-life Democratic office-holders all but run out of the party and I don't like that.
I personally never defined my feelings until the early nineties when a San Diego State Senator explained her position. A longtime legislator and devout Catholic, in a very tight race for election the local bishop decided to make an example of her and refused her communion. It backfired as she ended up on all the national morning news shows and the Bishop was seen as overstepping his boundary. A matronly grandmother approaching 70 years old she made quite a simpathic figure. I sent you a more recent article about her. What was a close race became a blow-out.
Her explanation was that tho personally against her religion, and personally something she would not subscribe to or recommend; she felt that it wasn't her position to impose her personal beliefs and religion on other women. And that's where I stand. It truly is a separation of church and state issue for me. She says she abhors abortion - I can't say I abhor it - but I don't celebrate it either.
And back to the death penalty; I would still like to hear from someone who is pro-life and pro-death penalty explain why that isn't contrary.
Posted by: Rand | January 23, 2007 at 10:30 PM
one big difference is i have never heard of an unborn child raping and murdering someone. also, in some jurisdictions, if a pregnant woman is killed along with the fetus it is double homicide. according to you, how could that be.
the death penalty is punishment. whether you consider it cruel and unusual is subject to discussion. what one person considers cruel and unusual another may not. about 75% of the america people do not. i ask you rand, if someone very close to you, a child, was raped and brutually murdered would you want that person in prison for life or put to death. if you chose the prison term, just remember, there is always some liberal/progressive judge who may let them out in the future.
you comment about separation of church and state is ridiculous. there is NOTHING in the constitution stating separation of church and state. it was made up by the secular liberal/progressives to pursue their own agenda. please find the passage in the constitution that specifically states separation of church and state.
Posted by: ron | January 24, 2007 at 08:58 AM
I don't believe I brought up the Constitution; I was talking about my beliefs. I believe there should be a very clear separation of church and state - the concept goes back to Thomas Jefferson. It wasn't 'made up' by secular liberals. Check it out.
If someone close to me was raped or murdered I would NOT testify at the sentencing hearing in favor of death - no way do I want to lower myself to what the perpetrator is. I'm better than him/her.
There are ways to ensure life without parole, tens of thousands of convicts are serving that sentence now and no judge has set them free.
And I'm tired of hearing about how a majority thinks sanctioning murder is OK. The majority is not always right. There was a time when the majority thought owning slaves was OK; and that women shouldn't vote. We grew beyond those years. The death penalty is just wrong.
And if you are so given to accept the majority, then look at the majority when it comes to abortion. The majority in this nation think abortion should be legal. (SurveyUSA, SEP 2005 56% of US pro-choice).
Posted by: Rand | January 24, 2007 at 09:43 AM
On your comment about the state senator not receiving communion because of her stand on abortion. When a person is a member of a church or church body, it is assumed they confess what the church confesses. The Catholic church is very clear about stating abortion is a grievous sin and the consequences for members who publically support it.
The priest in question appears to have broached this matter with her privately, through a letter. He did not, as with the Kerry case in 04, make a public issue of it. So, did the senator release the priest's letter telling her she must absent herself from the sacraments?
I have no problem with a bishop, priest or pastor refusing communion to someone based on public actions or statements as long as that refusal is done privately. That is one of the clergy's jobs and one that non church people do not understand. The clergy must look out for the spiritual well being and the eternal well being of each person in their care.
It is not the nature of churches, or never used to be, to be a smorgasboard of doctrine from which members could pick and choose. It seems to me the senator in question knew well her churches stand and should not have been surprised. And, the partaking of the sacrament is a holy business, and an action which assumes an adherence by the receiver to the beliefs of the church.
In no way should clergy make a public issue out it its discipline, however.
Posted by: diane | January 24, 2007 at 10:46 AM
I didn't say the Catholic Church was wrong. I said the ploy backfired and that I took her position as my own.
I totally agree that churches are private organizations and be it women priests, gay issues, abortion, or any other issue they can do what they want with regards to their members. Absolutely.
If, as a member of any particular denomination, I disagree with the church I can choose to leave or choose to work for change from within.
But, because they are given tax exempt status their political activities should be limited. I don't have a problem with what the bishop did, (except for trying to use the issue to political advantage) and if Lucy (the State Senator) had a problem with it she can react accordingly. I don't believe that in 1989 the Vatican had been so vocal about Catholic politicians who supported choice. So this bishop, I think, was acting a bit more independently than the Kerry situation.
I just searched a bit deeper and found that the bishop held a press conference and released a copy of his letter to the press. Lucy was not forewarned and learned of the bishop's action when confronted by press when leaving a meeting. And the letter was mailed to her legislative office, not her home.
Interestingly Lucy continued to attend church in Sacramento and receive communion there - different diocese. Seems to me the church should also strive for consistency. I don't know, but because she is retired and living here in San Diego, my guess she is now receiving communion here. But that's just a guess.
Posted by: rand | January 24, 2007 at 12:24 PM
I certainly agree with you that churches should be wary of using their pulpits as a political tool. That goes for all those inner city churches who allow people like Edwards and Kerry to speak/promote themselves/their platform, during their worship time.
If the California priest sent a copy of his letter to the paper, he should be disciplined.
Consistency! Now there's an interesting idea. So many church bodies have been divided in large part because so many pastors/priests/rabbis want to be seen as "good, nice guys" and preach society's message instead of the scriptural one. Sometimes those clergy who advocate for the traditional doctrines are called divisive.
Posted by: diane | January 24, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life said that if you add up the number of death penalties in the entire history of the US, including the Colonial Period, the numbers are fewer than the death toll of one week of abortions today.
Come see my slideshow of the March for Life 2007
Posted by: leticia | January 25, 2007 at 07:32 PM
An innocent, unborn fetus has not committed any crimes, let alone one serious enough to warrant the ultimate (capital) punishment.
A criminal who receives capital puishment, has, in the judgment of this country's judicial system, committed such a crime.
You cannot equate the two, Rand, or juxtapose them in some sort of liberal trap question. That is very illogical and you should know it does not make any sense.
The fact is, if there are problems in our legal system, then we should fix those problems, not flip flop (a la John Kerry) to the other side of the coin and abolish capital punishment. It has saved lives, relieved pain and strife, and no doubt deterred untold others from committing high crimes.
Obviously, the difference is that an unborn fetus is innocent.
How many next great leaders were killed because they were aborted in the womb? Boy, Rand, I sure wouldn't want you being so liberally timid and passive and doing nothing, NOTHING to save MY life if I was in the womb. Thanks a lot, pal.
Posted by: pat | January 28, 2007 at 07:07 PM
You know I am sick and tired of this stupid saying, started I believe by Kennedy (if not at least he would agree with it), that one cannot force their beliefs on another. The fact is that advertising is a continuous barrage of "forcing preformed oppinions upon others." Doctors force their medical oppinions upon their patients and you are trying to force an oppinion upon the rest of the community by posting here. If you don't want to force an issue, keep your mouth shut. Speaking of consistency in the Catholic Church, why not consistancy in the media as well? There was next to nothing in the news about the March for Life and yet, a couple of days later, when the anti-war march was going on, the news reports came thick and heavy. The death penalty is a punishment of an individual for extreme crimes, abortion is a punishment for what again? If you deny that the state can suspend one of the intrinsic human rights, the right to life, for an individual convicted of commiting a crime against society, how can one allow that the state can take away two of his other intrisic rights, the rights to liberty and the persuit of happiness. The ultimate liberal goal is anarchy because in final analysis they deny that a person can be made responsible for his actions and that there is any set moral code.
By their logic, if the majority think and vote that we can eat our neighbors, well by golly its OK. We have "matured" yes but we have not tried to go to the root of the racial problem and elliminate it. We all just want to get along right? Well maybe that is just not enough. There are other countries in the world (Brazil for example) that do not have racial problems because the people accept the rules set down by Our Lord. Love your neighbor! Do good to those who persecute you and forgive your brother 70x7 times. Forgiveness starts with the victim, not the perpetrator. Well I am finished venting for the present.
Posted by: Michael | February 05, 2007 at 01:43 AM