The Liberal Case Against Abortion, Pro-Life Liberals

[chloe]

I came across this interesting blog written by a liberal guy and was so surprized to see a liberal against abortion and supporting the life of a baby.


In an article appearing in the September 1980 issue of The Progressive entitled, “Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life,” Mary Meehan wrote:

“If much of the leadership of the pro-life movement is right-wing, that is due largely to the default of the Left. We little people who marched against the war and now march against abortion would like to see leaders of the Left speaking out on behalf of the unborn. But we see only a few, such as Dick Gregory, Mark Hatfield, Richard Neuhaus, Mary Rose Oakar. Most of the others either avoid the issue or support abortion.

“We are dismayed by their inconsistency. And we are not impressed by arguments that we should work and vote for them because they are good on such issues as food stamps and medical care...

“It is out of character for the Left to neglect the weak and the helpless. The traditional mark of the Left has been its protection of the underdog, the weak, and the poor. The unborn child is the most helpless form of humanity, even more in need of protection than the poor tenant farmer or the mental patient or the boat people on the high seas. The basic instinct of the Left is to aid those who cannot aid themselves—and that instinct is absolutely sound. It is what keeps the human proposition going.”

Meehan stated elsewhere that:

“Writer and activist Jay Sykes, who led Eugene McCarthy’s 1968 antiwar campaign in Wisconsin and later served as head of the state’s American Civil Liberties Union, wrote a ‘Farewell to Liberalism’ several years ago. Sykes cited several areas of disagreement and disillusionment, then added, ‘It is on the abortion issue that the moral bankruptcy of contemporary liberalism is most clearly exposed.’ He said that liberals’ arguments in support of abortion ‘could, without much refinement, be used to justify the legalization of infanticide.’”

In her article, “Abortion and the Left” which originally appeared in Religious Socialism (Spring, 1981), Juli Loesch, founder of Pro-Lifers for Survival (an anti-nuclear group) described the response to Mary Meehan’s article in The Progressive:

“The Left...is profoundly divided on abortion...in October 1980, Pax Christi USA, a Catholic peace organization that includes feminists and socialists, approved an anti-abortion resolution at its national assembly by virtually unanimous vote.

“Weeks later, Sojourners, a Christian peace/justice magazine, featured Daniel Berrigan, Shelley Douglass, Jesse Jackson and others arguing for opposition to abortion integrated with a more radical commitment to non-violent feminism and human dignity.

“Possibly abortion never was a Left/Right issue,” concluded Loesch. “Soon after the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision one of the most progressive Senate Democrats, Harold Hughes, joined one of the most progressive Republicans, Mark Hatfield, in co-sponsoring a Human Life Amendment (H.L.A.). Both were opponents of the Vietnam War. Both opposed abortion because of, not despite, their other political views...Michael Harrington once called pro-life one of the only true grassroots movements to emerge from the ‘70s.”

“I have always thought it peculiar how the liberal and conservative philosophies have lined up on the abortion issue,” observed Rosemary Bottcher in her article “How Do Pro-Choicers ‘Fool’ Themselves?” which originally appeared in the Tallahassee Democrat.

“It seemed to me that liberals traditionally have cared about others and about human rights, while conservatives have cared about themselves and property rights. Therefore, one would expect liberals to be defending the unborn and conservatives to be encouraging their destruction.”

Rosemary Bottcher criticized the American Left for its failure to take a stand against abortion:

“The same people who wax hysterical at the thought of executing, after countless appeals, a criminal convicted of some revolting crime would have insisted on his mother’s unconditional right to have him killed while he was still innocent.

“The same people who organized a boycott of the Nestle Company for its marketing of infant formula in underdeveloped lands would have approved of the killing of those exploited infants only a few months before.

“The same people who talk incessantly of human rights are willing to deny the most helpless and vulnerable of all human beings the most important right of all.“Apparently these people do not understand the difference between contraception and abortion,” concluded Bottcher. “Their arguments defending abortion would be perfectly reasonable if they were talking about contraception. When they insist upon ‘reproductive freedom’ and ‘motherhood by choice’ they forget that ‘pregnant’ means ‘being with child.’ A pregnant woman has already reproduced; she is already a mother.”

“...The mark of a humane and progressive society is an ever more expansive definition of the community for which we accept responsibility...The pro-life movement is one with the movement for the emancipation of slaves. This is the continuation of the civil rights movement, for you are the champions of the most elementary civil, indeed human right—simply the right to be.


“Have you heard the new pro-choice strategy?” he asked in the spring of 1989 after a huge abortion rally in Washington, D.C. “Now they’re all saying nobody wants abortion, but that it’s important to keep the option open.” (He sh his head) “That’s like a general who says he doesn’t like war, but wants to keep it as an option, just in case. You don’t find peace through war, and you don’t enhance life through killing babies.”

http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/pub-thelib.html

[-Cp]

It figures that none of the libs on this board will comment on this article cause they just got owned by one of their own!

Nice find!

[HogTrash]

The blogger, who is anti-abortion and believes he is a "liberal", is clueless as to the meaning of "liberal" and "progressive".

He is simply a "democrat" because he believes that party to be the caring compassionate wing of American politics.

This is common among the young and politicly inexperieced...They are programmed in the public schools and universities.

True liberals/progressives have a deep hatred for America, capitalism and Christianity...They will always side with any enemy against America.

They will promote any and all socialist programs, and never admit that their ultimate goal for America is marxism, the destroyer of prosperity and freedom.

[gabosaurus]

"Owned"? By someone who has a diverse opinion? I don't think so.
Life begins at birth. Deal with it.

[emmett]

"Owned"? By someone who has a diverse opinion? I don't think so.
Life begins at birth. Deal with it.


Oh my precious little left handed angel.....life begins most certainly at conception. Seen a sonagram lately!

In addition....

Ask a friend who is several months pregnat one day when life begins. Even if she is politically left of Barack Obaha I can tell you what her answer will be. Hopefully if she attempts to tell a fib, the baby will exercise a little cervical karate to remind her.

[sgtdmski]

As someone in the medical field, I want to now why a Four dimension ultrasound is considered a weapon???? Please someone who is liberal answer!!!!!

dmk

[Kathianne]

As someone in the medical field, I want to now why a Four dimension ultrasound is considered a weapon???? Please someone who is liberal answer!!!!!

dmk

http://www.pregnancy.org/fetaldevelopment

The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago has an amazing exhibit (http://www.msichicago.org/whats-here/exhibits/you/the-exhibit/your-beginning) right now on fetal development. They don't state how they came by their 'items' but it's truly eye opening for those that say 'life begins at birth.'

[sgtdmski]

But this does not explain to me why it is a weapon, which is exactly what Planned Parenthood and NARAL have called it.

How does better medical technology become a weapon?????

If it makes someone to decide not to have an abortion, how in the world can that be a weapon. Do we not want our citizens to be well informed in the actions that they take.

dmk

[Kathianne]

But this does not explain to me why it is a weapon, which is exactly what Planned Parenthood and NARAL have called it.

How does better medical technology become a weapon?????

If it makes someone to decide not to have an abortion, how in the world can that be a weapon. Do we not want our citizens to be well informed in the actions that they take.

dmk

One would hope so. On the other hand, I've no doubt that the board at the museum wouldn't have that idea in mind. Sometimes I think reality smacks folks up on the side of the head.

[chloe]

It figures that none of the libs on this board will comment on this article cause they just got owned by one of their own!

Nice find!

I didn't think there was a liberal who did not support abortion, thats why I shared the blog find. I was quite surprized.

[Kathianne]

I didn't think there was a liberal who did not support abortion, thats why I shared the blog find. I was quite surprized.

I think there are many 'liberal' Catholics that are against abortion. On the other hand, here's another argument against abortion, without religion:

http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/Vasu-Murti/The-Liberal-Case-Against-Abortion/0977223434.html


The Liberal Case Against Abortion Book Description
Activist Murti, a card-carrying member of the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), presents a formidable case against abortion, using reasoning and arguments based upon liberal philosophy.

"Murti attempts to explore, without religion, one of the most contentious issues of our day: the question of abortion. For as much as the atomic bomb forever altered questions about war and peace, so has abortion forever altered the meaning of human life and our responsibility to it. By creatively and passionately using the universal question of the rights of animals, Murti analyzes the rights of the unborn. The power of his persuasion is not based on one or more bodies of religious thought, but on sentient beings' natural tendency to protect one another." - From the Forword by Carol Crossed, President, Democrats for Life of America Activist Vasu Murti, a card-carrying member of the People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), presents a formidable case against abortion, using reasoning and arguments based upon liberal philosophy.

[-Cp]

Life begins at birth. Deal with it.

Tell that to Scott Peterson who was charged and convicted of double murder for the killing of his wife and their unborn baby..

[chloe]

I think there are many 'liberal' Catholics that are against abortion. On the other hand, here's another argument against abortion, without religion:

http://www.infibeam.com/Books/info/Vasu-Murti/The-Liberal-Case-Against-Abortion/0977223434.html

very interesting, I do wonder if peta people are against abortion too, because how can they support abortion if they dont believe in killing animals>? Great Point Kathianne !!!

[Pericles]

very interesting, I do wonder if peta people are against abortion too, because how can they support abortion if they dont believe in killing animals>? Great Point Kathianne !!!

The "right to life," and "human" rights, once you really start thinking them through, are a good deal more complex than most people imagine. It's one thing to have a certain set of moral intuitions about these matters; it's another to be able to give a comprehensive rational defense of these intuitions.

The philosopher Peter Singer, for example, has elaborated a theory of rights that would extend "human rights" to certain non-human animals, but deny them to unborn humans.

There is a reason why most folks who oppose abortion do so, on religious grounds; because if you don't presume that a God exists who has awarded a certain class of creatures - and only those creatures - "rights," then defining 'rights,' and inter alia defining the class of beings that enjoy them, is a very complicated affair. Complicated in ways that make it more difficult for people to assert that the zygote's rights trump those of the mother.

That said, I will add this: if the Liberals ever were serious about obtaining an insuperable electoral majority, they should come out in favor of serious restrictions on abortion. For it certainly can be argued that the anti-abortion position is more consistent with the liberal belief in the protection of society's weak and vulnerable...

A Democrat party that embraced strict restrictions on abortion would not lose liberal support - because those folks have nowhere to go. But they would make substantial gains amongst Catholics, whose drift into the Republican party in recent decades have made them a vital part of the Republican coalition.

So be careful what you wish for, if you're a conservative calling out the Liberals for inconsistency on the matter of abortion! You might end up with more social programs - like state support for mothers who don't qualify for abortion! (Hah - then we'd see if the Cons are happy to put their money where their mouth is)!

[chloe]

The "right to life," and "human" rights, once you really start thinking them through, are a good deal more complex than most people imagine. It's one thing to have a certain set of moral intuitions about these matters; it's another to be able to give a comprehensive rational defense of these intuitions.

The philosopher Peter Singer, for example, has elaborated a theory of rights that would extend "human rights" to certain non-human animals, but deny them to unborn humans.

There is a reason why most folks who oppose abortion do so, on religious grounds; because if you don't presume that a God exists who has awarded a certain class of creatures - and only those creatures - "rights," then defining 'rights,' and inter alia defining the class of beings that enjoy them, is a very complicated affair. Complicated in ways that make it more difficult for people to assert that the zygote's rights trump those of the mother.

That said, I will add this: if the Liberals ever were serious about obtaining an insuperable electoral majority, they should come out in favor of serious restrictions on abortion. For it certainly can be argued that the anti-abortion position is more consistent with the liberal belief in the protection of soceity's weak and vulnerable...

A Democrat party that embraced strict restrictions on abortion would not lose liberal support - because those folks have nowhere to go. But they would make substantial gains amongst Catholics, whose drift into the Republican party in recent decades have made them a vital part of the Republican coalition.

So be careful what you wish for, if you're a conservative calling out the Liberals for inconsistency on the matter of abortion! You might end up with more social programs - like state support for mothers who don't qualify for abortion! (Hah - then we'd see if the Cons are happy to put their money where their mouth is)!

who is peter singer? Is he a politician in another country that passed a legislation to save animals and not a baby? Or a member of peta? I get why religious people are against abortion, I have recently been surprized to find out that other people like me who arent a member of a religion are still against abortion. I honestly never met someone who was against it that wasnt religious, but it seems like it woujld make sense a vegan would also be against abortion. Are you a vegan?

[Pericles]

who is peter singer?

He's a philosopher.


Is he a politician in another country that passed a legislation to save animals and not a baby?

No...


Or a member of peta?

He might be; I don't know.


I get why religious people are against abortion, I have recently been surprized to find out that other people like me who arent a member of a religion are still against abortion. I honestly never met someone who was against it that wasnt religious, but it seems like it woujld make sense a vegan would also be against abortion. Are you a vegan?

I'm not a vegan. Maybe I should be, though. I think you'll find that the people who are most honest in their opposition to abortion, oppose it on secular humanist grounds. Being against abortion just because you were told to be against it, is no reason at all. But if you have a good reason to be against it, you don't have to be told by anybody to be against it. Too many religious folks confuse God's orders with an actual reason. The big mistake of this can be seen in the story of Abraham and Isaac - where Abraham is commanded to do something obviously evil, and does it anyway, because that's what he was told to do...

[HogTrash]

"Owned"? By someone who has a diverse opinion? I don't think so.
Life begins at birth. Deal with it.Such a cold hearted attitude for a mother to have.

What happened to the loving caring compassionate women?

What happened to the sanctimonious motherhood of the fairer sex?

The ultimate protectors of the young and innocent helpless babes?

[chloe]

He's a philosopher.



No...



He might be; I don't know.



I'm not a vegan. Maybe I should be, though. I think you'll find that the people who are most honest in their opposition to abortion, oppose it on secular humanist grounds. Being against abortion just because you were told to be against it, is no reason at all. But if you have a good reason to be against it, you don't have to be told by anybody to be against it. Too many religious folks confuse God's orders with an actual reason. The big mistake of this can be seen in the story of Abraham and Isaac - where Abraham is commanded to do something obviously evil, and does it anyway, because that's what he was told to do...

Is something wrong if someone is against something on a secular humanist ground as you phrased it? I am against abortion because the moment I conceived I could feel the connection with my baby it was life changing for me truly ! I realize that there are circumstances in which some women are not in a position to take care of a baby, but there are so many couples that can't concieve it seems like giving the baby up for adoption is a viable option. But I do find it curious that peta or hardcore vegans still would support abortion, that seems weird to me. So what label do you have for that group of people?

[Kathianne]

The "right to life," and "human" rights, once you really start thinking them through, are a good deal more complex than most people imagine. It's one thing to have a certain set of moral intuitions about these matters; it's another to be able to give a comprehensive rational defense of these intuitions.

The philosopher Peter Singer, for example, has elaborated a theory of rights that would extend "human rights" to certain non-human animals, but deny them to unborn humans.

There is a reason why most folks who oppose abortion do so, on religious grounds; because if you don't presume that a God exists who has awarded a certain class of creatures - and only those creatures - "rights," then defining 'rights,' and inter alia defining the class of beings that enjoy them, is a very complicated affair. Complicated in ways that make it more difficult for people to assert that the zygote's rights trump those of the mother.

That said, I will add this: if the Liberals ever were serious about obtaining an insuperable electoral majority, they should come out in favor of serious restrictions on abortion. For it certainly can be argued that the anti-abortion position is more consistent with the liberal belief in the protection of society's weak and vulnerable...

A Democrat party that embraced strict restrictions on abortion would not lose liberal support - because those folks have nowhere to go. But they would make substantial gains amongst Catholics, whose drift into the Republican party in recent decades have made them a vital part of the Republican coalition.

So be careful what you wish for, if you're a conservative calling out the Liberals for inconsistency on the matter of abortion! You might end up with more social programs - like state support for mothers who don't qualify for abortion! (Hah - then we'd see if the Cons are happy to put their money where their mouth is)!

Just want to say, you are sounding very 'Catholic' here. Most Catholics aren't here, I'm not, though agree with abortion, but not all social programs. Others disagree regarding abortion, but are also way on board for every social program.

Damn, the Catholic vote is tough!

[Pericles]

Is something wrong if someone is against something on a secular humanist ground as you phrased it?

Oh no, Chloe - I'm saying that being against abortion on secular humanist grounds, is the best way of approach, for the anti-abortion position.


I am against abortion because the moment I conceived I could feel the connection with my baby it was life changing for me truly ! I realize that there are circumstances in which some women are not in a position to take care of a baby, but there are so many couples that can't concieve it seems like giving the baby up for adoption is a viable option.

Now, I wouldn't call your own beliefs, beliefs that are grounded in secular humanist considerations. Your opposition to abortion stems from your own personal testimony to what you felt when you became pregnant, and what you believe about it now; these are considerations which are compelling for you; but they're not arguments, exactly, that could show other mothers who don't have the experience you've had, why they shouldn't have an abortion... see what I mean?

That said, I think that it is important for you to be outspoken against abortion if that's the way you feel, and to share with others your personal reasons for being against abortion; sometimes, your personal testimony can change other's hearts, even if their minds want to close the door... just be ready to constantly hear from people, "that's just your opinion!"

It ceases to be just your opinion, if you have some arguments. Arguments like, "Biology has established that a human being comes into existence at conception" etc.

But even if you're not interested in arguing, even if others simply dismiss your viewpoint with "that's just your opinion" - let me suggest that, on some level, people are still listening to you; your voice, added to the chorus of others, may over time lead those who don't want to bother with you, to have changed hearts, and to think again.


But I do find it curious that peta or hardcore vegans still would support abortion, that seems weird to me. So what label do you have for that group of people?

This is a very good point. Why can the same people who are such ardent animal rights activists, believe it's o.k. to destroy nascent human life?

The answer is somewhat complicated. The short version is that the peta folks aren't saying that no animals should be killed; animals are hunted by other animals in nature all the time, and peta doesn't have a problem with that. Humans, however, have a moral imagination about the suffering of others, that no other animal has - and that gives us a special responsibility not to kill, if we can avoid it. And in the modern world, we can pretty easily avoid killing animals for our food.

We make no special sacrifice, if we refrain from deliberately killing animals. But we make a huge sacrifice, if we become parents when we do not desire to. Abortion-rights peta types will say that we don't kill fetuses for a trivial reason, like wanting something tasty for dinner. Fetuses are destroyed, because to be absolutely constrained from doing so, means that for the people responsible for them - people who are always female! - their whole lives would be radically changed. Think about how you spoke of "everything changing" for you when you became pregnant. Now, imagine that "everything changing" feeling as a dark and sad one, the exact opposite of what you felt. That's what many pro-abortion types imagine an unwanted pregnancy is like; and they want a legal escape route if it happens to them.

Adoption would seem an obvious solution, but there are three evident problems with it: 1) the financial costs and social stigma of an unwanted pregnancy 2) the fact that pregnancy exposes all mothers to real, physical - including life threatening - risks 3) the psychological distress of parting permanently with their baby - even when the mother does not feel herself competent to raise it. For all these reasons, women would rather abort than carry a child to term for adoption, especially since, as many peta-types would argue, abortion at an early stage of pregnancy causes the fetus no pain, in contrast to the immense pain and fear visited upon the livestock we raise for food...

[chloe]

Oh no, Chloe - I'm saying that being against abortion on secular humanist grounds, is the best way of approach, for the anti-abortion position.



Now, I wouldn't call your own beliefs, beliefs that are grounded in secular humanist considerations. Your opposition to abortion stems from your own personal testimony to what you felt when you became pregnant, and what you believe about it now; these are considerations which are compelling for you; but they're not arguments, exactly, that could show other mothers who don't have the experience you've had, why they shouldn't have an abortion... see what I mean?

That said, I think that it is important for you to be outspoken against abortion if that's the way you feel, and to share with others your personal reasons for being against abortion; sometimes, your personal testimony can change other's hearts, even if their minds want to close the door... just be ready to constantly hear from people, "that's just your opinion!"

It ceases to be just your opinion, if you have some arguments. Arguments like, "Biology has established that a human being comes into existence at conception" etc.

But even if you're not interested in arguing, even if others simply dismiss your viewpoint with "that's just your opinion" - let me suggest that, on some level, people are still listening to you; your voice, added to the chorus of others, may over time lead those who don't want to bother with you, to have changed hearts, and to think again.



This is a very good point. Why can the same people who are such ardent animal rights activists, believe it's o.k. to destroy nascent human life?

The answer is somewhat complicated. The short version is that the peta folks aren't saying that no animals should be killed; animals are hunted by other animals in nature all the time, and peta doesn't have a problem with that. Humans, however, have a moral imagination about the suffering of others, that no other animal has - and that gives us a special responsibility not to kill, if we can avoid it. And in the modern world, we can pretty easily avoid killing animals for our food.

We make no special sacrifice, if we refrain from deliberately killing animals. But we make a huge sacrifice, if we become parents when we do not desire to. Abortion-rights peta types will say that we don't kill fetuses for a trivial reason, like wanting something tasty for dinner. Fetuses are destroyed, because to be absolutely constrained from doing so, means that for the people responsible for them - people who are always female! - their whole lives would be radically changed. Think about how you spoke of "everything changing" for you when you became pregnant. Now, imagine that "everything changing" feeling as a dark and sad one, the exact opposite of what you felt. That's what many pro-abortion types imagine an unwanted pregnancy is like; and they want a legal escape route if it happens to them.

Adoption would seem an obvious solution, but there are three evident problems with it: 1) the financial costs and social stigma of an unwanted pregnancy 2) the fact that pregnancy exposes all mothers to real, physical - including life threatening - risks 3) the psychological distress of parting permanently with their baby - even when the mother does not feel herself competent to raise it. For all these reasons, women would rather abort than carry a child to term for adoption, especially since, as many peta-types would argue, abortion at an early stage of pregnancy causes the fetus no pain, in contrast to the immense pain and fear visited upon the livestock we raise for food...

Yeah I think all I can give is my opinions since Im not a doctor, but since I am a woman I think my opinion would be ok. I hear what you are saying about biology, but when people say that, it always makes me what things like ok so from a biology point of view if a woman was pregnant and she did nothing about it, what are the chances 9 months later she has a baby? Right? I mean so just like peta and vegans thinking humans have a obligation to not kill animals, then wouldn't they have a same obligation to kill a baby? Also I mean vegans don't even egg chicken eggs so even if they dont see the unborn child as a baby, why wouldnt they treat the human egg that got hit by the mans sperm as just ass important as a chickens egg? I don't understand that. In the adoption part, fearing a social stigma doesn't seem like a good enough reason to have an abortion, especially in todays world. If you fear a social stigma dont have sex. Most pregnancies are not high risk. The distress of parting with the baby is because naturally women are sensitive and caring and nurturing as they should be and abortion is very unnatural for women to embrace in my opinion. What has happened is then later they feel really bad over it sometimes never getting over it because there is avery real connection to your baby in the womb and as much as you try to not feel it, life is there. If that was not true then if you did nothing no life would result, but life does resdult even through biology and so you would have to choose to terminate it.

[chloe]

sorry about the typos I tried to edit it but I had to leave my computer and when I came back I had been logged out for being idle too long. I probably shouldn't even be posting or reading these boards anyway. Here were the main things if a vegan feels humans have an obligation to know better and not kill animals or eat eggs, then it seems like they would human eggs the saime way. Adoption is hard for women because there is a bond with your baby....period. Some women make a choice that would give there baby a better life. If Abortion scientifically is not ending a life then when people say they support pro=choice except when someone's using it as birth control, why would that even matter? If it is not ending a life then it shouldnt be wonrg to use it as birth control. So those kind of attitudes make me wonder how one thing is ok but another isn't.