I’ve often wondered that myself. This week, the former President will accept an award for his advancement of pro-life causes, and yet, there is something no right about that. John Gehring takes a look as Bush’s record and asks the same question.
I believe he is correct when he says that neither political party could actually be considered pro-life:
Neither political party can truly claim the “pro-life” mantle. In general, Democrats perform better when it comes to anti-poverty initiatives and protecting vital social safety nets, but often don’t grapple seriously enough with the reality of over one million abortions performed a year. Many Republicans trumpet their pro-life bona fides, yet fail to back up their rhetoric by fighting for robust social policies that help pregnant women and vulnerable families. Despite intense lobbying from the Catholic Health Association and other faith-based organizations, Bush twice vetoed legislative efforts to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which helps states provide health insurance to children from low-income and working families. Sr. Carol Keehan, CEO of the Catholic Health Association and a respected lobbyist on Capitol Hill, recently described SCHIP as “clearly a pro-life program.” President Obama reauthorized the program last year, and it’s now on track to provide more than 14 million children quality health care.
Why is it then that the GOP has that mantle automatically assumed, although their are Republican leaders which are visibly pro-choice – if that is our only measuring stick. Of course, Democrats have the rare exceptions like Bart Stupak.
Read the article, please:
But, what do you think it means to be pro-life?
Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. His interests include exploring the role of mimesis in human civilization, specifically in the study of religion and media, as well as science fiction and the way in which it has allowed mythology to be explored in light of scientific discoveries of the past century. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013) and a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013).
Website: → Unsettled Christianity
Connect
Is it “Pro-Life” to order the executing of the death penalty?
See, I would say no.
Is it “Pro-Life” to order the executing of the death penalty?
See, I would say no.
“Democrats perform better when it comes to anti-poverty initiatives …”
I know you haven’t yet gotten to the bottom of the meaning of “Pro-Life”, but how are policies which encourage addiction, reward deadbeats and force dependency while punishing work given the term “Anti-Poverty”? Shouldn’t that be “Pro-Poverty”?
See, Looney, I don’t see a lot of those that way. Sure, that happens, but that is not the overwhelming result.
“Democrats perform better when it comes to anti-poverty initiatives …”
I know you haven’t yet gotten to the bottom of the meaning of “Pro-Life”, but how are policies which encourage addiction, reward deadbeats and force dependency while punishing work given the term “Anti-Poverty”? Shouldn’t that be “Pro-Poverty”?
See, Looney, I don’t see a lot of those that way. Sure, that happens, but that is not the overwhelming result.
We may have a lot more of that here in California. It was a big problem because half of a factory’s workers would suddenly stop showing up to work once they reached an income threshold that caused them to lose free housing and health care provided by the government. Most of these factories have moved overseas.
There is an inherent problem in that, and that should be reformed. Yet, I cannot see doing away with a system which does treat life as something valuable.
I support Unions, and find that Unions are a good concept – yet, what lay-off factories which the UAW produced misused the concept.
The same thing is said of the Church. People use and abuse it, and that should be prevent, yet, it doesn’t mean that the whole thing is worthless.
We may have a lot more of that here in California. It was a big problem because half of a factory’s workers would suddenly stop showing up to work once they reached an income threshold that caused them to lose free housing and health care provided by the government. Most of these factories have moved overseas.
There is an inherent problem in that, and that should be reformed. Yet, I cannot see doing away with a system which does treat life as something valuable.
I support Unions, and find that Unions are a good concept – yet, what lay-off factories which the UAW produced misused the concept.
The same thing is said of the Church. People use and abuse it, and that should be prevent, yet, it doesn’t mean that the whole thing is worthless.
Pro-Life means you love embryos so much that you’re willing to kill anyone who threatens ‘em.
Only for those who are ignorant.
Pro-Life means you love embryos so much that you’re willing to kill anyone who threatens ‘em.
Only for those who are ignorant.
The Consistent Pro-Life ethic would be opposed to anything that would kill people prematurely — capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, poverty, war, etc..
By that standard, George W. Bush is absolutely nothing like pro-life. He laughed about capital punishment and war. He sought the development of new nuclear … sorry, … nucular weapons. He refused to participate in international bans on landmines and cluster munitions, which kill innocent people.
I will never become a Democrat because of that party’s failings on life issues that matter to me — especially abortion.
I left the Republican Party because it welcomes too much pro-death policy.
Pretending that being anti-abortion is all that it takes to be pro-life makes a mockery of the term and the professed principles. If all life is sacred, then shouldn’t that include innocent Iraqis?
I completely agree, Wken.
The Consistent Pro-Life ethic would be opposed to anything that would kill people prematurely — capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia, poverty, war, etc..
By that standard, George W. Bush is absolutely nothing like pro-life. He laughed about capital punishment and war. He sought the development of new nuclear … sorry, … nucular weapons. He refused to participate in international bans on landmines and cluster munitions, which kill innocent people.
I will never become a Democrat because of that party’s failings on life issues that matter to me — especially abortion.
I left the Republican Party because it welcomes too much pro-death policy.
Pretending that being anti-abortion is all that it takes to be pro-life makes a mockery of the term and the professed principles. If all life is sacred, then shouldn’t that include innocent Iraqis?
I completely agree, Wken.
Hi Joel; interesting question!
Pro-Life is being concerned with life from womb to grave, and beyond. Don’t you think?
If we look at it in that way, Jesus was certainly the ultimate ‘pro-lifer’.
Indeed, PJ
Hi Joel; interesting question!
Pro-Life is being concerned with life from womb to grave, and beyond. Don’t you think?
If we look at it in that way, Jesus was certainly the ultimate ‘pro-lifer’.
Indeed, PJ
I think Bush should be honored for the work he did against abortion, though. He’s probably the only President we had who took that seriously. And, yes, I’d say he’s better than Reagan on the issue.
How so?
I think Bush should be honored for the work he did against abortion, though. He’s probably the only President we had who took that seriously. And, yes, I’d say he’s better than Reagan on the issue.
How so?
I’m sure you’re aware, Joel, of much of what he did: reinstitute the Mexico City Policy, fight embryonic cell research, ram through conscience provisions before he left office. Where he was exemplary—at least from an anti-abortion standpoint—was in his judicial appointments.
I’m sure you’re aware, Joel, of much of what he did: reinstitute the Mexico City Policy, fight embryonic cell research, ram through conscience provisions before he left office. Where he was exemplary—at least from an anti-abortion standpoint—was in his judicial appointments.
Pro-life is the opposite of pro-choice, and advocates the legal protection of unborn babies, including outlawing of abortion on the ground that it is taking human life. It is not about wars, the death penalty, euthanasia or other issues some may consider related.
Although not as publicly pro-life as Reagan, Bush generally supported pro-life policy. The Obama administration is not only pro-choice, but personally ensured US taxpayer money funding for domestic and international abortions. Obama is so extreme that he even voted against banning the hideous practice of partial-birth abortion, criticized the Supreme Court for upholding such a ban, and opposed a bill that prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion!
See Obama’s Abortion Extremism and Obama reverses abortion-funding policy …
Rory, I’ve examine the record and find that biases on both sides often cloud the record of then State Senator Obama. Further, considering that other issues often surround these votes, it would be unfair to focus only on these votes without looking at the rationale. Considering his stance, which as moderated since he was sworn in, and his offer to work with pro-life groups, I don’t think he is that extreme.
I do think pro-life carries with it the notion that all life is important and sacred and very much includes war, the death penalty and other issues, even poverty. When I say that I am pro-life, I mean absolutely pro-life.
Pro-life is the opposite of pro-choice, and advocates the legal protection of unborn babies, including outlawing of abortion on the ground that it is taking human life. It is not about wars, the death penalty, euthanasia or other issues some may consider related.
Although not as publicly pro-life as Reagan, Bush generally supported pro-life policy. The Obama administration is not only pro-choice, but personally ensured US taxpayer money funding for domestic and international abortions. Obama is so extreme that he even voted against banning the hideous practice of partial-birth abortion, criticized the Supreme Court for upholding such a ban, and opposed a bill that prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion!
See Obama’s Abortion Extremism and Obama reverses abortion-funding policy …
Rory, I’ve examine the record and find that biases on both sides often cloud the record of then State Senator Obama. Further, considering that other issues often surround these votes, it would be unfair to focus only on these votes without looking at the rationale. Considering his stance, which as moderated since he was sworn in, and his offer to work with pro-life groups, I don’t think he is that extreme.
I do think pro-life carries with it the notion that all life is important and sacred and very much includes war, the death penalty and other issues, even poverty. When I say that I am pro-life, I mean absolutely pro-life.