Craig (I had the pleasure of meeting Craig’s awesome wife Sarah in Denver - here’s their website) sent me this video as a suggestion for an interesting blog post. What do you think of it?
I hafta give it to those RC’s, they are one of the rare consistencies in politics. Pro-life across the board, from war, to abortion, to infanticide, to health care, to euthanasia, to housing, to capital punishment. They are tireless supporters of human life.
This is a clear result of believing in a God who created everything good and then created humans in His image to care for the ‘very good’ creation He breathed life into.
I don’t really like the rampant nationalism in the video (but that comes with the territory; ie a video seeking to shape the political process of a particular country), but setting that aside, as a Christian I don’t really see any other possible ‘political agenda’ than a consistent ethic of life.
What do I think? Everyone, regardless of religion, should vote with their conscience. That might mean supporting a woman’s right to choose or allowing for voluntary euthanasia. It might mean removing troops from other nations where they are targets for attack. It might mean strengthening the barrier between church and state (good for both sides) or removing prayer time in the education system. It might mean removing the 10 commandments from law courts or “In God we Trust” from currency. It might mean extending the right to marriage for all citizens regardless of sexuality. It might mean a concern that the planet cannot support a continually growing and aging population.
It might mean a thousand other things that are incompatible with Roman Catholicism. I resent having a church tell me what my values should be and, if I were eligible to vote in the US, I’d vote on my own values and not on anyone else’s.
Jason-
I agree, it really rubs me the wrong way when I’m told what I should value. I’m get even more agitated when I’m told how I should respond to those values. This video takes what could be a commonality between me and the video’s producers (at the core I think abortion and homosexuality are sin) and turns me into an enemy (because I am pro-choice and am OK with gay marriage). Why do we have to be so divisive?
no offense, thanks for your comment. Do you think it’s necessary to a consistent ethic of life to oppose gay marriage? Would accepting gay marriage be anti-life?
I suppose I’m pro-quality of life more than I’m pro-life. Meaning, I’m in favor of gay people being able to marry if they want to because that would increase their quality of life. And I think disallowing abortion could lower the quality of life so I am not in favor of banning it.
Appropriate wealth sharing and health care would improve the quality of life for many, but the video didn’t address those at all. Actually it should have addressed health care because that’s important to life as well as quality of life.
Thanks Jason - I fixed the link (sorry I didn’t catch that earlier, Craig)
Jason and Craig, I agree - I don’t appreciate being told what my values are supposed to be. And like you said, Craig, its all or nothing approach makes everyone who doesn’t agree 100% the enemy instead of affirming any degree of commonality and building on that.
From a production point of view I thought it was a well made video.
It was certainly well made. I do think that hte message is insidious though. At the first watching it seemed so reasonable. Of course we all want “life” for oursleves and others, why wouldn’t we? My second watching allowed me to see that the life they talk about is only on their particular terms which I don’t like. It isn’t even as if Catholics all agree on what those values are either.
Jason, isn’t the point of Church to teach people what their values ought to be?
I disagree with RC teaching on many points, which is why I am not a Catholic! I encourage you to call yourself a non-Catholic, it will free you up from being pinched when they tell their members what they ought to value.
;-)
Helen, I guess I didn’t really catch the ‘gay-marriage’ part. I could care less about it personally, just don’t expect me to call a club a spade.
I don’t know what to do with the ‘quality of life’ argument. (I have retyped this three times now to keep it from being inflammatory!) Isn’t that logic a little too prone to genocide?
I don’t know what to do with the ‘quality of life’ argument. (I have retyped this three times now to keep it from being inflammatory!) Isn’t that logic a little too prone to genocide?
Thanks for your efforts to avoid being too inflammatory.
I think genocide has more to do with how much power people have over other people. I don’t think arguments create people with too much power. I think it’s rather that people with too much power who are prone to abuse it twist arguments to suit their purposes.
Caring about the quality of the lives of other humans [who are already born] doesn’t necessarily give you the right to take away their life if you think the quality of it is too low.
I guess I misread what you meant by ‘quality of life.’ I thought you meant the quality of life for the rest of us. That seems like you would be asking all of the misfits and problematic individuals to ‘take one for the team,’ so to speak.
This is what is so horrifying to me about abortion. The majority of abortions are absolutely not done with any real thought given to the issue. They are scared women who just don’t want to deal with an inconvenient reality. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but this is the rule.
The fetus gets to take one for the team. “My quality of life would suffer if you are born, so you die.”
But Helen, your proposal is even more awkward. We are now going to judge the quality of life of another human being for them, and without their consent determine whether they are fit to live?
But Helen, your proposal is even more awkward. We are now going to judge the quality of life of another human being for them, and without their consent determine whether they are fit to live?
No, that’s what I describe as ‘abuse of power’.
What I said was we should raise the quality of life for already born people. Meaning, for each person, we raise it if we can. Not meaning, we get to deprive people of life. I wasn’t talking about raising the average quality by ‘taking out’ low quality lives, but individually raising the quality of each already born person.
I’m in favor of less abortions but I think it’s abuse of my power to take away a woman’s right to choose among the currently available options if she becomes pregnant. To me that’s giving the unborn baby more rights than the woman carrying the baby - which makes no sense to me.
Jason, isn’t the point of Church to teach people what their values ought to be?
I sincerely hope not. It is the role of parents to teach their children to develop good values. A church is just a way of deferring that.
I disagree with RC teaching on many points, which is why I am not a Catholic! I encourage you to call yourself a non-Catholic, it will free you up from being pinched when they tell their members what they ought to value.
Among the many things that I’m not is Catholic. However I don’t feel the need to self identify specifically as non-Catholic or non-Christian or non-Buddhist.
Helen said:
I wasn’t talking about raising the average quality by ‘taking out’ low quality lives, but individually raising the quality of each already born person.
One way to raise the quality of life for certain members of a group is to reduce the size of the group. I know you weren’t suggesting this but reducing the population would make each member have more on average.
That’s not to say I’d like to begin a wholesale slaughter of the population to cull it back to manageable levels. That would be barbaric I would prefer to reduce the population in the long term. I’d reduce abortions by educating men and women in preventative measures to pregnancy. The Catholic church is against that though.
Our internet connection died last night, just as I tried to post a response. Probably Just Coincidence. :)
Good quality video. And, it’s a Good Thing that the images were there to make sure people like me would Get The Message (LIFE!!) because otherwise I might have come to different conclusions, or raised questions, from the words on the screen.
Some of the video’s words, and questions/comments they trigger for me:
“Some [issues] are more important than others…no issue can be ignored…but none are more crucial to the foundation of our country than life and family.”
Hmm. I disagree. I think that the issue most crucial to the foundation of our country is: the restoration of the Constitution of the United States.
Aren’t “life and family” crucial to the continuation of the human species, and crucial to every country, not just the U.S.???
And, why do I get the sense that “life” in this video refers solely to human life?
Now more than any other time in history, a new generation must stand for truth.
I do agree that “stand[ing] for truth” is very important. I am not sure why that should be true “now more than any other time in history” unless the video producers are referring to the policies & actions of the Bush administration, in which case one could see this as an endorsement of Obama/Biden, which other clues lead me to believe is not the message. (The poster reading “life” right when the text on the screen says “truth” is one not-so-subtle clue.)
Again, I differ in my assumptions about what issues tie in best with Truth which voters in a democracy should stand for. One, for me, is assuring equal rights and access for ALL voters in the U.S., across the board & in all states, with NO disenfranchisement.
The family must be strengthened, not redefined, and must be protected from conception to natural death.
What is the definition of family? Who gets to decide? What are the ramifications?
In other words: Why on earth, or in heaven, would “redefin[ing]” the family (presumably the reference is to marriage between people of the same sex) pose a threat to the survival of traditional marriage and of reproduction?
Interestingly, people who only engage in same sex relationships must necessarily have a lower rate of abortion than those who only engage in relationships with people of the opposite sex. (Because their rate of pregnancy in their chosen relationship/s would be zero.)
Also, expecting people to marry traditionally against their sexual orientation seems like a path guaranteed to break up more marriages & families than allowing people to choose the kind of mate they want to marry & raise children with.
Why aren’t these seen as Really Good Reasons to celebrate same-sex relationships???
The strength of our nation is not only in its military or economic power but in our commitment to moral values for the good of the world.
Like invading sovereign nations, unprovoked, under false pretences, resulting in the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops and tens of thousands (or more) Iraqis?
Like relying on the free market to such a degree that we allow financial practices which wreak havoc all around the world?
Like not providing universal access to health care, resulting in one of the most expensive & least effective health care systems in the developed world?
Like withholding information on birth control, consigning women all over the world to repeated unwanted pregnancies, poverty, and poor health?
Thanks for your comment Jason - yes, you’re right about one way to improve the quality for some people. I suppose that might be what no offense was thinking. But again I would call that abuse of power, assuming the right to make choices between already-born people.
1. it is directed to Catholics - while I attended Catholic services for 10 years with my ex-husband, I never converted and do not feel qualified to respond as a Catholic. My responses come from my protestant upbringing.
2. one of the closing frames (which I could not capture) talks about restoring/saving the faith and family values this country was founded on…is that really what the founding fathers fought for? I don’t remember that in the history I was taught. We like to say that - but it seems to me it was mostly about freedom from England and the King. And the religion piece was about choosing if you wanted to follow a religion and if so, choosing the religion you wanted to follow.
For me this video tries to make the issues a simple black and white decision - right vs wrong. Ahhh, if only life were that simple. There’s a lot of gray out there. And I would be hard pressed to say one issue is most important to me.
Our Consitution and Bill of Rights does a lot to protect individual rights and freedom - but it is not perfect.
All choices have consequences - both good and bad. I still want to respect people’s rights to make those choices. It doesn’t require me to agree with their choices.
All choices have consequences - both good and bad. I still want to respect people’s rights to make those choices. It doesn’t require me to agree with their choices.
I received another e-mail today from the same organization that sent me the video highlighted in this post. Here is the first paragraph…
There are many important issues facing our nation today. As we approach the polls next Tuesday, we need to research where the candidates on our ballots stand on all those issues. For all Americans, however, where a candidate stands on the one issue of life versus abortion on demand should be the overarching issue, the deciding factor, in every race
.
This re-emphasizes my original push-back with the video clip…I just can’t see the responsibility in blindly voting based on one issue, no matter what the issue. So, if a candidate wants to re-implement slavery, yet is against abortion, does that mean we should vote for that person?
The whole abortion thing is a puzzle to me - how do those who claim to be pro-life reconcile their stand on pro-war, pro-death penalty, and other anti-life issues?
I don’t mean that in an absolute way. There may be pro-lifers out there who are against all violence. But, the ones I know are not. I have friends who are very strong against abortion - consider themselves pro-life AND YET support our position in Iraq and other wars.
How do they reconcile the incongruence of being pro-life for a potential life in the womb with thinking it is okay to kill living children and pregnant mothers in Iraq (and the rest of the population)?
When I asked my friend how she could be pro-war and pro-life - she explained that the unborn have no one to protect them. I dropped the conversation. I’m still pondering how to bring it up again.
How much has the “collateral damage” language helped in de-humanizing what is really happening when we chose to take another’s life for war?
(None of this is a simple issue to me – abortion is not for me and is a personal choice – you have to make your choice based on your circumstances. War – if my son/daughter were serving in Iraq and people were shooting at him/her – I would want them to defend themselves – but how I would deal with the taking of another’s life….I don’t know.)
So, with all that incongruence - how do you make that the “ONE” issue to determine who you vote for?
Why would the Catholic Church use that as the litmus test for who is best qualified to lead this country?
Re Friday video: I don’t like it. The grand music. Trite. Confused.
The whole thing is a little awful, and I am very uneasy about abortion, and that girl in Florida.
When I asked my friend how she could be pro-war and pro-life - she explained that the unborn have no one to protect them. I dropped the conversation. I’m still pondering how to bring it up again.
Does she mean it is ok to kill people who have bodyguards?
Comment by: no offense
1 10/24/08 8:05 AM | Comment Link |I hafta give it to those RC’s, they are one of the rare consistencies in politics. Pro-life across the board, from war, to abortion, to infanticide, to health care, to euthanasia, to housing, to capital punishment. They are tireless supporters of human life.
This is a clear result of believing in a God who created everything good and then created humans in His image to care for the ‘very good’ creation He breathed life into.
I don’t really like the rampant nationalism in the video (but that comes with the territory; ie a video seeking to shape the political process of a particular country), but setting that aside, as a Christian I don’t really see any other possible ‘political agenda’ than a consistent ethic of life.
Comment by: Jason Horton
2 10/24/08 8:47 AM | Comment Link |Your link to their site is broken.
What do I think? Everyone, regardless of religion, should vote with their conscience. That might mean supporting a woman’s right to choose or allowing for voluntary euthanasia. It might mean removing troops from other nations where they are targets for attack. It might mean strengthening the barrier between church and state (good for both sides) or removing prayer time in the education system. It might mean removing the 10 commandments from law courts or “In God we Trust” from currency. It might mean extending the right to marriage for all citizens regardless of sexuality. It might mean a concern that the planet cannot support a continually growing and aging population.
It might mean a thousand other things that are incompatible with Roman Catholicism. I resent having a church tell me what my values should be and, if I were eligible to vote in the US, I’d vote on my own values and not on anyone else’s.
Comment by: Craig
3 10/24/08 9:03 AM | Comment Link |Jason-
I agree, it really rubs me the wrong way when I’m told what I should value. I’m get even more agitated when I’m told how I should respond to those values. This video takes what could be a commonality between me and the video’s producers (at the core I think abortion and homosexuality are sin) and turns me into an enemy (because I am pro-choice and am OK with gay marriage). Why do we have to be so divisive?
Comment by: Helen
4 10/24/08 9:38 AM | Comment Link |no offense, thanks for your comment. Do you think it’s necessary to a consistent ethic of life to oppose gay marriage? Would accepting gay marriage be anti-life?
I suppose I’m pro-quality of life more than I’m pro-life. Meaning, I’m in favor of gay people being able to marry if they want to because that would increase their quality of life. And I think disallowing abortion could lower the quality of life so I am not in favor of banning it.
Appropriate wealth sharing and health care would improve the quality of life for many, but the video didn’t address those at all. Actually it should have addressed health care because that’s important to life as well as quality of life.
Thanks Jason - I fixed the link (sorry I didn’t catch that earlier, Craig)
Jason and Craig, I agree - I don’t appreciate being told what my values are supposed to be. And like you said, Craig, its all or nothing approach makes everyone who doesn’t agree 100% the enemy instead of affirming any degree of commonality and building on that.
From a production point of view I thought it was a well made video.
Comment by: Jason Horton
5 10/24/08 2:58 PM | Comment Link |It was certainly well made. I do think that hte message is insidious though. At the first watching it seemed so reasonable. Of course we all want “life” for oursleves and others, why wouldn’t we? My second watching allowed me to see that the life they talk about is only on their particular terms which I don’t like. It isn’t even as if Catholics all agree on what those values are either.
Comment by: no offense
6 10/24/08 5:31 PM | Comment Link |Jason, isn’t the point of Church to teach people what their values ought to be?
I disagree with RC teaching on many points, which is why I am not a Catholic! I encourage you to call yourself a non-Catholic, it will free you up from being pinched when they tell their members what they ought to value.
;-)
Helen, I guess I didn’t really catch the ‘gay-marriage’ part. I could care less about it personally, just don’t expect me to call a club a spade.
I don’t know what to do with the ‘quality of life’ argument. (I have retyped this three times now to keep it from being inflammatory!) Isn’t that logic a little too prone to genocide?
Comment by: Helen
7 10/24/08 6:41 PM | Comment Link |no offense wrote:
Thanks for your efforts to avoid being too inflammatory.
I think genocide has more to do with how much power people have over other people. I don’t think arguments create people with too much power. I think it’s rather that people with too much power who are prone to abuse it twist arguments to suit their purposes.
Caring about the quality of the lives of other humans [who are already born] doesn’t necessarily give you the right to take away their life if you think the quality of it is too low.
Comment by: no offense
8 10/25/08 6:28 AM | Comment Link |I guess I misread what you meant by ‘quality of life.’ I thought you meant the quality of life for the rest of us. That seems like you would be asking all of the misfits and problematic individuals to ‘take one for the team,’ so to speak.
This is what is so horrifying to me about abortion. The majority of abortions are absolutely not done with any real thought given to the issue. They are scared women who just don’t want to deal with an inconvenient reality. Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but this is the rule.
The fetus gets to take one for the team. “My quality of life would suffer if you are born, so you die.”
But Helen, your proposal is even more awkward. We are now going to judge the quality of life of another human being for them, and without their consent determine whether they are fit to live?
Comment by: Helen
9 10/25/08 8:07 AM | Comment Link |no offense wrote:
No, that’s what I describe as ‘abuse of power’.
What I said was we should raise the quality of life for already born people. Meaning, for each person, we raise it if we can. Not meaning, we get to deprive people of life. I wasn’t talking about raising the average quality by ‘taking out’ low quality lives, but individually raising the quality of each already born person.
I’m in favor of less abortions but I think it’s abuse of my power to take away a woman’s right to choose among the currently available options if she becomes pregnant. To me that’s giving the unborn baby more rights than the woman carrying the baby - which makes no sense to me.
Comment by: Jason Horton
10 10/25/08 10:48 AM | Comment Link |no offence said:
I sincerely hope not. It is the role of parents to teach their children to develop good values. A church is just a way of deferring that.
Among the many things that I’m not is Catholic. However I don’t feel the need to self identify specifically as non-Catholic or non-Christian or non-Buddhist.
Helen said:
One way to raise the quality of life for certain members of a group is to reduce the size of the group. I know you weren’t suggesting this but reducing the population would make each member have more on average.
That’s not to say I’d like to begin a wholesale slaughter of the population to cull it back to manageable levels. That would be barbaric I would prefer to reduce the population in the long term. I’d reduce abortions by educating men and women in preventative measures to pregnancy. The Catholic church is against that though.
Comment by: Eliza
11 10/25/08 1:19 PM | Comment Link |Our internet connection died last night, just as I tried to post a response. Probably Just Coincidence. :)
Good quality video. And, it’s a Good Thing that the images were there to make sure people like me would Get The Message (LIFE!!) because otherwise I might have come to different conclusions, or raised questions, from the words on the screen.
Some of the video’s words, and questions/comments they trigger for me:
Hmm. I disagree. I think that the issue most crucial to the foundation of our country is: the restoration of the Constitution of the United States.
Aren’t “life and family” crucial to the continuation of the human species, and crucial to every country, not just the U.S.???
And, why do I get the sense that “life” in this video refers solely to human life?
I do agree that “stand[ing] for truth” is very important. I am not sure why that should be true “now more than any other time in history” unless the video producers are referring to the policies & actions of the Bush administration, in which case one could see this as an endorsement of Obama/Biden, which other clues lead me to believe is not the message. (The poster reading “life” right when the text on the screen says “truth” is one not-so-subtle clue.)
Again, I differ in my assumptions about what issues tie in best with Truth which voters in a democracy should stand for. One, for me, is assuring equal rights and access for ALL voters in the U.S., across the board & in all states, with NO disenfranchisement.
What is the definition of family? Who gets to decide? What are the ramifications?
In other words: Why on earth, or in heaven, would “redefin[ing]” the family (presumably the reference is to marriage between people of the same sex) pose a threat to the survival of traditional marriage and of reproduction?
Interestingly, people who only engage in same sex relationships must necessarily have a lower rate of abortion than those who only engage in relationships with people of the opposite sex. (Because their rate of pregnancy in their chosen relationship/s would be zero.)
Also, expecting people to marry traditionally against their sexual orientation seems like a path guaranteed to break up more marriages & families than allowing people to choose the kind of mate they want to marry & raise children with.
Why aren’t these seen as Really Good Reasons to celebrate same-sex relationships???
Like invading sovereign nations, unprovoked, under false pretences, resulting in the deaths of thousands of U.S. troops and tens of thousands (or more) Iraqis?
Like relying on the free market to such a degree that we allow financial practices which wreak havoc all around the world?
Like not providing universal access to health care, resulting in one of the most expensive & least effective health care systems in the developed world?
Like withholding information on birth control, consigning women all over the world to repeated unwanted pregnancies, poverty, and poor health?
Comment by: Helen
12 10/25/08 3:52 PM | Comment Link |Thanks for your comment Jason - yes, you’re right about one way to improve the quality for some people. I suppose that might be what no offense was thinking. But again I would call that abuse of power, assuming the right to make choices between already-born people.
Comment by: Elaine
13 10/27/08 6:55 AM | Comment Link |So - here’s my reaction to this video
1. it is directed to Catholics - while I attended Catholic services for 10 years with my ex-husband, I never converted and do not feel qualified to respond as a Catholic. My responses come from my protestant upbringing.
2. one of the closing frames (which I could not capture) talks about restoring/saving the faith and family values this country was founded on…is that really what the founding fathers fought for? I don’t remember that in the history I was taught. We like to say that - but it seems to me it was mostly about freedom from England and the King. And the religion piece was about choosing if you wanted to follow a religion and if so, choosing the religion you wanted to follow.
For me this video tries to make the issues a simple black and white decision - right vs wrong. Ahhh, if only life were that simple. There’s a lot of gray out there. And I would be hard pressed to say one issue is most important to me.
Our Consitution and Bill of Rights does a lot to protect individual rights and freedom - but it is not perfect.
All choices have consequences - both good and bad. I still want to respect people’s rights to make those choices. It doesn’t require me to agree with their choices.
Comment by: Helen
14 10/27/08 10:09 AM | Comment Link |Elaine wrote:
Thanks Elaine - excellently put!
Comment by: Craig
15 10/29/08 12:41 PM | Comment Link |I received another e-mail today from the same organization that sent me the video highlighted in this post. Here is the first paragraph…
.
This re-emphasizes my original push-back with the video clip…I just can’t see the responsibility in blindly voting based on one issue, no matter what the issue. So, if a candidate wants to re-implement slavery, yet is against abortion, does that mean we should vote for that person?
Comment by: Helen
16 10/30/08 8:29 AM | Comment Link |Craig, talking of pushy voting advice, how about this?
Comment by: Martin Gugino
17 10/30/08 3:03 PM | Comment Link |Helen, Were you in Denver for the DNC? By any chance, did you see Larry Everest at Code Pink hangout, the Mercury Cafe?
Comment by: Helen
18 10/31/08 7:04 AM | Comment Link |Martin, no, I was there for an Off The Map Conference.
Comment by: Elaine
19 11/1/08 9:03 AM | Comment Link |The whole abortion thing is a puzzle to me - how do those who claim to be pro-life reconcile their stand on pro-war, pro-death penalty, and other anti-life issues?
I don’t mean that in an absolute way. There may be pro-lifers out there who are against all violence. But, the ones I know are not. I have friends who are very strong against abortion - consider themselves pro-life AND YET support our position in Iraq and other wars.
How do they reconcile the incongruence of being pro-life for a potential life in the womb with thinking it is okay to kill living children and pregnant mothers in Iraq (and the rest of the population)?
When I asked my friend how she could be pro-war and pro-life - she explained that the unborn have no one to protect them. I dropped the conversation. I’m still pondering how to bring it up again.
How much has the “collateral damage” language helped in de-humanizing what is really happening when we chose to take another’s life for war?
(None of this is a simple issue to me – abortion is not for me and is a personal choice – you have to make your choice based on your circumstances. War – if my son/daughter were serving in Iraq and people were shooting at him/her – I would want them to defend themselves – but how I would deal with the taking of another’s life….I don’t know.)
So, with all that incongruence - how do you make that the “ONE” issue to determine who you vote for?
Why would the Catholic Church use that as the litmus test for who is best qualified to lead this country?
Comment by: marion
20 11/3/08 2:28 AM | Comment Link |I’m not a Catholic, but for those who are I wonder if you have seen these
http://prolifeproobama.com/plpo_welcome.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGUpN4wI4rM
Comment by: martin gugino
21 11/17/08 12:50 PM | Comment Link |Re Friday video: I don’t like it. The grand music. Trite. Confused.
The whole thing is a little awful, and I am very uneasy about abortion, and that girl in Florida.
Comment by: martin gugino
22 11/17/08 1:53 PM | Comment Link |Elaine -
Does she mean it is ok to kill people who have bodyguards?