Cradle Catholic. Active in the pro-life movement since 1973. Father of three, one in Heaven, and happily married for 41 years. Small town lawyer and amateur historian. Former president of the board of directors of the local crisis pregnancy center for a decade.
Considering the fact that the New Pro-life Movement seems to spend all their time bashing the Real Pro-life Movement, I doubt if she has any involvement with the New Pro-Life Movement.
Art Deco
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 11:32am
Hadn’t heard of ‘the New Pro-Life Movement’ before. Looks like sorosphere astroturf.
Basically an excuse for Leftist Catholics to vote for total pro-aborts.
Ernst Schreiber
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 12:29pm
The New Pro-Life Movement:
They’re pro “Life is for the Living.”
They’re also pro “We decide who’s worthy of Life and who’s unworthy of Living.”
Rudolph Harrier
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 2:22pm
The “old” pro-life movement does have issues, mainly relating to accepting the democratic frame. This has led to them doing things like touting Scott Brown as an ally, despite him consistently supporting abortion, merely because he is not enthusiastic about his support of abortion to appease democrats. And they’ve also swallowed the idea that a woman can never be at fault in the case of abortion, even leading them to attack President Trump when he said that if abortion is criminalized it could lead to women being prosecuted. They reject the position of the democrats, but they weaken their position by accepting the framing that the democrats put for the question in the first place.
The “new” pro-life movement on the other hand are enthusiastic supporters are the democrat position. Granted they will say that they are against things like abortion, but only using the boilerplate phrases that democrats have used to try to appeal to moderates ( such as saying that it is most important to improve economic conditions so that abortions are unnecessary; not that most abortions are done for economic reasons anyway).
They are also weaselly liars. Note their position on “culture wars” on their website: They say that they reject them because we need to find “common ground”, but they have no problem going to war over gun rights, environmental regulations, etc. They reject the “culture wars” when it comes to abortion because they agree with the culture there.
Dave G.
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 2:41pm
“they weaken their position by accepting the framing that the democrats put for the question in the first place.”
I find that tends to be true in more areas than just the pro-life movement, but almost anywhere I see conservatives wade into a discussion.
Art Deco
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 3:09pm
And they’ve also swallowed the idea that a woman can never be at fault
It’s quite common for people to adopt that viewpoint no matter what the issue is.
John Flaherty
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 3:10pm
Um, this “new” prolife movement looks to me the same as the “old” one. Judging by the website, they’re promoting the same old Seamless Garment idea from the 80s, somewhat repackaged.
Dave G, I think you’re right: Conservative organizations rarely engage in any fight in the manner needed. They’re too afraid of criticism, they don’t make their case well.
Ernst Scheiber
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 3:10pm
That’s because most conservatives are too well mannered to tell Democrats to do something anatomically impossible when they start spouting off about whatever issue is at hand.
Art Deco
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 3:57pm
Um, this “new” prolife movement looks to me the same as the “old” one. Judging by the website, they’re promoting the same old Seamless Garment idea from the 80s, somewhat repackaged.
Which wasn’t what the National Right-to-Life Committee promoted. The ‘seamless garment’ hoo-ha was promoted by Cdl. Bernardin, who squandered God knows how many man-hours wire-pulling at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the U.S. Catholic Conference.
Indicative of the sort of people who ended up in the Cardinal’s good graces were the committee to whom he delegated the task of planning his funeral. Among those these creeps engaged to provide music for the service was an outfit then known as the ‘Windy City Gay Men’s Chorus’.
John Flaherty
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 5:59pm
“Which wasn’t what the National Right-to-Life Committee promoted. …”
All that means….what?
During my teens, even if I didn’t pay much (any) heed to the Church’s internal politics, I cared much more about what Catholic bishops said or did than to a loosely defined pro-life group. Precisely because JP II said abortion was abominable, then Ted Kennedy voted in favor of abortion rights anyway, then the US bishops refused to publicly correct Kennedy–or any other Catholic politician–I gained a very skeptical view of the Church’s actions and attitudes. Between high school and the end of college, I wound up deciding that the US bishops had mostly given over to socialist ideas; they didn’t seem terribly keen on actual faith most of the time.
John Flaherty
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 6:20pm
FWIW, her satire…needs some work. She seems to me awfully muddled, especially in that first video. As given, her remarks can easily be understood to promote abortion as a means to avoid the rigors of motherhood. She needs to be much more plain about the need to refrain from sex.
As given, her remarks can easily be understood to promote abortion as a means to avoid the rigors of motherhood. She needs to be much more plain about the need to refrain from sex.
Not at all. Her approach is pitch perfect for her target audience, young women. Straight preaching would be completely ineffective. She uses comedy and irony to make her audience think and she does it superbly.
Art Deco
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 7:15pm
All that means….what?
During my teens, even if I didn’t pay much (any) heed to the Church’s internal politics, I cared much more about what Catholic bishops said or did than to a loosely defined pro-life group. Precisely because JP II said abortion was abominable, then Ted Kennedy voted in favor of abortion rights anyway, then the US bishops refused to publicly correct Kennedy–or any other Catholic politician–I gained a very skeptical view of the Church’s actions and attitudes. Between high school and the end of college, I wound up deciding that the US bishops had mostly given over to socialist ideas; they didn’t seem terribly keen on actual faith most of the time.
What it means is perfectly plain. What you’re complaining about is not what the pro-live movement was promoting. The bishops have been their usual sodden selves in a dozen different ways. That’s not a problem with the pro-life movement. That’s a problem with the bishops. Quit complaining just to complain.
John Flaherty
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 7:44pm
Yes, at all. Her approach is pitch perfect…if we assume nobody will listen to Truth. About sex, about anything. I might point out how this video…mostly redoes the gist of a Baby Blues cartoon from the 90s. …Yet we’re still fighting against abortion. Call me a skeptic if you like, but if young women won’t listen to preaching about sex, …I don’t expect they’ll listen to this either. Not for very long.
John Flaherty
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 8:27pm
I consider US Catholic bishops to be part and parcel of the pro-life movement, Mr. Deco. If I must choose between a pro-life organization and US Catholic bishops, I only very reluctantly choose the former. Catholic bishops, if only by virtue of their episcopal office, should be spiritual fathers. No way to know what may motivate the NRLC membership. In consequence, I’m far less concerned with what the NRLC may think it promotes.
Art Deco
Wednesday, May 20, AD 2020 8:47pm
I consider US Catholic bishops to be part and parcel of the pro-life movement, Mr. Deco.
People have to think before they recognize the Truth. That is why Christ used skillfully constructed parables to get people to think.
John Flaherty
Thursday, May 21, AD 2020 2:32pm
Christ’s parables didn’t stand alone. His Apostles reinforced the message with plain teaching within a few years. We seem to forget the latter part most of the time.
His Apostles reinforced the message with plain teaching within a few years.
We only know what the Apostles preached from the Epistles and Acts and there was very little plain about that teaching, which was usually more complex than what Christ taught using the Parables.
Ernst Schreiber
Thursday, May 21, AD 2020 3:57pm
No offense to anybody in this discussion, but if the teaching of the Apostles and the Early Fathers was so “plain,” why is it there are, what? fifty, sixty thousand Christian denominations?
I mean, they can’t all be wicked and perverse.
wpDiscuz
Discover more from The American Catholic
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
She’s good. I wonder what impact she would have if more carried her. I also wonder if what she does fits with the New Prolife Movement.
Considering the fact that the New Pro-life Movement seems to spend all their time bashing the Real Pro-life Movement, I doubt if she has any involvement with the New Pro-Life Movement.
Hadn’t heard of ‘the New Pro-Life Movement’ before. Looks like sorosphere astroturf.
https://thenewprolifemovement.com/index.php/sample-page/
Basically an excuse for Leftist Catholics to vote for total pro-aborts.
The New Pro-Life Movement:
They’re pro “Life is for the Living.”
They’re also pro “We decide who’s worthy of Life and who’s unworthy of Living.”
The “old” pro-life movement does have issues, mainly relating to accepting the democratic frame. This has led to them doing things like touting Scott Brown as an ally, despite him consistently supporting abortion, merely because he is not enthusiastic about his support of abortion to appease democrats. And they’ve also swallowed the idea that a woman can never be at fault in the case of abortion, even leading them to attack President Trump when he said that if abortion is criminalized it could lead to women being prosecuted. They reject the position of the democrats, but they weaken their position by accepting the framing that the democrats put for the question in the first place.
The “new” pro-life movement on the other hand are enthusiastic supporters are the democrat position. Granted they will say that they are against things like abortion, but only using the boilerplate phrases that democrats have used to try to appeal to moderates ( such as saying that it is most important to improve economic conditions so that abortions are unnecessary; not that most abortions are done for economic reasons anyway).
They are also weaselly liars. Note their position on “culture wars” on their website: They say that they reject them because we need to find “common ground”, but they have no problem going to war over gun rights, environmental regulations, etc. They reject the “culture wars” when it comes to abortion because they agree with the culture there.
“they weaken their position by accepting the framing that the democrats put for the question in the first place.”
I find that tends to be true in more areas than just the pro-life movement, but almost anywhere I see conservatives wade into a discussion.
And they’ve also swallowed the idea that a woman can never be at fault
It’s quite common for people to adopt that viewpoint no matter what the issue is.
Um, this “new” prolife movement looks to me the same as the “old” one. Judging by the website, they’re promoting the same old Seamless Garment idea from the 80s, somewhat repackaged.
Dave G, I think you’re right: Conservative organizations rarely engage in any fight in the manner needed. They’re too afraid of criticism, they don’t make their case well.
That’s because most conservatives are too well mannered to tell Democrats to do something anatomically impossible when they start spouting off about whatever issue is at hand.
Um, this “new” prolife movement looks to me the same as the “old” one. Judging by the website, they’re promoting the same old Seamless Garment idea from the 80s, somewhat repackaged.
Which wasn’t what the National Right-to-Life Committee promoted. The ‘seamless garment’ hoo-ha was promoted by Cdl. Bernardin, who squandered God knows how many man-hours wire-pulling at the National Conference of Catholic Bishops and the U.S. Catholic Conference.
Indicative of the sort of people who ended up in the Cardinal’s good graces were the committee to whom he delegated the task of planning his funeral. Among those these creeps engaged to provide music for the service was an outfit then known as the ‘Windy City Gay Men’s Chorus’.
“Which wasn’t what the National Right-to-Life Committee promoted. …”
All that means….what?
During my teens, even if I didn’t pay much (any) heed to the Church’s internal politics, I cared much more about what Catholic bishops said or did than to a loosely defined pro-life group. Precisely because JP II said abortion was abominable, then Ted Kennedy voted in favor of abortion rights anyway, then the US bishops refused to publicly correct Kennedy–or any other Catholic politician–I gained a very skeptical view of the Church’s actions and attitudes. Between high school and the end of college, I wound up deciding that the US bishops had mostly given over to socialist ideas; they didn’t seem terribly keen on actual faith most of the time.
FWIW, her satire…needs some work. She seems to me awfully muddled, especially in that first video. As given, her remarks can easily be understood to promote abortion as a means to avoid the rigors of motherhood. She needs to be much more plain about the need to refrain from sex.
As given, her remarks can easily be understood to promote abortion as a means to avoid the rigors of motherhood. She needs to be much more plain about the need to refrain from sex.
Not at all. Her approach is pitch perfect for her target audience, young women. Straight preaching would be completely ineffective. She uses comedy and irony to make her audience think and she does it superbly.
All that means….what?
During my teens, even if I didn’t pay much (any) heed to the Church’s internal politics, I cared much more about what Catholic bishops said or did than to a loosely defined pro-life group. Precisely because JP II said abortion was abominable, then Ted Kennedy voted in favor of abortion rights anyway, then the US bishops refused to publicly correct Kennedy–or any other Catholic politician–I gained a very skeptical view of the Church’s actions and attitudes. Between high school and the end of college, I wound up deciding that the US bishops had mostly given over to socialist ideas; they didn’t seem terribly keen on actual faith most of the time.
What it means is perfectly plain. What you’re complaining about is not what the pro-live movement was promoting. The bishops have been their usual sodden selves in a dozen different ways. That’s not a problem with the pro-life movement. That’s a problem with the bishops. Quit complaining just to complain.
Yes, at all. Her approach is pitch perfect…if we assume nobody will listen to Truth. About sex, about anything. I might point out how this video…mostly redoes the gist of a Baby Blues cartoon from the 90s. …Yet we’re still fighting against abortion. Call me a skeptic if you like, but if young women won’t listen to preaching about sex, …I don’t expect they’ll listen to this either. Not for very long.
I consider US Catholic bishops to be part and parcel of the pro-life movement, Mr. Deco. If I must choose between a pro-life organization and US Catholic bishops, I only very reluctantly choose the former. Catholic bishops, if only by virtue of their episcopal office, should be spiritual fathers. No way to know what may motivate the NRLC membership. In consequence, I’m far less concerned with what the NRLC may think it promotes.
I consider US Catholic bishops to be part and parcel of the pro-life movement, Mr. Deco.
IOW, you say it’s spinach. That’s frivolous.
if we assume nobody will listen to Truth.
People have to think before they recognize the Truth. That is why Christ used skillfully constructed parables to get people to think.
Christ’s parables didn’t stand alone. His Apostles reinforced the message with plain teaching within a few years. We seem to forget the latter part most of the time.
His Apostles reinforced the message with plain teaching within a few years.
We only know what the Apostles preached from the Epistles and Acts and there was very little plain about that teaching, which was usually more complex than what Christ taught using the Parables.
No offense to anybody in this discussion, but if the teaching of the Apostles and the Early Fathers was so “plain,” why is it there are, what? fifty, sixty thousand Christian denominations?
I mean, they can’t all be wicked and perverse.